Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

Obviously, you do not understand that the only “true” Church is the true Kingdom of G-d – the realm over which G-d (not men of high standing) governs as king.  If there is one true G-d there is only one true kingdom over which he is the rightful king.  The ancient Pharisees thought they were citizens of the kingdom of G-d and thought they could prove it through their scriptures – but they were instrumental in crucifying the rightful king - proving that not all religions speak for G-g even if they think they can prove that sometime in the past there was a Church (Kingdom) of G-d to which their “fathers” belonged.

The issue is not the traditions of men but seeking truth – which includes the turth of the True and Living Church which is the True and Living Kingdom of the True and Living G-d.

 

The Traveler

I understand the Kingdom of God just fine, and I firmly believe there is only one God (not infinite Gods as this thread is discussing)

I also understand that the LDS church claims to be 'the only true and living church on the face of the earth', therefore, if this claim is true, then it would be speaking on earth for God, and if it is not true, then it does not speak for God.  That is the claim I am investigating, that was the entire reason I looked at the LDS faith in the first place.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

I understand the Kingdom of God just fine, and I firmly believe there is only one God (not infinite Gods as this thread is discussing)

Again, LDS only believe in ONE God.  ONE God in multiple persons (like the Trinity in that fact), but still only ONE God.  We are not like ancient Greeks (just to name an example polytheist religion).

Edited by Jane_Doe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Again, LDS only believe in ONE God.  ONE God in multiple persons (like the Trinity in that fact), but still only ONE God.  We are not like ancient Greeks (just to name an example polytheist religion).

So everyone can be part of that trinity, assuming they make it? Is that right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

So everyone can be part of that trinity, assuming they make it? Is that right? 

No, there is only one God the Father, only one Jesus Christ, and only one Holy Ghost.  We can be one with God, we can inherit all that God has, we can be "gods" but we will never be God the Father, we will never be Jesus Christ.   We pray to one entity, and only one entity.  God the Father, and we do so in the name of only one entity, and one entity only, Jesus Christ. 

There is no name under heaven for salvation than Jesus Christ. So, don't assume we worship the infinity of entities out there in the state of exaltation.  We don't.

Edited by bytebear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

So everyone can be part of that trinity, assuming they make it? Is that right? 

Disjointed reply here--

- LDS do not believe in the Athanasian Creed Trinity which specifies that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one through a shared substance.  (The italic part being the point of disagreement).  Rather LDS believe that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one through unity.  

- We're never going to replace our Father, Christ, of the Spirit.  Just like I will never be you, or my mom, or anyone else.

-  Through Christ's atonement we can be perfect and one with the Father, even as Christ is, perfect as He is ( John 17).

 

(Edited for more elaboration)

Edited by Jane_Doe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

So everyone can be part of that trinity, assuming they make it? Is that right? 

No, there's infinite space.

Our God has a portion of that infinite space and the worlds our God has made are without number (meaning they are beyond human reckoning) which goes to show the enormity of our God's creation.

However, infinite space leaves plenty of room for new Gods to create. They are the disciplined who exercise self control over their mortal bodies and are exalted- they overcome life's trials and have earned the right to create in the eternities. It wouldn't be a perfectly just system to elevate those who didn't elevate themselves in this mortal probation.

 

D&C 132: 19, 20.

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

What are you talking about?  I said:  42.:)

 

I think you might be miscounting. If you count carefully, its actually 42.1392 when you take into account that 8 demi-gods equals 1.73 full gods and 92 angels equals 1 demi-god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

I think you might be miscounting. If you count carefully, its actually 42.1392 when you take into account that 8 demi-gods equals 1.73 full gods and 92 angels equals 1 demi-god.

Clearly you haven't read enough. The answer is 42.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

I understand the Kingdom of God just fine, and I firmly believe there is only one God (not infinite Gods as this thread is discussing)

I also understand that the LDS church claims to be 'the only true and living church on the face of the earth', therefore, if this claim is true, then it would be speaking on earth for God, and if it is not true, then it does not speak for God.  That is the claim I am investigating, that was the entire reason I looked at the LDS faith in the first place.  

