Evidence for the "Great Apostasy"

[Jason_J]

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

Yep, Latter-day Saints employ faith and reason.

[Guest]

Yep, Latter-day Saints employ faith and reason.

And facts.

[X33ad]

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.

[Jason_J]

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

Then I'm not sure you read the book, because it extensively refers to extra biblical writings, ante (not "anti") Nicene fathers, 1st and 2nd Century Christians, etc.

For example, Latter-day Saints frequently refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as "three Gods", while also accepting that, because they are united in perfect indwelling love and purpose, they can be referred to together as "one God". This is the "Godhead" doctrine. Catholics would never refer to Jesus Christ, God the Son, as a "second God", since this would go against your belief in consubstantiality, or oneness of Being (at least in your theological viewpoint). But we have Justin Martyr, Origen, and many others referring to Him as "second God" and other related terms.

Perhaps you should read it. Here's another website that proffers ancient evidences for many of the unique beliefs of the restored Church of Jesus Christ. And that's just a drop in the bucket.

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.

Right, Latter-day Saints don't believe in "Bible alone".

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.

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.

[X33ad]

"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

[X33ad]

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

[Guest]

"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

X33ad, you seem to easily accept supposed evidence on one hand while totally rejecting another. It seems like you only accept evidence, regardless of how flimsy the evidence is, if it aligns with what you want to believe. We can't discuss things with you in this manner. We would only be uselessly yapping.

The existence of David and Solomon has been in contention among the scholars since the 90's to today. The more "evidence" is dug up and presented on the table, the more questionable the entire body of evidence becomes. Of course, if you're of the mind to accept some work as evidence just because some dude came up with it, that's your prerogative. But if you are looking at the evidence in objectivity you will go farther to read up on all the other causes for debate that surrounds the body evidence. You will then see that it is quite accurate to say nobody has definite evidence of the existence of David and Solomon outside of biblical accounts.

[X33ad]

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

[Guest]

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're not making any sense.

I mentioned the 90's because it was the last time I remembered that prominent scholars embarked on a "fact finding mission" to find evidence of the existence of the House of David outside of the Bible. I was devout Catholic then shaking my head as to how some of my non-Christian friends (I worked with a bunch of Hindus at the time) thought that the unsatisfactory results of the effort would shake my Catholic faith.

The 90's may be a blip on the radar... but if even as late as the 1990's scholars are still so unconvinced about the existence of historical evidence of the House of David outside of the Bible, you can bet there was no satisfactory conclusion about the existence of the House of David in the 2,000 years that passed before then. Hence, the website that you pointed out was "in error" is not in error at all. It's your understanding of historical evidence of the existence of Solomon which is in error. Even the relatively simple matter of the existence of the Temple of Solomon which should be possible to prove by archeological evidence has no evidence outside of the Bible.

And what's the truth about birth control that you're talking about? And what does that have to do with historical evidence?

Edited December 31, 2012 by anatess

[Jason_J]

"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

Sorry, there is no contradiction. Yes, the above quote came from the website I posted, which itself is quoting an article in the scholarly journal Science. I think I'll trust the scholarly opinion over yours, FWIW. Even Wikipedia states there is "minimal" historical evidence for Solomon. By "Queen Sheba" I assume you mean the "Queen of Sheba". The "evidence" for Solomon's marriage to the Queen of Sheba comes from an Ethiopian legend/story, from 700 years ago, called Kebra Negast.

[Jason_J]

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

Firstly, the "holy men of God" in the actual verse is talking the specific prophets and apostles that wrote the scriptures (since it talks about the prophecy that "came", i.e. past tense).

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.

Yes, Matthias was numbered with the apostles. He became an apostle, not a bishop. This is not evidence for the Catholic Church, which regards bishops as successors to the apostles (there is no Biblical evidence for that concept, FWIW). A successor to an apostle is an apostle (just like how the successor to President Obama will be a President, not a Secretary). This is evidence for the Latter-day Saint position of continuation of the apostolic office.

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

Already addressed before. Jesus Christ died. Did the gates of hell/hades prevail against Him? No. He is resurrected, He lives. The Church is the Body of Christ, and it is interesting that in the LDS concept, there is a parallel to the life of Christ Himself, where the Church "died" (though obviously still existing in Heaven), yet was "resurrected" or restored by God Himself. Therefore, just like how the gates of hades, or death, did not prevail against Christ, since He is resurrected, the gates of hades, or death, did not prevail against Christ's Church, since Christ Himself resurrected it.

[Jason_J]

Remember all christains denounced birth control (genisis 38) before 1930 and know the catholic and orthodox stand alone in truth and original teachings

You do realize that some Eastern Orthodox churches allow the use of condoms sometimes, out of ekonomia, right?

[X33ad]

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.

[Guest]

X33ad, I just want to mention that Jason_J has a long Catholic background so he is well-versed in Catholicism as well. Just thought this would be important to mention in how you weigh what he says about Catholic history.

