Posted on 06/11/2008 12:11:33 PM PDT by Revelation 911
would you mind pinging the regulars?
When people badmouth religion, I always say that the trouble arises because there are human beings involved. Imperfect beings tend to handle things imperfectly. It's a pity that various folks worshiping the same Christ tend to hate each other so deeply over doctrine.
The moment you even say the word, “Christ,” you introduce doctrine. So, the argument is about the difference in what and who is Christ. That is not small, but huge.
I’ll ping the list for you.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
My French Huguenot ancestors who died in the 1600s because of their faith in Jesus, must have been surprised when they found out they died for nothing...
I as going to say "God", but figured someone would take it as my saying there was equivalence between the Christian "God" and the Muslim religion.
problem being, if you investigated the doctrine - youd quickly find they are two different Christs. The problem arises when one faith group (LDS) profess to be Christian, yet abhor everything having to do with the mainstream, from creeds, to infallability of Scripture, to even the place where the atonement of Christ took place.
If the thread doesnt suit your needs, feel free to leave
_________________________________________________________
I haven't really the time for this but sometimes I see things and just shake my head.
What are you calling “Mainstream”? Catholitism? Surely they were not mainstream when Constantine made them the religion of the land. Protestantism? Surly the inquisitors would disagree with you. Is it mainstream because that is what you believe?
The first century Christians would laugh at what we call Christianity today. It took 300 years for what we call the doctrine of the Trinity to creep into the church. Early church members would say we were mad if we believed in the Trinity, they knew Christ. They heard the voice of God from above while The Son was on earth. They knew there was Christ who said He would someday inherit all His Father had.
First century Christians would not call any Catholic or Protestant today Christians, they would be called cults.
_________________________________________________________
I haven't really the time for this but sometimes I see things and just shake my head.
What are you calling “Mainstream”? Catholitism? Surely they were not mainstream when Constantine made them the religion of the land. Protestantism? Surly the inquisitors would disagree with you. Is it mainstream because that is what you believe?
The first century Christians would laugh at what we call Christianity today. It took 300 years for what we call the doctrine of the Trinity to creep into the church. Early church members would say we were mad if we believed in the Trinity, they knew Christ. They heard the voice of God from above while The Son was on earth. They knew there was Christ who said He would someday inherit all His Father had.
First century Christians would not call any Catholic or Protestant today Christians, they would be called cults.
nice try
The inhuman cruelty and Savage barbarity to which were subjected those who dared profess the name of Christ during these centuries of heathen domination are matters of accepted history.
Referencing the period 63-305 AD. In relation to the following a little later-
The emperor (Constatine) straightway made the so-called Christianity of the time the religion of his realm;.............But the church was already in great measure an apostate institution and even in crude outline of organization and service bore but remote resemblance to the Church of Jesus Christ, founded by the Savior and builded through the instrumentality of the apostles.
The period (63-305 AD) of the martyrdom of early Christianity was one where the faith and belief of the church was very pure. Yet Talmage here denigrates the faith (so-called Christianity) of that period by saying it was already apostate. According to mormonism, isn't persecution a sign of the true church? Mormons were never thrown to the lions, nor experienced wholesale murder as the church in that period did. It is very disingenuous for Talmage to say what he did.
More to come later
yeah - Scripture has it all wrong - sarcasm
Luke3:21 When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened 22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."
1+1+1 = 3
I get a kick out of those folks who say there is no trinity in the Bible...you included, because it's right there - all three aspects....TOGETHER
Is is just me or is there far too much LDS posting going on.
Open for discussion.
thanks for asking - I posted a few threads - many previous of which were posted by sevenbak as ecumenical - I posted them as open for free discussion
"far too much LDS posting going on".......in an arena that strictly limits posting opposition to the propaganda. That's why the "Open" threads today.
should read" " It took 300 years for what we call the doctrine of the Trinity to be understood the church."
its funny - you allude the doctrine as being contrived and heretical to early believers, yet make no mention of the BOM - hmmmmm
Mormonism got its start about the same time melville wrote moby dick. The belief that Jesus is fully Man but not Fully God was the rage in the northeast at the time. This is a resurrection of a third century heresy called arianism. It was propounded by and Egyptian named Arius. The council of nicea convened by constantine in 324 AD ruled against it and released the nicean creed. This creed is still read in catholic and evangelical churches today. The first propounder of the arian heresy in the modern age is the unitarian church. They got their start in the 18th century in england. imho they were the result of Issac Newton’s considerable tracts in favor of the arian heresy. Newton was held in demigod status in the anglo saxon world throughout the 18th & 19th century. ie if the master says its so—it must be so. ben franklin brought a unitarian pastor over to the usa after his visit to england.
when melville finished moby dick he began attending a unitarian church. In the 19th century unitarians counted 5 presidents among their number.
That was what was in the air—the zeitgeist of the age— when joseph smith—considered religion.
So the mormons adopted the arian heresy. that is the idea that Jesus is fully Man but not fully God.
Later the Jehovah witnesses adopted the arian heresy.
In europe higher criticicm beginning in late in the 18th century achieved what the unitarians sought—the change over of christendom to the arian heresy—in Europe.
European Higher criticism made the jump to USA mainline protestant church seminaries in the 1890’s. By 1930 most mainline protestant church seminaries had been converted over to some form of arianism.
This is the difference between liberal protestants and evangelical protestants. The liberals hold jesus to a lower status. a nice man.
In europe arianism left the church vulnerable to attacks by atheists. nietzche’s dad was a protestant minister at the time when arianism was all the rage in germany. the problem with arianism is that it robs the church of any power but what assorted members can gin up by main strength. christianity today has collapsed in europe.
mainline protestant churches are head in the same direction as their european cousins.
Only evangelical churches are seeing their numbers grow.
The exception is the mormons.
the great virtue of the mormons is that they have figured out how to compensate with genius organization what they lack in great theology.
Great info! Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.