LDS Against LDS claims about Christians & keeping the commandments: the example of Philoxenos of Mabbug

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It is obvious that an apostle is chosen because of the moral character, but other qualities are needed too.

God was not willing to raise another apostle after a while because of the wickedness of the world, including the church. Just read your bible and the history, it is obvious.

Before Paul's death, bishops were not allowing apostles to come into their territory.
All of Asia was turned away from Paul.
Corinth was in turmoil.
Galatia was in a turmoil, having left their first love, Jesus.
All of the 7 churches of Revelations disappeared.
The world was killing his apostles one by one around the Mediterranean world.
6-7 prophecies from apostles about apostasy.
Gnostic, and other religious, and church elders themselves, were always working their alternate religions to take off members after them.
And this is all before the last apostles died and satan was let loose and the persecutions started.

This is the reason Jesus did not continue to replace apostles, which he did in the beginning.

So your contention is that for 1700 years, every single man was of lower moral quality than Peter before Pentecost? Am I supposed to take this seriously? What are the other essential qualities of an Apostle that everyone until Joseph Smith, lacked? You are after all suggesting that the reason there were no Apostles is because no one was worthy of being such, not that God wanted an Apostasy to occur.

Remember we have already established that being a sinner and being of less than perfect faith is not enough reason for God to refuse to appoint an Apostle. Those aspects would seem the most important, yet it didn't stop God from appointing flawed men like Peter.

 

[BigDaddy4]

God has had prophets intermittently throughout the history of the world to lead people to the true God. The last prophet before Jesus, was Malachi. Then 500 years and we have Jesus. He chose 12 to be the leaders of his church when he went to heaven.

As I have shown from the scriptures, the wickedness of the world and even the wickedness in the church finally stopped Jesus from replacing fallen apostles. He had to wait until America was formed to bring back his true church and a new prophet, or it would have been stomped out before it could get started again.
Even in America, the land of the free, his church had problems from the beginnings with persecutions. Jesus had to use extraordinary power to keep this fledgling little church on track and reach a time when the church would have enough members that it could sustain itself.

His church now is one of the fastest growing churches in the world and will continue to grow as people see the vision of the church and get ready for the second coming.

What a bunch of made up baloney! God had prophets continuously from Abraham through Malachi, not "intermittently throughout history".

Wickedness stopped Jesus?? Maybe the weak lds version, but not the true Biblical Jesus. And he "had to wait" for America?? Just how lame is your Jesus? The Jesus of the Bible says "I have overcome the world" (John 16:33), but your version says wickedness stopped him and he had to wait for a country thousands of miles away from the land God promised Abraham??? Not my Jesus!

The lds may be one of the fastest growing cults, but it is certainly not a Christian church or organization. You are being deceived!

 

[Peter1000]

That still doesn't make sense, Peter. Doctrinal disputes occurred during the lives of the apostles, as testified to by the Apostolic Council in the book of the Acts of the Apostles in the Bible itself. So their simply being alive wasn't some kind of bulwark against dissent.

Just face the fact that there's nothing you can say that can either make your ecclesiology make sense or be present in the first century.

Yes disputes happen, they even happen in our church. I have been told stories that as our apostles meet there can be disputes, but then when the discussion is complete, the prophet makes the decision, then all come together and all are one as they carry out the final decision very much like the Acts council.

Again, Ephesians 4 explains why we need living apostles and what will happen if we don't have them. It is the best scripture to describe this need than any church father could give.

 

[Peter1000]

What a bunch of made up baloney! God had prophets continuously from Abraham through Malachi, not "intermittently throughout history".

Wickedness stopped Jesus?? Maybe the weak lds version, but not the true Biblical Jesus. And he "had to wait" for America?? Just how lame is your Jesus? The Jesus of the Bible says "I have overcome the world" (John 16:33), but your version says wickedness stopped him and he had to wait for a country thousands of miles away from the land God promised Abraham??? Not my Jesus!

The lds may be one of the fastest growing cults, but it is certainly not a Christian church or organization. You are being deceived!

OK, you had Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. How many years was there between Jacob and Moses. Who was the prophet after Jacob? That's just 1 intermittency in history. If I had time to go through the whole OT I would find 5+ more.

