The Great Apostacy!

[Bill the Cat]

I'm sure that would mean something to the LDS if they thought it was written before the Great Apostacy happened. Since it was largely used approvingly by the early church, that's evidence in LDS eyes that it's the work of apostates, not the faithful few. Mormons, please correct me if I have the wrong impression.

The problem is that they can't agree on when the Great Apostasy started, and the Didache is dated to well before John died.

[master_mormon]

False doctrines were ocurring, but not the Apostasy spoken of by Paul in 2 Thessalonians

During this period, the apostasy had already started. It was a process that occurred over time. Not a sigular event.

As was Jesus. But false doctrines are not what the Apostasy was. Apostasy is abandoning the Christian faith and following the Man of Sin.

Its all related. Apostasy was the rejection of the priesthood, the true doctrines, ect. If one follows the "man of sin" than that would include embrassing false doctrines of different types.

There was no such thing as a "priesthood holder" in the New Testament church. All believers were "a royal priesthood"

LDS believe there where priesthood holders. The royal priesthood would be the Melchezedek priesthood and its not given to all believers. Remember my post is what LDS believe, not what you believe.

So where was the Man of Sin? You know? The one your church calls the AntiChrist? (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_thes/2/3c)

That occurred a long time ago with satan basically coming in and redirecting the ancient church away from what the Lord established.

Note: There is no last days "antichrist" individual in LDS doctrine that is anything like the one evangelicals believe will come to sit in a literal temple before Christ comes.

If LDS believe in any specific individual coming in Israel before Christ comes, it would be the coming of a new king David who will rule over Israel and accomplish all the things that the OT David was not able to accomplish.

"When the Gentiles reject the Gospel it will be taken from them, and go to the House of Israel, to that long-suffering people that are now scattered abroad through all the nations upon the earth, � and they will rebuild Jerusalem their ancient city, and make it more glorious than at the beginning, and they will have a leader in Israel with them, a man that is full of the power of God and the gift of the Holy Ghost; but they are held now from this work, only because the fulness of the Gentiles has not yet come in." (W WOODRUFF JOD 2:200)

"Although David was a king, he never did obtain the spirit and power of Elijah and the fullness of the Priesthood; and the Priesthood that he received, and the throne and kingdom of David is to be taken from him and given to another by the name of David in the last days, raised up out of his lineage." (JS, TPJS p. 339)

[master_mormon]

The problem is that they can't agree on when the Great Apostasy started, and the Didache is dated to well before John died.

I think we can. It started in the 1st century during the lifetime of the apostles.

[Bill the Cat]

I think we can. It started in the 1st century during the lifetime of the apostles.

Again, the evidence is clear that the earliest church believed the Apostasy would not only coincide, but would be LED by the man of sin. So where was he?

The Apostle Paul was very blatant in using different terms to describe false prophets/apostles and the events of the "falling away".

[Bill the Cat]

During this period, the apostasy had already started. It was a process that occurred over time. Not a sigular event.

That's not what the Didache says, nor Paul in Thessalonians

Its all related. Apostasy was the rejection of the priesthood, the true doctrines, ect. If one follows the "man of sin" than that would include embrassing false doctrines of different types.

No, that's not what apostasy is. First off, there was no "priesthood" to reject outside of the one spoken of in 1 Peter. Second, the apostasy was following the man of sin. That's it. True that false doctrines will result, but they in and of themselves were not the apostasy spoken of in Thess.

LDS believe there where priesthood holders.

And LDS are wrong.

The royal priesthood would be the Melchezedek priesthood and its not given to all believers.

The only one spoken of that possesses the Melchizedek Priesthood in the NT is Jesus. Where do you get that anyone else has it?

Remember my post is what LDS believe, not what you believe.

I'm only interested in what the Bible teaches and the early church taught. Both show that Mormonism is not a restoration.

That occurred a long time ago with satan basically coming in and redirecting the ancient church away from what the Lord established.

Again, Paul was specific that these events were closely related. The early church taught that the return of Christ was within the same time frame as the falling away, the man of sin being revealed, and the 70th week of Daniel.

Note: There is no last days "antichrist" individual in LDS doctrine that is anything like the one evangelicals believe will come to sit in a literal temple before Christ comes.

So the Didache teaches what the early church believed, and that was a literal final anti-Christ who would deceive the world, and your church doesn't believe that... and Mormonism is a restoration... how?

If LDS believe in any specific individual coming in Israel before Christ comes, it would be the coming of a new king David who will rule over Israel and accomplish all the things that the OT David was not able to accomplish.

The final David already came. His name was Jesus.

"When the Gentiles reject the Gospel it will be taken from them, and go to the House of Israel, to that long-suffering people that are now scattered abroad through all the nations upon the earth, � and they will rebuild Jerusalem their ancient city, and make it more glorious than at the beginning, and they will have a leader in Israel with them, a man that is full of the power of God and the gift of the Holy Ghost; but they are held now from this work, only because the fulness of the Gentiles has not yet come in." (W WOODRUFF JOD 2:200)

"Although David was a king, he never did obtain the spirit and power of Elijah and the fullness of the Priesthood; and the Priesthood that he received, and the throne and kingdom of David is to be taken from him and given to another by the name of David in the last days, raised up out of his lineage." (JS, TPJS p. 339)

David was a priest after the order of Melchizedek. And the one who was raised up as King from His lineage has already came. Jesus is the seed of David. Joseph Smith was awful at Biblical hermeneutics, and this is more proof.

