The Great Apostacy!

[Cow Poke]

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.

Well, some of us poor iggernent Christians never even HEARD of the Nicene creed "growing up". We just learned about Jesus from "ol' fashion preaching" and reading the real Bible.

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.

Personally, I don't worry a whole lot about anything. Who can change anything by worry? Fearful? That's not a "Christ" position. Are you getting all this Jeff? Are you learning anything?

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

It's always a pleasure, Jo.

Thank you so much for that kind thoughtful analysis. It is SO Jo.

[wonbyone]

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

---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.


---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

So jeff do you get to pick and choose what you believe that vexen has to say about Christianity or do you believe everything that he has to say about christianity?

[jo7241974]

I think I can speak for the other LDS posters. They can correct me if my comments are in error. If there is additional input, the other LDS posters can add to this.

We tend to give credibility to the information which is commonly understood between sources, regardless of whether it was learned in school, studied through other sources before the internet was available, after the internet was available from apologetic sites for, apologetic sites against, and internet sources which have no interest in apologetics. If information seems to seriously disagree between sources, we research to find out why. When we discover cover-ups, personal agendas, politics, and social influence which have tainted the information, we use this knowledge to discern the reliable information.

[nrajeff]

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?

----As I said, the only form of the essay that I had was a Word document. Plus, how many people really click on links we provide? How was I to know you actually cared enough to want to read the essay?

See, the issue here is that YOU'RE using an unofficial source to support YOUR doctrine.

---Hey, it's called "history," and no one is prohibiting you from using history to support your own religious beliefs. If you can show, using history, that the events in the history I cite never happened, then more power to you.

The problem is that if we refute your unofficial source, you can wave away our refutation because we're not refuting official LDS sources.

----Huh? If the issue is "Does history show that Christianity suffered from a debilitating apostasy and the resulting loss of authorized apostolic leadership?" do you really believe that if you were to provide sources that indicate the answer is "no," and those sources are not official LDS sources, that I will wave the evidence away? That doesn't seem very logical. But let's test the idea by YOU providing your sources that show that the answer is "no. " I don't care that your sources are not official LDS ones.

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.

---Thanks. That wasn't so hard, was it?

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.

--So you looked up Stewart's footnote #12 ( Barrett and Johnson, World Christian Trends, 2001) and found the info in question in a table in that book? And you want to know where Barrett and Johnson got it from? If you had THEIR book opened to the page with the data, wasn't there a footnote or other source listed for it?

Using a site called "The Bane of Monotheism" that subscribes to the Christ Myth theory is not likely to be especially accurate.

---The conclusions there might be faulty, but that does not mean that the historical data they mention is horribly misstated.

[nrajeff]

So jeff do you get to pick and choose what you believe that vexen has to say about Christianity or do you believe everything that he has to say about christianity?

---As far as I know, I am free to pick and choose among what ANYONE says about ANYTHING, and I can decide which parts, if any, I believe.

[Cow Poke]

---As far as I know, I am free to pick and choose among what ANYONE says about ANYTHING, and I can decide which parts, if any, I believe.

Gee, Wonbyone, you're thinking this is NEW?

[Sparko]

I think I can speak for the other LDS posters. They can correct me if my comments are in error. If there is additional input, the other LDS posters can add to this.

We tend to give credibility to the information which is commonly understood between sources, regardless of whether it was learned in school, studied through other sources before the internet was available, after the internet was available from apologetic sites for, apologetic sites against, and internet sources which have no interest in apologetics. If information seems to seriously disagree between sources, we research to find out why. When we discover cover-ups, personal agendas, politics, and social influence which have tainted the information, we use this knowledge to discern the reliable information.

so, basically what you are saying is if the information agrees with what you already believe, you accept it, but if it disagrees, then you look for reasons to reject it?

Yeah Jo, that pretty much sums up how I have noticed you doing your "research"

If it agrees with you then it is "true" and if it doesn't then it is "cover-ups, personal agendas, lies, etc"



Thanks for admitting it openly.

[Cow Poke]

so, basically what you are saying is if the information agrees with what you already believe, you accept it, but if it disagrees, then you look for reasons to reject it?

Yeah Jo, that pretty much sums up how I have noticed you doing your "research"

If it agrees with you then it is "true" and if it doesn't then it is "cover-ups, personal agendas, lies, etc"

Thanks for admitting it openly.

Actually, that's only PARTLY true, Sparko....

Sometimes she jumps into an argument (Joe DID / did not translate Kinderhook) with all 4 feet only to find out she didn't read the article correctly, or there was "more" stuff, or it didn't say what she thought it said, then she corrects her position and blames us naughty Christians for tricking her or misquoting or ... somehow, it's our fault, so she explains to Jeff or OC how we're being mean to her.