Who started the House of Israel? Jesus. Who stopped Israel? Jesus. Why did he stop it? Because of their wickedness. How powerful was Jesus that he did not stop Israels wickedness?
What did Jesus do, he came and dropped Israel flat on its face. He then created a NT, a new priesthood, a new church. A new leadership.

Jesus stayed with them until they turned, just like Israel before them, and then he started one more time, in the last and great dispensation of the fullness of times, to restore all things and reveal all things, and a new church and a new leadership to be on earth to help him get the earth ready for his second coming.

Jesus is not weak, people are weak, and he has to deal with it.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Jesus is not weak, people are weak, and he has to deal with it.

I seem to recall Paul being told that God's strength is made perfect in man's weakness. Is your argument then that men were too weak to be made Apostles for 1700 years? Peter by all accounts in Gospel was pretty weak as well.

I find it interesting that whenever you try to find a criteria to limit Apostleship, you end up challenging God's initial appointment of the Apostles.

 

[Peter1000]

I seem to recall Paul being told that God's strength is made perfect in man's weakness. Is your argument then that men were too weak to be made Apostles for 1700 years? Peter by all accounts in Gospel was pretty weak as well.

I find it interesting that whenever you try to find a criteria to limit Apostleship, you end up challenging God's initial appointment of the Apostles.

You are the one trying to find a criteria to limit apostleship, not me, I know why. The problem you have is I am right, because there were no new living apostles after 120. So pick your poison for why that is, but the fact is, Jesus did not appoint other apostles after 120.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

You are the one trying to find a criteria to limit apostleship, not me, I know why. The problem you have is I am right, because there were no new living apostles after 120. So pick your poison for why that is, but the fact is, Jesus did not appoint other apostles after 120.

Nice dodge. If there were no Apostles there must be a reason why. You have suggested that it was due to some failing of men over the course of 1700 years. What was it that all men lacked until Joseph Smith came along? Or is that none of them lacked the essential qualities because God can make any man an Apostle? Is it perhaps because God wanted an Apostasy to occur? Does the latter not sound more reasonable?

 

[Peter1000]

Nice dodge. If there were no Apostles there must be a reason why. You have suggested that it was due to some failing of men over the course of 1700 years. What was it that all men lacked until Joseph Smith came along? Or is that none of them lacked the essential qualities because God can make any man an Apostle? Is it perhaps because God wanted an Apostasy to occur? Does the latter not sound more reasonable?

God did not want an apostasy. But because of the world, apostasy began early, even in the times the apostles were alive. They even prophesied of the apostasy. So Jesus knew full well what was going to happen, but yet for a while, he replaced murdered apostles, but finally, like the Children of Israel, gave them up to their own wisdom, and waited until there was a time he could bring back, in full force his church. That was in 1830. Today his church is worldwide and growing. It will continue to grow even in the light of satans onslaught against Christianity.

The Lord promised JS that the church would not be taken from the earth until his second coming and it was the purpose of his church to get the world ready for his second coming.

 

[dzheremi]

With its 'great apostasy' and other restorationist ideas that basically make God into an incompetent and capricious figure, Mormonism seems much more like a tool in "Satan's onslaught against Christianity" than God's answer to it.

 

[He is the way]

With its 'great apostasy' and other restorationist ideas that basically make God into an incompetent and capricious figure, Mormonism seems much more like a tool in "Satan's onslaught against Christianity" than God's answer to it.

God is not incompetent, Jesus and the apostles except John were all killed. The gospel had to be restored:

(New Testament | Matthew 23:37 - 39)

37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

 

[Peter1000]

With its 'great apostasy' and other restorationist ideas that basically make God into an incompetent and capricious figure, Mormonism seems much more like a tool in "Satan's onslaught against Christianity" than God's answer to it.

Just ask yourself, Jesus creates the nation of Israel as his personal, #1 nation of the earth. He let it be known by incredible miracles that he truly existed and was a real force in their nations history, over and over and over and over.

How is it that with that much hands on display of God's awesome power he could not persuade this small nation to be His people?
Why did God have to jettison his own people?
Was he a weak God?
Was he not able to keep them?

If you can answer that question about Israel and God, you will answer the question about the church of the first century and God.

