The Great Apostacy!

[nrajeff]

Of course. It helps to refer to the author correctly if you want to look knowledgeable about the topic, however. Would that have been Clement of Rome or Clement of Alexandria? Feel free to help your Mormon compatriots with my question.

---Clement the Bishop of Rome, of course, although the Bishop of Alexandria wrote some stuff that supports LDS doctrines as well (e.g., on salvation of the dead and various degrees of glory in the hereafter). I will get my chops busted if I quote as much as I would like to, so I will suggest that you (and BillCat Sparko and Kelp, of course ) Google David Stewart, Jr's article The Christian Apostasy where you can read a short overview of how debilitating it was to Christianity to have apostasy present from the beginning. Addressed are subjects such as "Evidence of Apostasy in the New Testament" and "Contemporary Witnesses of the Apostasy."

[One Bad Pig]

---Clement the Bishop of Rome, of course, although the Bishop of Alexandria wrote some stuff that supports LDS doctrines as well (e.g., on salvation of the dead and various degrees of glory in the hereafter). I will get my chops busted if I quote as much as I would like to, so I will suggest that you (and BillCat Sparko and Kelp, of course ) Google David Stewart, Jr's article The Christian Apostasy where you can read a short overview of how debilitating it was to Christianity to have apostasy present from the beginning. Addressed are subjects such as "Evidence of Apostasy in the New Testament" and "Contemporary Witnesses of the Apostasy."

Is it so difficult for you to provide the link? I note that this is expressly not an official LDS site. Hows come yous guys are allowed to reference non-official material, but we aren't? Lastly, I would like a primary source for proof of martyrdoms by the early (orthodox) church, not a cite to a reference book. Thanks.

[nrajeff]

Is it so difficult for you to provide the link?

---Is it so difficult for YOU to use GOOGLE? http://www.google.com/

I have the article saved in a Word file. Tell me how to link you to a file that's in my hard drive.

I note that this is expressly not an official LDS site.

---Observant of you.

Hows come yous guys are allowed to reference non-official material, but we aren't?

--Who told you that you weren't allowed to reference material that hasn't been officially canonized by the "Christian Church of Planet Earth"? I personally would never tell you that you can't refer to the Antenicene Fathers, for example. Or to something that Josh McDowell or C.S> Lewis wrote, for that matter.

Lastly, I would like a primary source for proof of martyrdoms by the early (orthodox) church, not a cite to a reference book. Thanks.

---You will have to be more specific.

[Bill the Cat]

---Is it so difficult for YOU to use GOOGLE? http://www.google.com/

I have the article saved in a Word file. Tell me how to link you to a file that's in my hard drive.

You can upload the file using the "Manage attachments" button in a new post

[Bill the Cat]

---Clement the Bishop of Rome, of course, although the Bishop of Alexandria wrote some stuff that supports LDS doctrines as well (e.g., on salvation of the dead and various degrees of glory in the hereafter). I will get my chops busted if I quote as much as I would like to, so I will suggest that you (and BillCat Sparko and Kelp, of course ) Google David Stewart, Jr's article The Christian Apostasy where you can read a short overview of how debilitating it was to Christianity to have apostasy present from the beginning. Addressed are subjects such as "Evidence of Apostasy in the New Testament" and "Contemporary Witnesses of the Apostasy."

Y' mean Las Vegas surgeon David Stewart? And his early church credentials are from where, exactly? I'd love to check his sources. Would you be so kind as to upload the paper, and I'll be glad to verify his citations.

Thanks

[nrajeff]

Y' mean Las Vegas surgeon David Stewart? And his early church credentials are from where, exactly?

---I am not sure that his academic credentials affect the validity of the points he makes.

I'd love to check his sources. Would you be so kind as to upload the paper, and I'll be glad to verify his citations.

---OB Pig already did it for us, in Post 62.

[One Bad Pig]

---Is it so difficult for YOU to use GOOGLE? http://www.google.com/

How do you think I found it to link to it? I thought you were the one providing the information, though.

---Observant of you.