Blossom76,

I've been studying feverishly for almost a week on this and talking to other members/Bishop/Stake President.  As an investigator myself, take what I say with a grain of salt.  However, this is where I am in my study:

1.  I believe Mormon Culture and Doctrine are two different things and don't always compliment each other.  Mormon's typically don't talk about many things in front of investigators because they recognize this (or at least that it sounds insane to people unknowing and/or without the Holy Spirit to guide them). IE: Spirit Prison

2.  Mormons (culturally and doctrinally) use the word "god" sometimes carries the same meaning as we understand it and sometimes doesn't.  This is all founded on doctrine, but like all doctrine, it is written and interpreted by man, who is imperfect.  To believe, as I do, that God is more exalted that Jesus and Jesus is more exalted than us is a belief some may challenge, but that doesn't mean they are right.

3. As someone above stated, there are passages in the Bible to support most of the "whacky" ideas discussed in this thread.  These are often clarified in the Book of Mormon or D&C which is why those are often cited in support.  It is ALWAYS beneficial to use the footnotes to follow back, then search LDS.org for essays on the subject.

4. ALWAYS keep in mind what I said earlier.  Man is imperfect.  One thing the President told me last night that stuck with me later (I wish it had at the time and I might have remembered it verbatim) "People, our spirit, and the Gospel are pure and great, but held in an earthen vessel".  Even when the Holy Spirit speaks to us, earthly ears must interpret it.

5.  Probably the most important thing one of the missionaries said to me was that I won't always understand things that some lifetime members don't understand.  We can pray for understanding, but more often it is better to pray for peace on the topic.  I've done this, and thankfully that prayer was answered.  My personal beliefs are still at odds with some things that I've learned, but I think I'm OK with that at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

I understand the Kingdom of God just fine, and I firmly believe there is only one God (not infinite Gods as this thread is discussing)

I also understand that the LDS church claims to be 'the only true and living church on the face of the earth', therefore, if this claim is true, then it would be speaking on earth for God, and if it is not true, then it does not speak for God.  That is the claim I am investigating, that was the entire reason I looked at the LDS faith in the first place.  

 

As I have studied and pondered - both from my background as a physicist and a theologian I am convinced that only two possibilities emerge as “kingdoms” where G-d resides as the supreme Suzerain.  One being claimed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the other claim is that of the early Christians which is currently split into the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. 

The prophet Daniel prophesied that the last great “Kingdom” of man would be a kingdom of iron beginning at the waist of the image of a man.  Most Judo-Christian theologians I have studied believe this kingdom of iron to be the Roman empire.   This empire is first divided into two kingdoms which are represented by the legs of the image.  Then Daniel prophesied that this kingdom would become weak (mixed with clay) and become 10 kingdoms.  When the Roman empire would become 10 lessor kingdoms – Daniel prophesied that the “Kingdom” of G-d would be “cut out of a mountain” beginning as a small stone that would roll fourth – and when this occurred the ten kingdoms would fall and never be re-established.

If Daniel was a prophet to be believed that the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox obviously do not fulfill his prophesy.  Was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was established – was it like a small stone cut from a mountain?  Has it rolled forth with the possibility of covering the earth for when Christ returns?    I happen to believe so.

Now – your concern that there are many G-ds?  In ancient “kingdoms” of the Middle Near East – there were “Vassals” appointed by the Suzerain to assist in “governing” the kingdom.  These vassals were appointed by a class of citizens called the “first born”.  These governing Vassals were judges given the title of g-d.  It was the custom of such a Vassal to speak by the authority of the Suzerain in the first person (which in Egypt was the title of Pharaoh).  This causes many modern researchers to think that such a Vassal was actually the supreme Suzerain.  Note that they would even speak in the first person saying they were the Suzerain but in reality, they were appointed vassals.