 

[dzheremi]

God is not incompetent, Jesus and the apostles except John were all killed. The gospel had to be restored:

(New Testament | Matthew 23:37 - 39)

37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Yes, that was Christ Himself quoting the Psalms (written before His incarnation, obviously), which were written about the One about Whom they would say that...

Who could that be?!

Christ fulfilling prophecy has nothing to do with Mormonism's restoration fantasies.

 

[dzheremi]

Just ask yourself, Jesus creates the nation of Israel as his personal, #1 nation of the earth. He let it be known by incredible miracles that he truly existed and was a real force in their nations history, over and over and over and over.

How is it that with that much hands on display of God's awesome power he could not persuade this small nation to be His people?
Why did God have to jettison his own people?
Was he a weak God?
Was he not able to keep them?

If you can answer that question about Israel and God, you will answer the question about the church of the first century and God.

Hahaha. I'm sorry, are you under the impression that what God does is bounded by what man will accept or not accept? Because that doesn't sound like the God I or any other Christians worship. Even when the Israelites had gone completely off the rails and were bowing down to the golden calf and doing all other kinds of nonsense, it would be inappropriate in the extreme to say that "he could not persuade this small nation to be His people". There is an element of struggling with God, as Jacob did, found in every religious tradition that claims Abraham, but this is different than saying "God tried and failed", which is basically what you are saying by phrasing things as though God is just a bad persuader or something. He doesn't need to persuade anyone. Moses tried to approach Him according to his own understanding and was told (not asked, told) to remove his sandals, because he was standing upon holy ground. This is why we remove our shoes before entering any Orthodox church, because that too is holy ground. The Lord is present there.

That is the God I worship. The creator and pantocrator of the universe. Your mileage may vary.

So how to answer your question, then...hmmm...well, considering that you are wrong that "God could not persuade them", I would then say you are wrong that God is a weak God. That some people use their free will to follow after other gods -- as Mormons most definitely do -- is not a reflection on God, but on those people, and those people will then face the consequences at the appointed time.

The difference between this and Mormonism's restoration fantasies is that we as Christians believe that Christ's coming, preaching, performing miracles, manifesting the Lord before all of His people, and at the appointed time giving up His life of His own will upon the holy wood the life-giving cross is the salvation and transformation of all. So there is nothing to be 'restored', because there is nothing that has been lost or is otherwise defective in Christ's once-and-for-all perfect victory over death, by which any who are saved are saved. He doesn't "un-rise" from the dead because some people after Him are bad people. That's just ridiculous. And all the proof-texting in the world of the various verses in the NT that indicate that some will apostasize from the faith do nothing to undo that, either, because, again, there is no logical reason why Mormonism should be taken as evidence of that apostasy, rather than the antidote to it.

You are not Israel and what happened to ancient Israel really has no bearing on Mormonism, as Mormonism is an entirely different religion, born in the religious environment of the United States in the 1820s and 1830s. You are free to project your nonsense back through time as far as you'd like, but as the entire point of this thread is to show a piece of actually existing evidence that LDS claims against historical Christianity are wrong, the utter lack of corresponding real-world evidence on the Mormon side (since of course Mormonism didn't exist in the 5th-6th century, because of the 'great apostasy') is telling.

Basically, it's your nothing versus our everything, and you want them to be equated in terms of evidentiary value, because if they're not, your entire religion crumbles to dust.

Well...ya better go rent a backhoe or something to transport the giant pile of dust that was your religion out of the arena of ideas forever, because it doesn't belong here with people whose religion does not rely on an alternate history narrative of which there is absolutely zero proof beyond "Well what about happened to these other people?" (which is not proof at all; it's just conjecture and begging the question.)

 

[He is the way]

Yes, that was Christ Himself quoting the Psalms (written before His incarnation, obviously), which were written about the One about Whom they would say that...


Christ fulfilling prophecy has nothing to do with Mormonism's restoration fantasies.

