Another response would be we see what we want to see. You see a primitive Christianity before it was “infiltrated” by Greek philosophical ideas, because that describes your faith. I see a primitive Christianity that was reaching out to people, using the language and ideas they understood to evangelize them.
This is the central issue for the discussion you are proposing imo. “At first, Christianity did not appeal to Greek philosophy to explain its doctrines… by the end of the second century the Father was evidently identified with “the One” of the philosophers.” This is from the pages by Bickerstaff you pointed to. You apparently think this was a “fundamental slip,” while I count it part of an ordinary “development of doctrine.”
But look at the quote from St Justin you posted. At the end of it, he says Plato and other philosophers agree with Christians on [matter existing before Creation]. Ignoring the issue in brackets, this shows an agreement the “Father was evidently identified with “the One” of the philosophers,” pushing the date of that back to mid 2nd century.
If we look now at Acts 17:28-29, we can push the date back even further:
For ‘In him we live and move and have our being,’ as even some of your poets have said, ‘For we too are his offspring.’ Since therefore we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the divinity is like an image fashioned from gold, silver, or stone by human art and imagination.
Here St Paul is setting the stage for St Justin et al. By quoting a Greek philosopher and a poet, he identifies the Father he preaches with the One of the philosophers.
The period of primitive Christianity when “Christianity did not appeal to Greek philosophy to explain its doctrines” has shrunk to practically nothing. Before St Paul, there is no documentation. We can say almost anything. Or we can say the Church has always sought to express the gospel in the ideas and language of other people, so they can come to faith in the One God and Father of us all.
The name of my church is “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”. The Vatican doesn’t have a problem addressing my church by it’s formal name. Do you figure the Vatican is blaspheming in that link?
One of the best posts I have ever read explaining so clearly what a ridiculous fraud the Mormon religion is from beginning to end. I don’t know how some of these LDS posters can’t see it, but Mormonism is unravelling in real time right before our eyes, not because of cultural pressures or bad conduct by members, but because the very pillars and foundations on which their religion stands are so easily shown to be utterly false.
The Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price, The Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, polygamy/polyandry, eternal marriage, modern temples, secret ceremonies, continuing revelation, etc.–all of it is nonsense and it’s all crumbling.
I disagree with your request. The only way to expose the absurdity of Mormonism is to not censor these posts so that they can be openly refuted.
@Chris-Wa1, like you, I disagree with Mr Nosser’s request. It infuriates me reading his words that even those who consider themselves members of the church he belongs to must start their own threads as well as former members of his church and Catholics doing the same to discuss the beliefs his church holds. Why are we not all able to contribute our findings to this thread?
These threads are for discussion. I do not agree with @Genesis1989t’s request that any post mentioning Mormonism should be deleted. After all, this is Non-Catholic Religions forum. We can all be respectful of one another’s beliefs even in disagreement.
Why start a thread if there is no desire for discussion? Shouldn’t the person who asked the question that inspired Mr Nosser to start this thread in all fairness, have the complete truth? I say he should.
Unless I’m mistaken, the unapproved/private revelations not to be discussed refer only to the Catholic Church not other religions. Every thread and post mentioning the Mormon church or any other that wasn’t Catholic would have to be deleted as well if they mentioned anyone’s private visions or revelations.
Catholic Answers is first and foremost a Catholic apologetics website. They cannot hope to do apologetics if one of their target audiences (non-Catholics) cannot make their claims here. However, the Catholic in the title is not for show. They are allowed by the Church (I can’t remember how this was done) to have Catholic in the name. They can’t call themselves Catholic while simultaneously allowing things that are not Catholic to be promoted as Catholic. Do you see the difference? Mormons coming on here defending Joseph Smith ties into Catholic Answer’s apologetics mission. The Mormons are not promoting Mormon teaching as Catholic, but Mormon. Promoting Medjugorje as a legitimate apparition clashes with saying they’re Catholic when Medjugorje has not been approved by the Church.