These vassals were “one” with the Suzerain and by right of heritage were considered heirs of the thrown of the Suzerain.   Are we not told in scripture that true believers in Christ and true citizens of the True Kingdom of G-d - are joint heirs to the very divine thrown of G-d?  And as Jesus prayed in John 17 – are one with G-d as he (Jesus) is with G-d the Father.

I do not know of any other Church on earth that teaches such things as was taught by Christ – and yet teaches it in such a manner that we can understand in our modern cultures and democratic forms of governments.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

I agree with this, it says

20 Peter, turning around, *saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?”

 21 So Peter seeing him *said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?”

 22 Jesus *said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!” 

23 Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?”

The way I read it, it clearly says Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, this passage is highlighting the fact that they misunderstood what Jesus meant and went around saying things that Jesus had not said.  I don't understand how that is supposed to support the theory that John didn't die?

First, note that in this scene, we have Peter, Thomas Didymus, Nathanael, James, John, and two others (7 total).

In verse 19, we're talking about Peter's death.  Then Peter asks about John's death.  Now why would Peter ask about John's death unless he had some reason to believe that something unusual was happening to John?  Maybe he just wanted to be comforted a little - "well, if I have to die so terribly, can John die with me?" (not!)  Why not ask about all of the others, or a different other?  Why was John singled out?  Because John was an exception and they already knew it - even if they didn't fully understand it.

So then Jesus says, "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?"  Short and sweet - no explanation.  They already know what he's talking about.  Well, what's "till I come"?  He's already there.  He's already been resurrected.  Those who believe in the Second Coming understand this to reference that event.  So, the Lord says (in answer to a question about John's death!) John is going to "tarry" until the Second Coming.  Well, either the second coming is happening in the next 60 years or so, or something unusual is happening to John.

From what the apostles knew, they think ("this saying went out among the brethren") that John will not die.  Why do they think that?  Because they interpret Christ's words (referring to something they already knew about) as saying that John will tarry until the Second Coming.  How can he do that?  Well, whatever else is true, he can't die when normal men die because the Second Coming isn't that close - while some followers may have thought it would be any next second, the leadership clearly knew (the writings of Paul make it clear they knew) that it was quite distant.  Thus, they assumed John would not die, since that's the only way they can imagine him sticking around that long.  Presumably they didn't think to ask how, they just assumed he wouldn't die.

Meanwhile, when John (who knows what's going to happen to him) corrects them, he doesn't say he's not going to tarry, or that "till I come" isn't in reference to the Second Coming, he says only that Jesus never said John wouldn't die.  That's the only correction.  Thus, the tarrying to the Second Coming was never countered.

So how is it that John can remain until the Second Coming and yet still die?  Simple, he will die at the Second Coming and be resurrected, in an instant - he will not be buried, will not "sleep" - just like the righteous still alive at the Second Coming:

Quote

1 Corinthians 15:

51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all asleep, but we shall all be bchanged,

52 In a moment, in the atwinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the btrumpet shall sound, and the cdead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be dchanged.

John corrected the error about him not dying because all must die, in consequence of the fall of Adam (see various statements by Paul about death and the resurrection), but never corrected the statement that he would tarry until the Second Coming - because that didn't need correcting.

Further evidence:

Quote

Luke 9:

25 For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and alose himself, or be cast away?

26 For whosoever shall be aashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the bSon of man be ashamed, cwhen he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels.

27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of adeath, till they see the kingdom of God.

Christ is again talking about the Second Coming.  Based on earlier verses in this sequence, we have reason to believe that these are the apostles and perhaps a few others, but not a multitude.  It's a veiled reference to John (and for all we know, others, though latter-day revelation tells us no others from the original 12).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

I understand the Kingdom of God just fine, and I firmly believe there is only one God (not infinite Gods as this thread is discussing)

I also understand that the LDS church claims to be 'the only true and living church on the face of the earth', therefore, if this claim is true, then it would be speaking on earth for God, and if it is not true, then it does not speak for God.  That is the claim I am investigating, that was the entire reason I looked at the LDS faith in the first place.  