[master_mormon]

That's not what the Didache says, nor Paul in Thessalonians

What the Didache says or does not say is not what LDS doctrine is centered on. LDS would see the apostasy as an event. LDS simply dont agree with your interpretation nor is our doctrine on the apostasy based on your interpretation.

No, that's not what apostasy is. First off, there was no "priesthood" to reject outside of the one spoken of in 1 Peter. Second, the apostasy was following the man of sin. That's it. True that false doctrines will result, but they in and of themselves were not the apostasy spoken of in Thess.

LDS disagree

And LDS are wrong.

Your opinion is noted

The only one spoken of that possesses the Melchizedek Priesthood in the NT is Jesus. Where do you get that anyone else has it?

Where do you get the notion that only Jesus had it?

I'm only interested in what the Bible teaches and the early church taught. Both show that Mormonism is not a restoration.

Once again, my initial comment was to RCN about what the LDS believe. I dont ask you to believe any what LDS believe. LDS however believe the bible does teach this and rather boldly and clearly.

Again, Paul was specific that these events were closely related. The early church taught that the return of Christ was within the same time frame as the falling away, the man of sin being revealed, and the 70th week of Daniel.

Maybe many in the early church did. I have not not bothered to check on this matter but its not really relevant especially if the apostasy was well on its way and in its "terminal" state at the point the early church was believing this.

What i have checked on and many other non-LDS believe this is that the 70th week of Daniel ended around 34 A.D. The 70th week of Daniel did what the other 69 weeks all did. They immediately preceeded each other with not gaps or intermissions. I see no reason to place a 2000 year gap between the 69th and 70th week. More on this possibly later on its own separate thread.

So the Didache teaches what the early church believed, and that was a literal final anti-Christ who would deceive the world, and your church doesn't believe that... and Mormonism is a restoration... how?

See above. No there is not literal final anti-christ in the LDS view of the last days.

The final David already came. His name was Jesus.

There is another David that will come in the future according to those views. Another David will be raised up to lead Israel

David was a priest after the order of Melchizedek. And the one who was raised up as King from His lineage has already came. Jesus is the seed of David. Joseph Smith was awful at Biblical hermeneutics, and this is more proof.

Well I am glad at least you believe that other people besides Jesus could hold the Melchizedek priesthood. But once again, where are not talking about the same thing. You may think JS was awful at understanding the Bible and that is fine but if you JS is taking about X and you are talking about Y, then his allegation has no merit.

This latter day David is a different and a greater David than king David in the OT and passively referenced to in a couple of OT places. This David is NOT Jesus but works under Jesus authority

Ezek 34:23-24 "And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd. And I the LORD will be their God, and my servant David a prince among them; I the LORD have spoken it." (see also Ezek 37:22-28)

[JAYMZ]

Where do you get the notion that only Jesus had it?

)

Psalm 110:4, Hebrews 7

The answers there, if you can put aside your bias long enough to see it.

[master_mormon]

Psalm 110:4, Hebrews 7

The answers there, if you can put aside your bias long enough to see it.

Thanks. But bias aside, I dont see the claim.

[JAYMZ]

Thanks. But bias aside, I dont see the claim.

Did you actually read Hebrews ?

Ok, lay it out, step by step scripturally how christians are going to be holding the Melchizedek priesthood after Christ ? If Christ holds it FOREVER.

[master_mormon]

Did you actually read Hebrews ?

Ok, lay it out, step by step scripturally how christians are going to be holding the Melchizedek priesthood after Christ ? If Christ holds it FOREVER.

So since Jesus hold the priesthood forever (I TOTALLY AGREE) that means that nobody else can hold it as well? Let me sleep on that one but I dont promise that when I wake up that that will make anymore sense to me. I fail to see any connection between the two thoughts.

[Cow Poke]

So since Jesus hold the priesthood forever (I TOTALLY AGREE) that means that nobody else can hold it as well? Let me sleep on that one but I dont promise that when I wake up that that will make anymore sense to me. I fail to see any connection between the two thoughts.

Since Jesus holds the Priesthood forever (you totally agree) there is no NEED for any other. He is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End.

[master_mormon]

Since Jesus holds the Priesthood forever (you totally agree) there is no NEED for any other. He is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End.

No need or any other what? The fact that Jesus holds the priesthood does not mean that others can't hold it. Where in Hebrews does it say that since Jesus holds the priesthood that there is no NEED for anyone else to hold it. Jesus has always held the priesthood but that does not mean that Adam, Enoch, Abraham, Moses, and on and on did not also hold it. The priesthood is an order and thus it is delegated to more than one individual. The Father and Jesus do make the rules on how its used and those who hold it simply use it in behalf of them. Perhaps our communication problem is based that we both have different perceptions on what it is and how its used.