--Who told you that you weren't allowed to reference material that hasn't been officially canonized by the "Christian Church of Planet Earth"? I personally would never tell you that you can't refer to the Antenicene Fathers, for example. Or to something that Josh McDowell or C.S> Lewis wrote, for that matter.

We've been told here more than once that non-official LDS sources don't count. Has that changed?

---You will have to be more specific.

The question I asked had to do with the early church killing other Christians. There is a single sentence in your article that deals with that. How more specific do I have to get?

[Kelp]

---Clement the Bishop of Rome, of course, although the Bishop of Alexandria wrote some stuff that supports LDS doctrines as well (e.g., on salvation of the dead and various degrees of glory in the hereafter). I will get my chops busted if I quote as much as I would like to, so I will suggest that you (and BillCat Sparko and Kelp, of course ) Google David Stewart, Jr's article The Christian Apostasy where you can read a short overview of how debilitating it was to Christianity to have apostasy present from the beginning. Addressed are subjects such as "Evidence of Apostasy in the New Testament" and "Contemporary Witnesses of the Apostasy."

Clement of A.'s orthodoxy is kind of borderline and he was uncritical as a sponge, sure you want to hang your hat on him? How do you know he didn't get these allegedly LDS-friendly doctrines from sources that were otherwise highly heretical from an LDS perspective?

Besides, degrees of glory (aka. rewards or blessings) in heaven is an orthodox Christian doctrine. It's the flipside of degrees of punishment in Hell.

And no, if you were planing to say so, theosis is not the same as Mormon godhood.

[Bill the Cat]

---I am not sure that his academic credentials affect the validity of the points he makes.

After reviewing his citations, it certainly does. I'll be reviewing it more closely in the coming weeks and posting a thread in rebuttal, as several glaringly obvious errors I saw on a cursory reading make it irresistable :brow:

[nrajeff]

After reviewing his citations, it certainly does. I'll be reviewing it more closely in the coming weeks and posting a thread in rebuttal, as several glaringly obvious errors I saw on a cursory reading make it irresistable :brow:

---That's fine, Bill, and I look forward to reading your comments, which are usually astute IMO.

[Cow Poke]

---That's fine, Bill, and I look forward to reading your comments, which are usually astute IMO.

That's pretty COOL, Jeff.. I got to Amen YOU!

[nrajeff]

How do you think I found it to link to it? I thought you were the one providing the information, though.

---I sure was, and did: I provided info about the existence of the article, and about how to find it.

We've been told here more than once that non-official LDS sources don't count. Has that changed?

---You guys are free to cite any source you want in your crusade to support your beliefs, or to refute all of my beliefs. If you are contemplating asserting what official doctrine is by using sources that are not official LDS doctrinal sources, however.....think about why that might not be a great idea, and why I might have a slight objection.

The question I asked had to do with the early church killing other Christians. There is a single sentence in your article that deals with that. How more specific do I have to get?

---Well, you could QUOTE that sentence, for example--that would be a pretty helpful idea I think. If you are talking about how, in the antenicene, post-apostolic years, Christianity was divided into theological factions that fought each other over whose theology/Christology was correct, that is pretty much taken for granted as historical fact, I thought.

Athanasius said that Arians were "enemies of Jesus Christ" and that the Church had no place for them. Athanasius commanded small armies of riotous mobs to do his bidding including beatings, church burnings and murder. Emperor Constantine had to put up with constant complains and frequent court cases to do with this bishop's immoral behaviour. The Nicene fundamentalists were revealed as the more disruptive faction, and the Emperor no longer tolerated them. Arian Christianity replaced the openly revolting and divisive Nicene Christianity for two generations.....

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/chri..._arianism.html

[jo7241974]

Athanasius said that Arians were "enemies of Jesus Christ" and that the Church had no place for them. Athanasius commanded small armies of riotous mobs to do his bidding including beatings, church burnings and murder. Emperor Constantine had to put up with constant complains and frequent court cases to do with this bishop's immoral behaviour. The Nicene fundamentalists were revealed as the more disruptive faction, and the Emperor no longer tolerated them. Arian Christianity replaced the openly revolting and divisive Nicene Christianity for two generations.....