I guess another way of looking at this is to make a correlation.

In Catholicism you have Saints and you have Angels.  Angels are considered to have great power, and Saints are considered close enough to be able to plead your case when you offer your prayers up to them.

LDS have a similar view, but instead of Saints like the Catholics have them, view it that those who are righteous enough become Angels.  In this light, consider how powerful angels are in the Catholic customs.

It is THIS that LDS are referring to in many ways in what an LDS member may become.  However, instead of referring it as Angels, they refer to them as gods (lower case g) which is different than GOD (upper case G).  In fact, in many LDS traditions, those who are resurrected become Angels (as per Michael who was Adam, Gabriel who was Noah, etc...etc...etc), but this is synonmymous with those who are resurrected and receive their glory...aka...gods (as with the little g).

Perhaps that can explain a little more in depth in regards to the weird LDS notions of what comes after this life...though somethings are added on in addition to that, it is this basic parallel that you could utilize to try to understand the LDS thoughts on why we worship the Father and it is NOT polytheism as in multiple deities and such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, zil said:

First, note that in this scene, we have Peter, Thomas Didymus, Nathanael, James, John, and two others (7 total).

In verse 19, we're talking about Peter's death.  Then Peter asks about John's death.  Now why would Peter ask about John's death unless he had some reason to believe that something unusual was happening to John?  Maybe he just wanted to be comforted a little - "well, if I have to die so terribly, can John die with me?" (not!)  Why not ask about all of the others, or a different other?  Why was John singled out?  Because John was an exception and they already knew it - even if they didn't fully understand it.

So then Jesus says, "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?"  Short and sweet - no explanation.  They already know what he's talking about.  Well, what's "till I come"?  He's already there.  He's already been resurrected.  Those who believe in the Second Coming understand this to reference that event.  So, the Lord says (in answer to a question about John's death!) John is going to "tarry" until the Second Coming.  Well, either the second coming is happening in the next 60 years or so, or something unusual is happening to John.

From what the apostles knew, they think ("this saying went out among the brethren") that John will not die.  Why do they think that?  Because they interpret Christ's words (referring to something they already knew about) as saying that John will tarry until the Second Coming.  How can he do that?  Well, whatever else is true, he can't die when normal men die because the Second Coming isn't that close - while some followers may have thought it would be any next second, the leadership clearly knew (the writings of Paul make it clear they knew) that it was quite distant.  Thus, they assumed John would not die, since that's the only way they can imagine him sticking around that long.  Presumably they didn't think to ask how, they just assumed he wouldn't die.

Meanwhile, when John (who knows what's going to happen to him) corrects them, he doesn't say he's not going to tarry, or that "till I come" isn't in reference to the Second Coming, he says only that Jesus never said John wouldn't die.  That's the only correction.  Thus, the tarrying to the Second Coming was never countered.

So how is it that John can remain until the Second Coming and yet still die?  Simple, he will die at the Second Coming and be resurrected, in an instant - he will not be buried, will not "sleep" - just like the righteous still alive at the Second Coming:

John corrected the error about him not dying because all must die, in consequence of the fall of Adam (see various statements by Paul about death and the resurrection), but never corrected the statement that he would tarry until the Second Coming - because that didn't need correcting.

Further evidence:

Christ is again talking about the Second Coming.  Based on earlier verses in this sequence, we have reason to believe that these are the apostles and perhaps a few others, but not a multitude.  It's a veiled reference to John (and for all we know, others, though latter-day revelation tells us no others from the original 12).

The dating of NT writings matter. During the Apostolic period of the Early Church, there was a widespread belief that Jesus would return in their lifetimes. As time went on and some of the Apostles died, the belief changed, and thus the writings change, to anticipating Jesus in some future, unknow, time. So we can have verses like you cite from the Gospel according to John, where the two beliefs intercept. It’s clear to me that verse clarifies that Jesus is saying, more or less, “I do what I want and who are you to question me?”.