Personally, I'm feeling the love, again!

[One Bad Pig]

----As I said, the only form of the essay that I had was a Word document.

Yet you knew it was available online (you did check before providing the information, right?).

Plus, how many people really click on links we provide? How was I to know you actually cared enough to want to read the essay?

If you're going to provide evidence, it's better to assume that people will read it than otherwise.

---Hey, it's called "history," and no one is prohibiting you from using history to support your own religious beliefs. If you can show, using history, that the events in the history I cite never happened, then more power to you.

It's also possible that the article's interpretation of events that did happen is erroneous. I'll wait for Bill to provide input first, since he's promised to go over it in depth.

----Huh? If the issue is "Does history show that Christianity suffered from a debilitating apostasy and the resulting loss of authorized apostolic leadership?" do you really believe that if you were to provide sources that indicate the answer is "no," and those sources are not official LDS sources, that I will wave the evidence away? That doesn't seem very logical.

No, it doesn't seem very logical. On the other hand, I'm dealing with an organization that places a higher emphasis on a "burning in the bosom" than evidence.

But let's test the idea by YOU providing your sources that show that the answer is "no. " I don't care that your sources are not official LDS ones.

For a very comprehensive look, try James D. G. Dunn's Jesus Remembered and Beginning from Jerusalem, as well as N. T. Wright's The New Testament and the People of God, Jesus and the Victory of God, and The Resurrection of the Son of God. Those show a firm basis in first-century Judaism for orthodox Christianity. For early doctrinal development, see Jaroslav Pelikan's The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) (If you're interested, four subsequent volumes address development up to about 1970).

--So you looked up Stewart's footnote #12 ( Barrett and Johnson, World Christian Trends, 2001) and found the info in question in a table in that book? And you want to know where Barrett and Johnson got it from? If you had THEIR book opened to the page with the data, wasn't there a footnote or other source listed for it?

I looked it up on Google Books. The scan job isn't very dark, the sources listed were not specifically linked to numbers on the table, and the sources were listed perpendicular to the normal viewing window and could not be rotated. As far as I could tell, those sources were secondary at best.

---The conclusions there might be faulty, but that does not mean that the historical data they mention is horribly misstated.

The article is not credible. I don't care if they happened to get some of it correct, because some of it is demonstrably wrong. Get a better source. As far as I can tell, Mormons don't believe that Jesus is equivalent to Horus and other pagan gods. That IS "historical data" that is horribly mis-stated. That you are willing to put forth such a source does not enhance your credibility.

[Cow Poke]

Plus, how many people really click on links we provide? How was I to know you actually cared enough to want to read the essay?

I'm hurt! I click on your links AND OC's. For example, I watched BOTH videos ALL THE WAY - the one of the really sad man who appeared to be convincing himself that the BoM was real AND the guy who sounded like the Wizard of Oz explaining how he, as legal counsel, presented a case (unopposed) to a UK judge who sobbed and said IF that's true, it's the most amazing story....

How DARE you [mock outrage] assume we don't follow your links!

[Sparko]

hey if we don't click on your links how else would we find out how lousy your sources are?

I make it a point to always check the sources that someone provides when I am debating them.

[Cow Poke]

hey if we don't click on your links how else would we find out how lousy your sources are?

I make it a point to always check the sources that someone provides when I am debating them.

I think this explains a lot of things, though.. they're not clicking on OUR links, so they assume....

[nrajeff]

Yet you knew it was available online (you did check before providing the information, right?).

---I knew it was, yes. That's why I could confidently tell you that if YOU Googled it, you'd find it without much difficulty.

If you're going to provide evidence, it's better to assume that people will read it than otherwise.

--What---assume that people who are prejudiced against my beliefs WILL think objectively and will thoughtfully look at the evidence they requested and that I provided? Sorry, I am getting too jaded to automatically assume such a Pollyannaish thing.

No, it doesn't seem very logical. On the other hand, I'm dealing with an organization that places a higher emphasis on a "burning in the bosom" than evidence.

--See what I mean? Classic example of mischaracterization right there. We place a lot of importance on the witness of the HOLY SPIRIT. If YOU do NOT, then I suggest that your mockery isn't really gonna score you any points in a real debate.

For a very comprehensive look, try,,,

--And you are asserting that those books will convincingly establish that post-apostolic Christendom did NOT go through a dark era of debilitating apostasy and illegitimate leadership? Really? How, exactly, does the abolishing of the entire top-tier leadership of Christianity, their authority seized by bishops without any scriptural imprimatur, the tenure of a child Pope and a female Pope and an king-appointed Pope, NOT suggest that something bad happened to Christendom in the Post-Apostolic Era?