It was indeed a fulfillment of prophecy and Israel's house was left desolate. There were no more prophets left on the earth to guide God's church. It was not until the fullness of the gospel was restored along with the priesthood and all of the ordinances through Jesus Christ and the apostles that His church was reestablished on the earth. Without this there would be no hope for our ancestors. However, God is fair and just with all of His children.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

God did not want an apostasy. But because of the world, apostasy began early, even in the times the apostles were alive. They even prophesied of the apostasy. So Jesus knew full well what was going to happen, but yet for a while, he replaced murdered apostles, but finally, like the Children of Israel, gave them up to their own wisdom, and waited until there was a time he could bring back, in full force his church. That was in 1830. Today his church is worldwide and growing. It will continue to grow even in the light of satans onslaught against Christianity.

The Lord promised JS that the church would not be taken from the earth until his second coming and it was the purpose of his church to get the world ready for his second coming.

So the evil of the world prevents God from appointing an Apostle? Was then everyone before Joseph Smith and after the Apostles so utterly evil that God couldn't find anyone trustworthy to be an Apostle?

 

[Peter1000]

Hahaha. I'm sorry, are you under the impression that what God does is bounded by what man will accept or not accept? Because that doesn't sound like the God I or any other Christians worship. Even when the Israelites had gone completely off the rails and were bowing down to the golden calf and doing all other kinds of nonsense, it would be inappropriate in the extreme to say that "he could not persuade this small nation to be His people". There is an element of struggling with God, as Jacob did, found in every religious tradition that claims Abraham, but this is different than saying "God tried and failed", which is basically what you are saying by phrasing things as though God is just a bad persuader or something. He doesn't need to persuade anyone. Moses tried to approach Him according to his own understanding and was told (not asked, told) to remove his sandals, because he was standing upon holy ground. This is why we remove our shoes before entering any Orthodox church, because that too is holy ground. The Lord is present there.

That is the God I worship. The creator and pantocrator of the universe. Your mileage may vary.

So how to answer your question, then...hmmm...well, considering that you are wrong that "God could not persuade them", I would then say you are wrong that God is a weak God. That some people use their free will to follow after other gods -- as Mormons most definitely do -- is not a reflection on God, but on those people, and those people will then face the consequences at the appointed time.

The difference between this and Mormonism's restoration fantasies is that we as Christians believe that Christ's coming, preaching, performing miracles, manifesting the Lord before all of His people, and at the appointed time giving up His life of His own will upon the holy wood the life-giving cross is the salvation and transformation of all. So there is nothing to be 'restored', because there is nothing that has been lost or is otherwise defective in Christ's once-and-for-all perfect victory over death, by which any who are saved are saved. He doesn't "un-rise" from the dead because some people after Him are bad people. That's just ridiculous. And all the proof-texting in the world of the various verses in the NT that indicate that some will apostasize from the faith do nothing to undo that, either, because, again, there is no logical reason why Mormonism should be taken as evidence of that apostasy, rather than the antidote to it.

You are not Israel and what happened to ancient Israel really has no bearing on Mormonism, as Mormonism is an entirely different religion, born in the religious environment of the United States in the 1820s and 1830s. You are free to project your nonsense back through time as far as you'd like, but as the entire point of this thread is to show a piece of actually existing evidence that LDS claims against historical Christianity are wrong, the utter lack of corresponding real-world evidence on the Mormon side (since of course Mormonism didn't exist in the 5th-6th century, because of the 'great apostasy') is telling.

Basically, it's your nothing versus our everything, and you want them to be equated in terms of evidentiary value, because if they're not, your entire religion crumbles to dust.

Well...ya better go rent a backhoe or something to transport the giant pile of dust that was your religion out of the arena of ideas forever, because it doesn't belong here with people whose religion does not rely on an alternate history narrative of which there is absolutely zero proof beyond "Well what about happened to these other people?" (which is not proof at all; it's just conjecture and begging the question.)

I was responding to this quote:
With its 'great apostasy' and other restorationist ideas that basically make God into an incompetent and capricious figure, Mormonism seems much more like a tool in "Satan's onslaught against Christianity" than God's answer to it.

In answer to God is incompetent and capricious figure I presented to you the relationship between the House of Israel and God to answer that God was not the incompetent party when it came to the decline and fall of Israel. It was Israel. As soon as Israel got to a certain point in their wickedness, God withdrew and let them have their own wisdom and their own thoughts. Their own thoughts and wisdom, lead them down to destruction. Oh, they had an inclination toward their God, but it was more of lip service than real.
So is God incompetent that he allowed the Church of Jesus Christ of First-century Saints to fail? No, again the answer is God withdrew at a certain time and allowed the church fathers to govern themselves according to their thoughts and their wisdom. The ecumenical councils are proof of their thoughts, and wisdom, you see what I mean, especially the council of Ephesus !!.