Peter, well, I love the stories with Peter in them, he is a man with a personality, and here we have him comfortable enough with our Lord to question Him.  They knew Jesus has power over death, and John is mentioned more than once as being favored by Jesus, so Peter, thinking like a man, and not like God, asks if a special favor is going to be shown to John, who is sort of like the golden child of a family. Jesus plainly says, what’s it to you? 

Beyond that, the Christian life and world went on after the NT writings and historical writings have John dying at a very old age, at Patmos, Greece, while under what we might call house arrest. The only Apostle who was not martyred, and so we see a special treatment by God, in the manner of his death. Old and peaceful, rather than young and violent.

The last verse you cite from Luke, is understood by Catholics as establishing the Kingdom of God on earth, which Jesus did. Some, if not many, did live to see that day, and we are living in that day now. To make th Catholic understanding more clear, in comparison to LDS teaching, what the LDS call the millennium we call “now”. A thousand years is not a literal amount of time, but used figuratively through the Bible to represent a long period of time. We are in that time now. 

Hope that helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

It’s clear to me that verse clarifies that Jesus is saying, more or less, “I do what I want and who are you to question me?”.

If it's so clear, why didn't the apostles think so?  The words say what they say - John will tarry until the Second Coming.  That meaning is never countered.  The only counter to the meaning is the interpretations of men to claim it means something else (to explain away something they don't understand, rather than accept it on faith) - the words themselves don't counter that meaning.  Jesus says more than "what's it to you?" - he says, "If I want John to remain until the Second Coming, what's it to you?"

8 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

Hope that helps.

I always understood that you have your own interpretation and reasoning for it and I have no problem with you choosing what you will believe.

My point was strictly that if you strip beliefs, interpretations, and teachings away and go only by the words, the words say John will stick around until the Second Coming (regardless of when you think that happened / will happen) and that Peter ought not to worry himself about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I guess another way of looking at this is to make a correlation.

In Catholicism you have Saints and you have Angels.  Angels are considered to have great power, and Saints are considered close enough to be able to plead your case when you offer your prayers up to them.

LDS have a similar view, but instead of Saints like the Catholics have them, view it that those who are righteous enough become Angels.  In this light, consider how powerful angels are in the Catholic customs.

It is THIS that LDS are referring to in many ways in what an LDS member may become.  However, instead of referring it as Angels, they refer to them as gods (lower case g) which is different than GOD (upper case G).  In fact, in many LDS traditions, those who are resurrected become Angels (as per Michael who was Adam, Gabriel who was Noah, etc...etc...etc), but this is synonmymous with those who are resurrected and receive their glory...aka...gods (as with the little g).

Perhaps that can explain a little more in depth in regards to the weird LDS notions of what comes after this life...though somethings are added on in addition to that, it is this basic parallel that you could utilize to try to understand the LDS thoughts on why we worship the Father and it is NOT polytheism as in multiple deities and such.

 

Jesus makes a very interesting point about there being many g-ds in John chapter 10 verses 31-36.  One may want to read the entire chapter to get the full context correct.  The point in question starts when Jesus claims to be “one” with the Father – meaning one with the Suzerain of the Kingdom of heaven.  The Jews that were addressing Jesus knew exactly what he meant by saying he was “one” with the supreme Suzerain.  He was calling himself a g-d.  The Jews took up stones to kill Jesus for this blasphemy.  Considering the thought of a man becoming a g-d or like G-d (being "one" with G-d); Jesus did not say directly that a man cannot or can become a g-d.  Instead he pointed out that there are already many men that are g-ds in the kingdom of G-d (verse 34).  Most Christian theologians argue that the reference Jesus made were to judges in Israel - not actual g-ds.  This is because most modern theologians get this context wrong and for whatever reason misrepresent what Jesus was teaching.  In ancient kingdoms, it was believed that G-d gave rulers the power and right to judge – a power and right of G-d himself and a power that defines g-d according to ancient revelation.