When they’re told constantly that the early Church did not believe the things they believe to be true, what did you expect them to do? Why is it surprising that they would then try to cite those same Church Fathers as supportive proof of their beliefs? You do know that they believe that the Great Apostasy happened some time in the early Church? Of course they would try to find ECF quotes then that reflect what they think existed back then.
I know there is no apostasy. Nor did I say there was.
Their New Testament is not the same. It has footnotes from the so-called inspired Joseph Smith translation. I know it is in footnotes, but they consider those changes to be inspired.
Actually my post was strictly in reference to Genesis’ post, not about Tom’s. I don’t really have a problem with somebody starting a thread asking others to keep it to the topic at hand, although I agree in this case that Tom is being too restrictive. I do not agree with Genesis’ request that all Mormon posts be deleted. That wouldn’t accomplish anything and would actually make Catholic Answers look more like LDS leadership who routinely try to censor members by excommunicating them when they say too much. That of course won’t happen, because Catholic Answers does not fear honest, open discussion like Mormon leaders do.
You have nothing to fear when you’re speaking truth. ^^
@Chris-Wa1, yes. I edited my post above when I saw I’d misread.
You are right about that, they have the same set of 27 books of the New Testament.
That seems, well, a bit unrighteously judgmental. Maybe just a bit.
Here’s what I had to say about why I came to CAF:
I guess you get to assume and claim that I’m not telling the truth, that I’m here to “suck you into my 19th century apocalyptic second great awakening stuff”. Not here to dialogue. Not here for any good intentions. I mean, you don’t even know me - I don’t understand how you’d know these things. But you do you, I guess.
Not everythimg is about the visions of Joseph Smith. This thread began with a discussion of Early Christianity. The perspective of the LDS could be interesting since they are dealing with a “new” revelation like the early christians.
I have no idea what will be shown on this thread, I am going to ask.
What I believe could be shown is that the ECF were not Catholic. That when you said, “The ECF were Catholic not Mormon” you were only half right as I pointed out on the other thread. Instead, the earliest ECF were EDS (early day saints).
The ECF were EDS. A POST-Apostolic authority developed that relied upon a faith delivered via scripture and public revelation but which maintained that NOBODY could receive any more public revelation. What the Pastor of Hermas calls “a much inferior place” was prepared for those who didn’t embrace the Apostolic Church before it rejected the idea that God leads mankind by public revelation and closed the door to such a necessary corrective force. Doctrines then DEVELOPED without Public Revelation to help and SOME of these development had corrosive effects.
Also, since this thread is in response to a request by a Catholic poster AND that request was made in response to your claim that “the ECF were Catholic not Mormon,” I was planning on focusing on places were the DEVELOPED Christianity departed from the ORIGINAL Christianity and the CoJCoLDS SOMEHOW taught the ORIGINAL Christianity. The beliefs of folks like my Catholic friend Rory are IMO the strongest 2nd (which is really a complement to Catholicism).
As I said to adamhovey1988, one response would be that the CoJCoLDS threw thousands of weird beliefs at the wall, some of them are bound to filter through “ORIGINAL and not CURRENT” doctrines of Catholicism. My argument against this is that the rejection of creation ex nihilo, divine passibility and embodiment, rejection of metaphysical monotheism (in favor of monarchical and social monotheism), and a strong belief in deification all weave together in ways beyond the throw it at the wall and see what sticks criticism. This is specifically because they are “foundational slips.”
Gazelem seems to have focused on another trend that is also impressive IMO. The movement from a supernatural church with miracles and profound contact between God and man to a more naturalistic church. This included the movement of sacraments like Baptism from being primarily a two way covenant between God and man and secondarily a vehicle for Grace (that perhaps places an indelible mark upon the soul) to being primarily a vehicle for undetectable grace and less about the genuine two way contact and covenant between God and man (understandings of original sin could be included here). This includes the movement from a church lead by public revelation with an open canon to a church without public revelation and only a closed canon. A movement from all members receive revelation and lead families/congregation to the radical divide between laity / religious.