[JAYMZ]

So since Jesus hold the priesthood forever (I TOTALLY AGREE) that means that nobody else can hold it as well? Let me sleep on that one but I dont promise that when I wake up that that will make anymore sense to me. I fail to see any connection between the two thoughts.

First of all, Christ is the only one QUALIFIED to hold it.

Second, make the case for mormon qualifications to hold it. The burden of proof is on the LDS on this one. Think about it, why would other people need to hold this very special position anyway ? There is no need because of Christs FINISHED work of the cross. I think you would have to fully understand the ramifications of Christs atonement and work to understand the rest.

Bottom line is.......... mormons have to believe this.......... because there is no room in LDS structure to doubt Smiths very faulty understanding of scripture; because hes a " prophet " of God. Hermeneutically and logically, there is no room for the LDS view of the Melchizedek priesthood.

The mormons have no way of testing what their " prophets " say, and the continuing of teachings like this are the result.

[Cow Poke]

First of all, Christ is the only one QUALIFIED to hold it.

Second, make the case for mormon qualifications to hold it. The burden of proof is on the LDS on this one. Think about it, why would other people need to hold this very special position anyway ? There is no need because of Christs FINISHED work of the cross. I think you would have to fully understand the ramifications of Christs atonement and work to understand the rest.

Bottom line is.......... mormons have to believe this.......... because there is no room in LDS structure to doubt Smiths very faulty understanding of scripture; because hes a " prophet " of God. Hermeneutically and logically, there is no room for the LDS view of the Melchizedek priesthood.

The mormons have no way of testing what their " prophets " say, and the continuing of teachings like this are the result.

I was in the process of answering this, but JAYMZ said it better than I was about to.

Yes, the burden of proof is on the Mormons to show there WAS a need for somebody other than Christ to hold the Priesthood. Like the Mormon's claim that Jesus "needs help" checking people into Heaven. It's just silly. Christ is GOD... He doesn't need our "help".

And, 1 Tim 1:5 tells us "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" Why do we need a "priest" other than Christ?

[Bill the Cat]

What the Didache says or does not say is not what LDS doctrine is centered on. LDS would see the apostasy as an event. LDS simply dont agree with your interpretation nor is our doctrine on the apostasy based on your interpretation.

I wouldn't expect a group who is so wrong on the basic doctrines of God to get something as intricate as the Great Apostasy right.

LDS disagree



Your opinion is noted

What an outstanding scripture-based rebuttal!

Where do you get the notion that only Jesus had it?

Never said He alone had it. The Bible lists 3 people with it, and all have 2 things in common. Melchizedek, David, and Jesus were all 3 priest/kings of Jerusalem. So until you are recognized as the King of Jerusalem, your usurping of the Melchizedek priesthood is a sham.

Once again, my initial comment was to RCN about what the LDS believe. I dont ask you to believe any what LDS believe. LDS however believe the bible does teach this and rather boldly and clearly.

Do tell? I'd LOVE to see where!

Maybe many in the early church did. I have not not bothered to check on this matter but its not really relevant especially if the apostasy was well on its way and in its "terminal" state at the point the early church was believing this.

The Didache was written before John died, and only shortly after Peter and Paul. In fact, many think it pre-dated 1,2,and 3 John. The doctrines contained in it were consistent with the teachings of the earliest church. Again, I ask... what was Mormonism restored FROM? Where are the doctrines in the early church? Where did any of the Apostles speak positively of any doctrine that resembles Mormonism's?

What i have checked on and many other non-LDS believe this is that the 70th week of Daniel ended around 34 A.D. The 70th week of Daniel did what the other 69 weeks all did. They immediately preceeded each other with not gaps or intermissions. I see no reason to place a 2000 year gap between the 69th and 70th week. More on this possibly later on its own separate thread.

I'd love to address this with you.

See above. No there is not literal final anti-christ in the LDS view of the last days.

Then the LDS view can not be a restoration of the early church's belief on the subject, because they did believe in a single literal "world deceiver".

There is another David that will come in the future according to those views. Another David will be raised up to lead Israel

Christ was the final Davidic King.

Well I am glad at least you believe that other people besides Jesus could hold the Melchizedek priesthood. But once again, where are not talking about the same thing. You may think JS was awful at understanding the Bible and that is fine but if you JS is taking about X and you are talking about Y, then his allegation has no merit.

That made absolutely no sense. Care to reformat your statement into some coherency?

This latter day David is a different and a greater David than king David in the OT and passively referenced to in a couple of OT places. This David is NOT Jesus but works under Jesus authority

Sorry, but that is simply hogwash.

Ezek 34:23-24 "And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd. And I the LORD will be their God, and my servant David a prince among them; I the LORD have spoken it." (see also Ezek 37:22-28)

That's Jesus. In fact, Jesus used Ezekiel's shepherd imagery when He spoke of Himself as the Great Shepherd. Additionally, your own church teaches that this will be Messiah:

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ezek/34