Jesus was arguing a brilliant point – a point that many belonging to a false kingdom still get wrong or miss altogether.  As Jesus was explaining and teaching - there are and always has been; many g-ds in the kingdom of G-d.  As I said before – the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only church on the earth today that seems to get this right in understanding Jesus correctly.  Not only was this argument over g-ds a primary reason Jesus was eventually crucified – but this argument remains today as one of the primary reasons the true teachings of Christ are rejected and his restored kingdom accused falsely.  It would seem - that there is nothing new under the sun (a quote from Ecclesiastes)

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

The dating of NT writings matter. During the Apostolic period of the Early Church, there was a widespread belief that Jesus would return in their lifetimes. As time went on and some of the Apostles died, the belief changed, and thus the writings change, to anticipating Jesus in some future, unknow, time. So we can have verses like you cite from the Gospel according to John, where the two beliefs intercept. It’s clear to me that verse clarifies that Jesus is saying, more or less, “I do what I want and who are you to question me?”.

Peter, well, I love the stories with Peter in them, he is a man with a personality, and here we have him comfortable enough with our Lord to question Him.  They knew Jesus has power over death, and John is mentioned more than once as being favored by Jesus, so Peter, thinking like a man, and not like God, asks if a special favor is going to be shown to John, who is sort of like the golden child of a family. Jesus plainly says, what’s it to you? 

Beyond that, the Christian life and world went on after the NT writings and historical writings have John dying at a very old age, at Patmos, Greece, while under what we might call house arrest. The only Apostle who was not martyred, and so we see a special treatment by God, in the manner of his death. Old and peaceful, rather than young and violent.

The last verse you cite from Luke, is understood by Catholics as establishing the Kingdom of God on earth, which Jesus did. Some, if not many, did live to see that day, and we are living in that day now. To make th Catholic understanding more clear, in comparison to LDS teaching, what the LDS call the millennium we call “now”. A thousand years is not a literal amount of time, but used figuratively through the Bible to represent a long period of time. We are in that time now. 

Hope that helps.

 

You may want to reconsider a number of points.  That is that many of old times were said to have been removed from society and taken into heaven without dying.  This is a particular status of being and was appointed to Elijah (who was taken into heaven in the “chariot of fire”).  We learn from antiquities that the purpose of such a status was to be able to return at some future time for some specific reason.  The example of Elijah who had a place reserved at Passover for his return.

It is my understanding that Catholics (at least some) believe that Mary, the mother of Christ, was taken from her home in Ephesus without tasting death.  You can state if such doctrine is true or not – I would be interested if this doctrine of some individuals not dying is actually a doctrine acceptable to Catholics – like yourself.

I would understand why Catholics would not accept John surviving because that is very problematic in their claim that the Pope has right to apostolic secession – which claim would be false if John somehow survived beyond Patmos.  But in a previous post I pointed out that the Prophesy of Daniel the prophet points to the “Kingdom” being cut out of the mountain as a stone when the great empire of Rome was divided into 10 Kingdoms (the toes of the figure).

I understand why Catholics must reject any possible reference to such a possibility – But I honestly think history in general is problematic in the Catholic claim they are the kingdom fulfilling prophesy of the “last days” before the return of the Messiah.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I would understand why Catholics would not accept John surviving because that is very problematic in their claim that the Pope has right to apostolic secession – which claim would be false if John somehow survived beyond Patmos. 

This does not follow.  Peter was not the last apostle to die before John.  The papal claim is through the seat of Rome from whence Peter, the holder of the keys, sat and has nothing to do with who died last.  The successor to Peter as Bishop of Rome gets the keys regardless of whether other Apostles are seated in other regions of the Church.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This does not follow.  Peter was not the last apostle to die before John.  The papal claim is through the seat of Rome from whence Peter, the holder of the keys, sat and has nothing to do with who died last.  The successor to Peter as Bishop of Rome gets the keys regardless of whether other Apostles are seated in other regions of the Church.