Was God incompetent when according to Luther, Rome was satan's playground, and the pope was his vicar. No, again it was not God it was the people who rejected God for money and power etc.

So quit asking the question, is God incompetent to keep his church going? Or is God so weak...?,
Or is God not able....? It is not about God. It is about man, just look at Israel and answer your question, how did it happen to us?

 

[dzheremi]

So is God incompetent that he allowed the Church of Jesus Christ of First-century Saints to fail?

But He didn't do that. That didn't happen. The first century Church did not fail. You are presenting your Mormon presuppositions as though they are fact, but no Christian of any kind is going to agree with those. Was it in this thread that our Lutheran friend ViaCrucis recommended that Mormons not do exactly that? I can't remember, but wherever it was, that was good advice. You cannot start from your own belief as though it is true. That is begging the question. Note how I didn't make a bunch of declarative statements in the OP absent any reason for them. I commented on what I felt could be shown of fifth-sixth century Christianity through the writings of one of the saints of that time, so as to answer common points of Mormon apologia from a period source that, if Mormonism was correct, should not have contained what it did.

No, again the answer is God withdrew at a certain time and allowed the church fathers to govern themselves according to their thoughts and their wisdom.

God does not withdraw from His creation after the coming of Christ. The incarnation of Christ was the joining of the heaven and the earth, and the sending of the Holy Spirit was promised to lead our fathers and masters the apostles into all truth. Christians believe that this is what happened, since it's what was promised in the scriptures. Mormons apparently do not believe it (or at least you don't seem to), perhaps because you believe in other scriptures that contradict God's promises.

The ecumenical councils are proof of their thoughts, and wisdom, you see what I mean, especially the council of Ephesus !!.

What is wrong with the Council of Ephesus? It protected the preexisting Christological understand of the ever-virgin St. Mary as "Theotokos", that is, birth-giver to God, against the wrong teachings of the Nestorian party.

Was God incompetent when according to Luther, Rome was satan's playground, and the pope was his vicar. No, again it was not God it was the people who rejected God for money and power etc.

What does Luther have to do with anything? Are you just picking random events and people out of time, for seemingly no reason? Again, Peter, the key is to explain why whatever you're thinking of is an example of what you say it is, not to simply put it out there and say "You know what I mean", or to pretend to read the minds of Protestant reformers for some reason (as though Luther didn't leave plenty of writings that you can read, if you actually care about what he had to say beyond attempting to use it to buttress your own religion's claims against Christianity).

So quit asking the question, is God incompetent to keep his church going? Or is God so weak...?,
Or is God not able....? It is not about God. It is about man, just look at Israel and answer your question, how did it happen to us?

The ethnic Jews of the Old Testament are none of my concern, beyond the early generations of prophets and later apostles of Christ (who all taught Christ, first in shadows and archetypes, and then clearly after His coming; see St. Justin Martyr's "seeds of the Word" on this). The Church is the Israel of God, and therefore the only Israel that concerns me. And there is nothing that has happened or is happening to it which it cannot withstand, because being the body of Christ as it is, with our Lord and God Jesus Christ at its head, it continues on being the ark of salvation that it has always been -- from its first century baptism at Pentecost to today and forever and ever beyond, until the second coming of our Lord, God, and Savior which will be the end of time and reality as we know it.

 

[Peter1000]

But He didn't do that. That didn't happen. The first century Church did not fail. You are presenting your Mormon presuppositions as though they are fact, but no Christian of any kind is going to agree with those. Was it in this thread that our Lutheran friend ViaCrucis recommended that Mormons not do exactly that? I can't remember, but wherever it was, that was good advice. You cannot start from your own belief as though it is true. That is begging the question. Note how I didn't make a bunch of declarative statements in the OP absent any reason for them. I commented on what I felt could be shown of fifth-sixth century Christianity through the writings of one of the saints of that time, so as to answer common points of Mormon apologia from a period source that, if Mormonism was correct, should not have contained what it did.