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/chri..._arianism.html

Jeff,

I think one of the reasons so many Christians do not believe an apostasy ever took place is because they have been raised and taught to believe in the same Christianity forced upon Christendom by Nicene Christianity. These same individuals judge fellow Christians with the same degree of trying to control even what other Christians are allowed to "think" - for if a Christian, such as Mentieth, dares to consider any other thought construct outside the approved-thought construct, he is in danger of apostasy himself. They have already asked him to change his belief status here on Tweb.

With this same barrier, they will not allow themselves to see reality - they are fearful to think about an apostasy because they do not want to be labeled by other Christians as apostate for thinking such thoughts. Nicene Christianity is so embedded into their beliefs that they cannot fathom any other possibility.

There are many Christians who readily recognize and admit that Christianity today does NOT resemble what Christ taught. They go to Christian denominations, however, because that is what is available - they recognize that to just create yet another denomination will only further delude the already watered down church which Christ established during his ministry. They go because they desire to worship God - regardless of whether they agree with the teachings of the particular church they are attending.

jo

[One Bad Pig]

---I sure was, and did: I provided info about the existence of the article, and about how to find it.

Indeed you did. Do you think it's more trouble for one person (you) grab the link, or make anyone who wants to read have to do it themselves?

---You guys are free to cite any source you want in your crusade to support your beliefs, or to refute all of my beliefs. If you are contemplating asserting what official doctrine is by using sources that are not official LDS doctrinal sources, however.....think about why that might not be a great idea, and why I might have a slight objection.

See, the issue here is that YOU'RE using an unofficial source to support YOUR doctrine. The problem is that if we refute your unofficial source, you can wave away our refutation because we're not refuting official LDS sources. I have a slight objection to that.

---Well, you could QUOTE that sentence, for example--that would be a pretty helpful idea I think. If you are talking about how, in the antenicene, post-apostolic years, Christianity was divided into theological factions that fought each other over whose theology/Christology was correct, that is pretty much taken for granted as historical fact, I thought.

There were factions early in church history that used violence, though I'm not aware of any AN that did so. I question that the majority who were orthodox did so, however. There was at least a strong strain of pacifism in the early church.

Oh, and here's your quote:

Between 100 AD and the great schism in 1054 AD, at least 222,000 Christians were killed by the apostate Church.

The number was pulled straight from a table in a reference work. I asked jo for a primary source for orthodox Christians killing others, but I'll accept a secondary source that references primary sources.

Athanasius said that Arians were "enemies of Jesus Christ" and that the Church had no place for them. Athanasius commanded small armies of riotous mobs to do his bidding including beatings, church burnings and murder. Emperor Constantine had to put up with constant complains and frequent court cases to do with this bishop's immoral behaviour. The Nicene fundamentalists were revealed as the more disruptive faction, and the Emperor no longer tolerated them. Arian Christianity replaced the openly revolting and divisive Nicene Christianity for two generations.....

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/chri..._arianism.html

Using a site called "The Bane of Monotheism" that subscribes to the Christ Myth theory is not likely to be especially accurate. Thanks for finding me something new for the screwball thread though.

[One Bad Pig]

Jeff,

I think one of the reasons so many Christians do not believe an apostasy ever took place is because they have been raised and taught to believe in the same Christianity forced upon Christendom by Nicene Christianity. These same individuals judge fellow Christians with the same degree of trying to control even what other Christians are allowed to "think" - for if a Christian, such as Mentieth, dares to consider any other thought construct outside the approved-thought construct, he is in danger of apostasy himself. They have already asked him to change his belief status here on Tweb.

With this same barrier, they will not allow themselves to see reality - they are fearful to think about an apostasy because they do not want to be labeled by other Christians as apostate for thinking such thoughts. Nicene Christianity is so embedded into their beliefs that they cannot fathom any other possibility.

There are many Christians who readily recognize and admit that Christianity today does NOT resemble what Christ taught. They go to Christian denominations, however, because that is what is available - they recognize that to just create yet another denomination will only further delude the already watered down church which Christ established during his ministry. They go because they desire to worship God - regardless of whether they agree with the teachings of the particular church they are attending.

jo

:irony:

Dang! There went another one!