Interesting - I appriciate your input - but it was my understanding that the connection to Peter carried more inportantance than just another bishop with regional authority but authority to apoint other bishops - rather than bishops appointing their own successor as was the claim that Peter did so.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

You may want to reconsider a number of points.  That is that many of old times were said to have been removed from society and taken into heaven without dying.  This is a particular status of being and was appointed to Elijah (who was taken into heaven in the “chariot of fire”).  We learn from antiquities that the purpose of such a status was to be able to return at some future time for some specific reason.  The example of Elijah who had a place reserved at Passover for his return.

It is my understanding that Catholics (at least some) believe that Mary, the mother of Christ, was taken from her home in Ephesus without tasting death.  You can state if such doctrine is true or not – I would be interested if this doctrine of some individuals not dying is actually a doctrine acceptable to Catholics – like yourself.

I would understand why Catholics would not accept John surviving because that is very problematic in their claim that the Pope has right to apostolic secession – which claim would be false if John somehow survived beyond Patmos.  But in a previous post I pointed out that the Prophesy of Daniel the prophet points to the “Kingdom” being cut out of the mountain as a stone when the great empire of Rome was divided into 10 Kingdoms (the toes of the figure).

I understand why Catholics must reject any possible reference to such a possibility – But I honestly think history in general is problematic in the Catholic claim they are the kingdom fulfilling prophesy of the “last days” before the return of the Messiah.

 

The Traveler

Catholic doctrine is that Mary was assumed into heaven. Whether or not she died first is debatable. 

Apostolic succession isn’t limited to Peter.  It is emphasized by the Latin Church because of Peter’s primacy. However, the Twelve appointed successors throughout the world. These ancient Sees are recognized by the Latin Church as having a valid Apostolic succession. An example is the Patriarch of Alexandria, who is the successor to Mark. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

Catholic doctrine is that Mary was assumed into heaven. Whether or not she died first is debatable. 

Apostolic succession isn’t limited to Peter.  It is emphasized by the Latin Church because of Peter’s primacy. However, the Twelve appointed successors throughout the world. These ancient Sees are recognized by the Latin Church as having a valid Apostolic succession. An example is the Patriarch of Alexandria, who is the successor to Mark. 

 

Interesting – I thought apostolic succession was documented in Acts – So I now assume that the Latin Church found that particular method of apostolic succession heretical and in dire need or revision.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, zil said:

 

 

My point was strictly that if you strip beliefs, interpretations, and teachings away and go only by the words, the words say John will stick around until the Second Coming (regardless of when you think that happened / will happen) and that Peter ought not to worry himself about it.

Hi :)

This is a sola scripture argument. Catholics, and LDS, are not sola scriptura. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

Hi :)

This is a sola scripture argument. Catholics, and LDS, are not sola scriptura. 

Irrelevant from my personal perspective.  If you're going to believe something other than what the words say (assuming you believe the words at all), then the person/thing contradicting the words better have seriously good credentials - better credentials than the source.  No LDS entity contradicts the words, so I don't have to worry about their credentials for this scripture.  I respect your belief that the Catholic teachings trump the literal interpretation of the words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

Interesting – I thought apostolic succession was documented in Acts – So I now assume that the Latin Church found that particular method of apostolic succession heretical and in dire need or revision.

 

The Traveler

Yes, same thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 

Interesting – I thought apostolic succession was documented in Acts – So I now assume that the Latin Church found that particular method of apostolic succession heretical and in dire need or revision.

 

The Traveler

Yes, Apostolic succession is as indicated in Acts.  It is your own assumption that the successor to Peter in the seat of Rome was not given apostolic authority.  Catholics do not believe in a Great apostasy.  They do not believe that the Apostles of the New Testament did not pass the authority to anybody else beyond the scope of the New Testament records.  As a matter of fact, they believe that apostolic authority was passed to the Bishops as the apostles got martyred (except for John who was in exile) and they were called in their stead.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now