I looked it up on Google Books. The scan job isn't very dark, the sources listed were not specifically linked to numbers on the table, and the sources were listed perpendicular to the normal viewing window and could not be rotated. As far as I could tell, those sources were secondary at best.

---And that is David Stewart's fault? What, IYO, does he need to do for you in order to "make it right"?

The article is not credible. I don't care if they happened to get some of it correct, because some of it is demonstrably wrong.

---Well, if the part that supports my argument is demonstrably wrong, then I guess I have a problem.

[One Bad Pig]

--What---assume that people who are prejudiced against my beliefs WILL think objectively and will thoughtfully look at the evidence they requested and that I provided? Sorry, I am getting too jaded to automatically assume such a Pollyannaish thing.

No, that's not what I asked you to assume, though I'll note that if you assume failure from the get-go, why even enter the conversation? You aren't just providing evidence for me. You're providing evidence for everyone who happens to stumble across this thread. It's a fair assumption that SOMEONE will think objectively and thoughtfully look at the evidence you provide, even if it isn't me.

--See what I mean? Classic example of mischaracterization right there. We place a lot of importance on the witness of the HOLY SPIRIT. If YOU do NOT, then I suggest that your mockery isn't really gonna score you any points in a real debate.

I apologize for my mocking tone. You place a lot of importance on what you think is the witness of the Holy Spirit, depending on a text revealed (in a unique manner, I might add) for just such a witness. You don't ask investigators to evaluate the text doctrinally or historically, but for a 'burning in the bosom'. I place a lot of importance on the witness of the Holy Spirit. In fact, as I believe the Holy Spirit is God but you don't, I dare say I place more importance on the witness of the Holy Spirit than you do. As far as I can see, you preach a different Jesus and a different gospel than Paul preached, which Paul warned against in 2 Cor 11 and Gal 1. I take the witness of the Holy Spirit through Paul's writings very seriously.

--And you are asserting that those books will convincingly establish that post-apostolic Christendom did NOT go through a dark era of debilitating apostasy and illegitimate leadership? Really?

No. I am asserting that those books will convincingly establish that the core doctrines we believe today are the same as the first century Church.

How, exactly, does the abolishing of the entire top-tier leadership of Christianity, their authority seized by bishops without any scriptural imprimatur,

The unmitigated gall of overseers appointed by the apostles according to scripture to fill the role of overseers to act as *gasp* OVERSEERS! That God (or His appointed agent in your opinion) did not see fit to appoint further apostles can hardly charitably be blamed on the Church which, in your opinion, was being misguided precisely because of that lack of apostles.

the tenure of a child Pope and a female Pope and an king-appointed Pope, NOT suggest that something bad happened to Christendom in the Post-Apostolic Era?

Do the mis-steps of an organization, whom I view as having departed from apostolicity, over 1000 years after the apostles suggest that something bad happened to Christendom in the immediate Post-Apostolic Era? Hardly. I do not dispute that Christendom in the West post-schism was in serious need of reform.

---And that is David Stewart's fault? What, IYO, does he need to do for you in order to "make it right"?

Citing some primary sources would help immensely.

---Well, if the part that supports my argument is demonstrably wrong, then I guess I have a problem.

The part that you quoted lacks supporting references. However, this part of what you quoted

Arian Christianity replaced the openly revolting and divisive Nicene Christianity for two generations. It had made itself distinct from Jewish Christianity through its declaration of Jesus' special relationship with God, and yet still didn't accept any of the prevalent pagan ideas about gods fathering human children, nor about gods having multiple personalities. It officially declared itself to wish to share Christianity with those Christians who did think of God such half-Christian, half-pagan terms as such people were still 'Christians at heart' like the Emperor had said.

IS demonstrably wrong.

Correct me if I'm in error, here, but AFAIK the LDS do not equate "Jewish Christianity" with the Ebionites like your source does. I'm also fairly certain that LDS don't have a problem with the idea of gods fathering human children. You're the ones who thing God the Father has a body, after all. It's also rather ironic that a pagan site praises one group of Christians while calling an allegedly half-pagan/half-Christian group "revolting". I'm unaware of Trinitarians who think that God has "multiple personalities." That's more modalist than anything else. Arian Christianity did not replace Nicene Christianity, but was briefly dominant (for political reasons more than theological ones). Just because the emperor was Arian doesn't mean that everyone was.

[Bill the Cat]

Citing some primary sources would help immensely.

And have them stop conflating heretical groups with total a apostasy, oh and learn some early church history instead of quote mining the church fathers' works for things that they don't say.