God does not withdraw from His creation after the coming of Christ. The incarnation of Christ was the joining of the heaven and the earth, and the sending of the Holy Spirit was promised to lead our fathers and masters the apostles into all truth. Christians believe that this is what happened, since it's what was promised in the scriptures. Mormons apparently do not believe it (or at least you don't seem to), perhaps because you believe in other scriptures that contradict God's promises.

What is wrong with the Council of Ephesus? It protected the preexisting Christological understand of the ever-virgin St. Mary as "Theotokos", that is, birth-giver to God, against the wrong teachings of the Nestorian party.

What does Luther have to do with anything?

Are you just picking random events and people out of time, for seemingly no reason? Again, Peter, the key is to explain why whatever you're thinking of is an example of what you say it is, not to simply put it out there and say "You know what I mean", or to pretend to read the minds of Protestant reformers for some reason (as though Luther didn't leave plenty of writings that you can read, if you actually care about what he had to say beyond attempting to use it to buttress your own religion's claims against Christianity).



The ethnic Jews of the Old Testament are none of my concern, beyond the early generations of prophets and later apostles of Christ (who all taught Christ, first in shadows and archetypes, and then clearly after His coming; see St. Justin Martyr's "seeds of the Word" on this). The Church is the Israel of God, and therefore the only Israel that concerns me. And there is nothing that has happened or is happening to it which it cannot withstand, because being the body of Christ as it is, with our Lord and God Jesus Christ at its head, it continues on being the ark of salvation that it has always been -- from its first century baptism at Pentecost to today and forever and ever beyond, until the second coming of our Lord, God, and Savior which will be the end of time and reality as we know it.

What is wrong with the Council of Ephesus? It protected the preexisting Christological understand of the ever-virgin St. Mary as "Theotokos", that is, birth-giver to God, against the wrong teachings of the Nestorian party.

The council also overturned many of the supposed 'God-breathed' articles of the first Ephesus council.
The council also allowed Flavian to be beaten to death, is that how Jesus does things. Legates from Rome snuck out and got away before they were lynched.

Read the whole thing and your head will be dizzy before you get through the Ibas case.

What does Luther have to do with anything?

We are talking about the apostasy and Luther is an eye witness that it was fully run by his time. He says the pope was not the Vicar of Christ, but was the vicar of satan. And Rome was the playground of satan. We are talking about the apostasy and the largest Christian church by 1560 was the Catholic church. It was in full apostasy.

That is why Luther has to do with anything?

 

[dzheremi]

The council also overturned many of the supposed 'God-breathed' articles of the first Ephesus council.

What? What are you talking about? Ephesus or Ephesus II? I thought you were asking about Ephesus? (431)

The council also allowed Flavian to be beaten to death, is that how Jesus does things. Legates from Rome snuck out and got away before they were lynched.

This is getting into contentious territory in a mixed-communion environment, so all I will say is that this is the Chalcedonian version of the history of this council, and it is not accepted as fact by my Church.

Read the whole thing and your head will be dizzy before you get through the Ibas case.

I don't know why you are so hung up on Ibas all of the sudden...reminds me of a few years ago when you felt the need to reference St. Justin Martyr as often as possible, as though that supported you...the difference being that Ibas is condemned as a heretic by Chalcedonian (Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic) and Oriental Orthodox alike, so there's really no point in appealing to him in any fashion.

We are talking about the apostasy and Luther is an eye witness that it was fully run by his time.

Yeah, his time was also about a millennia after Mor Philoxenos of Mabbug, and Wittenberg is over 2,100 miles from Mabbug (modern Manbij, Syria), so seriously...what is your point?

He says the pope was not the Vicar of Christ, but was the vicar of satan. And Rome was the playground of satan. We are talking about the apostasy and the largest Christian church by 1560 was the Catholic church. It was in full apostasy.

Nobody is talking about the medieval/early modern Roman Catholic Church but you, Peter.

That is why Luther has to do with anything?

I don't buy it. You appear to be throwing out random names and situations that are not connected to the point of the thread, which is how the very things that Mormons constantly claim that we do not teach were present throughout the Christian world many centuries after the so-called 'great apostasy' is supposed by Mormonism to have started (as indeed they are today). As happy as I am to see you trying to at least cite some historical figures and situations, if they cannot be plausibly connected to the topic in some way beyond "Well this person was around and said stuff that I agree with", then they're pretty well useless.