So, Jason_J and myself are Catholics who converted to LDS. There's another guy here - SteveVH. He is Catholic and very well-versed in Catholicism. He's not LDS. PrisonChaplain is a pastor in the Assemblies of God, so he is well-versed in Protestant teaching. Another girl here, Maureen, is also well-versed in Protestant teaching. She's not LDS, either.

Just thought I'd mention them so you can weigh their point-of-views into your conversations here in LDS.net.

Edited December 31, 2012 by anatess

[X33ad]

You do realize that some Eastern Orthodox churches allow the use of condoms sometimes, out of ekonomia, right?

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

[X33ad]

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]).*

[Guest]

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]).*

What does it prove? I'm not sure what you're saying.

Mitt Romney believes in the office of the President as a required office for the United States Federal Government. Even if he believes he has the rightful Presidential authority, that doesn't give him the authority of the President of the USA.

So, I don't really get what this proves...

[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 .....

[selek]

Annatess it is enough proof in a court of law

Only in a Catholic ecclesiastical court.

In the real world, it falls short.

1)It is polytheist and not monotheist which means it is not a fulfillment of the Jewish faith

"Polytheistic" according to whom? We worship a single God.

In point of fact, there is considerable evidence that the monotheism demanded in current Christian thought is a late addition and revism to Judaism, rather than native to it.

2) there is zero historic evedence for the belief system until 1800's

Again, according to whom? The historical evidence is, at best, subject to interpretation.

3) it is mixed with protesant beliefs which means it descendant from that 1500's heracy

There's nothing quite like begging the question, is there?

Kindly prove- independently of a Catholic sources or a Catholic declaration to that effect- that the schism in the 1500's was, in fact, a heresy.

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 .....

In other words, because it does not agree with your presuppositions. Edited December 31, 2012 by selek

[Guest]

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

It is not polytheist. In the Book of Mormon, you will find on the very first page (before the first chapter of the book, even) a reference to One God.

2) there is zero historic evedence for the belief system until 1800's

Which is a good thing. Because the LDS claim is that the Church was restored in the 1800's. You can't restore something that was not lost.

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 .....

Hah hah. Uhm, ok.

My suggestion - before you bash a religion, make sure you understand what they believe in. And not only that - before you bash a religion, make sure you understand what YOU believe in.

For example, as a Catholic, I learned that there is no concrete evidence that the Real Presence of the Eucharist was taught in the 1st century. It was merely "assumed" until it was challenged by Berengarius around 1000 AD. Also there were no recognized saints in the 1st century. The veneration of martyrs did not start until about the 3rd century.

I can go on and on.

But I'm not here to challenge your Catholic knowledge. I'm here to hopefully make you understand LDS teachings. I'm waiting for when you're ready to hear it.

[SteveVH]

For example, as a Catholic, I learned that there is no concrete evidence that the Real Presence of the Eucharist was taught in the 1st century. It was merely "assumed" until it was challenged by Berengarius around 1000 AD. Also there were no recognized saints in the 1st century. The veneration of martyrs did not start until about the 3rd century.

Hi anatess. Been awhile. I don't know who was teaching you Catholicism, but they were dead wrong on this one. How much evidence would you like that the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist was believed and taught in the first century? We have plain evidence in the Bible and from the early Church Fathers that this has been an Apostolic teaching since the foundation of the Church at Pentecost. If you are interested I will be more than happy to provide you with the evidence.

I will agree that the teaching was not questioned for centuries because this is what the Church received from the Apostles and there was no reason to question it. But to give the impression that it was therefore not taught is incorrect. It was taught to each and every person that converted. Because of the unbelievable persecution of the Church in the early years it was referred to only as "the secret" so that it would not be desecrated.

As to recognized saints, this is also untrue. A "saint" means only that the person is in heaven. They certainly recognized the deceased Apostles and other holy men and women as being in heaven, therefore they recognized them as saints. The martyrs fall into this category.

Hope all is well with you.

Steve

[Traveler]

Hi anatess. Been awhile. I don't know who was teaching you Catholicism, but they were dead wrong on this one. How much evidence would you like that the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist was believed and taught in the first century? We have plain evidence in the Bible and from the early Church Fathers that this has been an Apostolic teaching since the foundation of the Church at Pentecost. If you are interested I will be more than happy to provide you with the evidence.

....

Steve

Can you help me a little with this. It appears to me that the "real" presents of Christ was testified to in circumstances such as Luke 24. What do you mean that his presents is in the Eucharist? Is this a "spiritual" presents? (non corporal or non real in this physical world and existence) When you say "real" presents that would imply to me a physical presents and I would be surprised if that was ever taught or is currently taught - as a scientist a simple DNA test would demonstrate the reliability of such thinking and interpretations. And I do not think anyone would even suggest such a thing possible - but I may be wrong. Can you clarify?

The Traveler

Edited February 14, 2013 by Traveler

[SteveVH]

Can you help me a little with this. It appears to me that the "real" presents of Christ was testified to in circumstances such as Luke 24. What do you mean that his presents is in the Eucharist? Is this a "spiritual" presents? (non corporal or non real in this physical world and existence) When you say "real" presents that would imply to me a physical presents and I would be surprised if that was ever taught or is currently taught - as a scientist a simple DNA test would demonstrate the reliability of such thinking and interpretations. And I do not think anyone would even suggest such a thing possible - but I may be wrong. Can you clarify?

The Traveler

The Catholic teaching concerning Christ's presence in the Eucharist is this:

We believe that upon the bread and wine being concecrated by a validly ordained priest (whose succession we can trace back to the Apostles - very important) that it becomes the true body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. The priest stands in the place of Christ, in the person of Christ (in persona Christi) and repeats the very words of Christ - "This is my body which is given for you... This is my blood of the new covenant which will be shed for you..." after calling down the Holy Spirit to change the substance of the bread and wine into Christ himself.

The term "Transubstantiation" is used to describe what happens. Notice the word is not "Transformation". The "form" or appearance of the bread and wine remain, however the substance is changed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus. When we consume the consecrated host we enter into the most intimate relationship possible with God while on earth. It is how we become one just as Jesus and the Father are one. He becomes part of every fiber of our being and we become part of him.

[Traveler]

The Catholic teaching concerning Christ's presence in the Eucharist is this:

We believe that upon the bread and wine being concecrated by a validly ordained priest (whose succession we can trace back to the Apostles - very important) that it becomes the true body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. The priest stands in the place of Christ, in the person of Christ (in persona Christi) and repeats the very words of Christ - "This is my body which is given for you... This is my blood of the new covenant which will be shed for you..." after calling down the Holy Spirit to change the substance of the bread and wine into Christ himself.

The term "Transubstantiation" is used to describe what happens. Notice the word is not "Transformation". The "form" or appearance of the bread and wine remain, however the substance is changed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus. When we consume the consecrated host we enter into the most intimate relationship possible with God while on earth. It is how we become one just as Jesus and the Father are one. He becomes part of every fiber of our being and we become part of him.

Is there anything "measurable" to indicate an actual substance. Again in Luke 24 Jesus showed himself unto his apostles as a real touchable and see-able physical reality or substance. I am trying to get to the heart and reality of this doctrine or teaching - is there any demonstrable evidence that the "substance" of which you speak is indeed an empirical reality? Or is this a undemonstrative doctrine that relies 100% on the faith of the believer? I am also trying to understand if we have common ground in terms so that I grasp what you are trying to tell me.

The Traveler

[SteveVH]

Is there anything "measurable" to indicate an actual substance. Again in Luke 24 Jesus showed himself unto his apostles as a real touchable and see-able physical reality or substance. I am trying to get to the heart and reality of this doctrine or teaching - is there any demonstrable evidence that the "substance" of which you speak is indeed an empirical reality? Or is this a undemonstrative doctrine that relies 100% on the faith of the believer? I am also trying to understand if we have common ground in terms so that I grasp what you are trying to tell me.

The Traveler

Christ is present in a sacramental manner, which in no way denies the reality of his true body and blood. A sacrament, from a Catholic perspective is "an outward sign of an inward reality". Thus, when we are baptised in water, the water signifies cleansing, death and rebirth in the resurrection. But it really does what it signifies; our souls are washed clean from the stain of sin, we die to our old self and rise with Christ to new life. We are marked with an indellible mark claiming us a child of God.

In the sacrament of the Eucharist, once the bread and wine are consecrated, it is no longer bread and wine but the very body and blood of our Lord, hidden under the appearance of bread and wine. We having a loving God who can do anything. If he desires to be present under the appearance of bread and wine he is certainly capable. His body is real food and his blood is real drink, as Jesus tells us in the 6th chapter of John. He does not present us with his bloody flesh. We consume his glorified body and blood.

We call this a mystery because we are limited by human understanding and human language in trying to describe a divine event. Yet we have received this divine revelation directly from Christ. The Apostles didn't pretend to understand this either. When the crowd left Jesus he turned to the Apostles and asked "will you also leave?". They didn't say "No , Lord, we understand what you are saying perfectly." They just responded "To whom shal we go? You have the words of everlasting life". They believed because of the one who told them, not because they understood. That is the position we take as well and since apostolic times the Eucharist has been the central focus of the Church; the source and summit of its faith. There would be no Catholic Church without the Eucharist; the true presence of Christ dwelling in each and every Catholic parish throughout the world.

As far as empirical evidence is concerned, we have hundreds of documented Eucharistic miracles where the host as turned to flesh, even in modern times. In every case it is heart tissue from the left ventrical (the part which makes the heart beat) and is AB positive (most prevelant in middle eastern men). I would be happy to give some specific information on these if you wish.

Edited February 17, 2013 by StephenVH