 

[Peter1000]

What? What are you talking about? Ephesus or Ephesus II? I thought you were asking about Ephesus? (431)

I apologize, you were talking Ephesus I and I was talking talking Ephesus II.

This is getting into contentious territory in a mixed-communion environment, so all I will say is that this is the Chalcedonian version of the history of this council, and it is not accepted as fact by my Church.

So there are 2 versions. One from your enemies, and one from your own people. You are aware that everything to do with Ephesus 2 was condemned by rome as unjust and ungodly. Rome excommunicated everyone that was in leadership at Ephesus 2. I believe, even the emperor exiled Doiscorus and under contention elected another bishop that would follow his commands. (Another hint of who was the head of the church.)

So Ephesus 2 was a bust. But to me an indicator that the church was going a wrong direction, fast.

I don't know why you are so hung up on Ibas all of the sudden...reminds me of a few years ago when you felt the need to reference St. Justin Martyr as often as possible, as though that supported you...the difference being that Ibas is condemned as a heretic by Chalcedonian (Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic) and Oriental Orthodox alike, so there's really no point in appealing to him in any fashion.

Ibas is an eye witness to the folly of the church in 449.
1) he is accused of crimes
2) he is acquitted of those crimes by the bishop of Antioch, who should have had the final say.
3) the accusers go to the emperor, over the head of Antioch.
4) 3 bishops chosen by the emperor find Ibas not guilty.
5) the accusers then get a governor to petition the emperor
6) the governor is given power to investigate Ibas a 3rd time, by the emperor (not the bishop of Antioch, who is totally out of the loop by now, who should have had the final say as head of the church in his area).
7) the governor reports to the emperor
8) the emperor makes the final decision (not the bishop of Antioch) and replaces Ibas with a new bishop.
9) the council of Ephesus follows the emperor's orders and excommunicates Ibas and his case is fianlly adjudicated.

I use the case of Ibas to illustrate who is the head of the church in 449. And to illustrate what apostasy looks like. 3 acquittals and relentless persecution until the persecutors get what they want. Where was the Holy Spirit in all of this? Is this how the Church of Jesus Christ operates, I don't think so, it reads like a keystone cops story.

Of course most of the sees agreed, when the emperor speaks you better listen or you will lose your throne.

Yeah, his time was also about a millennia after Mor Philoxenos of Mabbug, and Wittenberg was 2100 miles from Mabbug?

Mor was trying to pull the people back to the original church. However, emperor Justin I, dethroned Mor's bishop and friend Severus, and exiled Mor and a short time after exile he was murdered. Just another story of hundreds, of who was the head of the church in 523 when Mor was murdered. And an eye witness of the apostasy and the musical thrones associated with the time period. It continued to go downhill all the way to Wittenberg, when Luther tried to stop it, like Mor in 523 in Mabbug, about a millennia before, and about 2100 miles from Wittenberg.

Mor and Luther were engaged in the same struggle against the apostasy.

I don't buy it. You appear to be throwing out random names and situations that are not connected to the point of the thread, which is how the very things that Mormons constantly claim that we do not teach were present throughout the Christian world many centuries after the so-called 'great apostasy' is supposed by Mormonism to have started (as indeed they are today). As happy as I am to see you trying to at least cite some historical figures and situations, if they cannot be plausibly connected to the topic in some way beyond "Well this person was around and said stuff that I agree with", then they're pretty well useless.

As I remember, the reason for the thread was to point out that Mor was preaching to the people to keep the commandments, so there was no apostasy and no need for a restoration. But what you failed to inform us of, is that Justin I, exiled and eventually murdered him for his work, which he obviously thought went against his beliefs.

As it turns out, Mor was one more a perfect example of the apostasy and the very need for a restoration, but only in a time and place where there were not emperor's and kings, and popes and the like that could squash a start up rival, even if that rival was invested with authority from Jesus Christ to restore his church again to the earth. They killed Mor, they also killed JS, but the church had roots by then and could withstand the evil ones. It's all true.