Did all of these factions of early Christianity pretty much dissolve into oblivion more or less as the Catholic Church assimilated and prioritized the doctrines and practices of these early movements? Who were, let's say, the "top dogs" in forming and implementing this assimilation and how did they convince the Holy Fathers of Rome to 'stick to it' rather than sticking it to them?
Honestly I'm not sure how it played out regarding the formation of the Catholic Church. Typically there are some thinkers identified as "proto orthodox" and scholars regard them as precursors to Catholicism, but I'm not clear on the details. I need to do more research there.
This is fascinating stuff. If you were to compare Mormonism with all of the factions/communities that you've described, is there any one, two, or three that would rise to the top if you were to say they compared on many points of doctrine/belief with the Restored Church of Jesus Christ?
Regards,
MG
I don't think any of them are that similar to either Mormonism or Catholicism or Protestantism. But the Johannines seem the most similar to Mormons (and probably other modern Christians), at least by comparison to the others.
There are some things that you don't believe that I do believe. And yes, there is a degree of reasonable/reasoned faith involved. Trying to explain that to a person of no faith is a non-starter. And honestly, it's not worth my time. There are some things that can only be known through the ministrations of the Spirit and through meditative pondering on the 'deep things' of life. As it is, I have absolutely NO idea whether or not you have gone down this path and/or whether you have made the efforts/sacrifice necessary to receive knowledge from a source other than your own mind/intellect.
You have revealed nothing of yourself and your personal journey of faith and spirituality.
Regards,
MG
This thread isn’t about me. And you are now just trying to throw a load of caveats and conditions at the problem to excuse the fact that you are firing blanks and are just too damn lazy to do some proper research into showing that what I said cannot be the case. Also, you can’t. So there’s that. Insisting someone else believe as a rebuttal is just circular nonsense. Imagine a defence lawyer insisting that his case is predicated on the prosecution just starting with the belief that his case is true. You’d rightly be laughed out of the court. I’m laughing at you right now for even suggesting such a childishly stupid nonsensical cop out. Your response is pathetic.
I can see you only as an empty vessel. You have nothing to offer.
Did all of these factions of early Christianity pretty much dissolve into oblivion more or less as the Catholic Church assimilated and prioritized the doctrines and practices of these early movements? Who were, let's say, the "top dogs" in forming and implementing this assimilation and how did they convince the Holy Fathers of Rome to 'stick to it' rather than sticking it to them?
Honestly I'm not sure how it played out regarding the formation of the Catholic Church. Typically there are some thinkers identified as "proto orthodox" and scholars regard them as precursors to Catholicism, but I'm not clear on the details. I need to do more research there.
This is fascinating stuff. If you were to compare Mormonism with all of the factions/communities that you've described, is there any one, two, or three that would rise to the top if you were to say they compared on many points of doctrine/belief with the Restored Church of Jesus Christ?
Regards,
MG
I don't think any of them are that similar to either Mormonism or Catholicism or Protestantism. But the Johannines seem the most similar to Mormons (and probably other modern Christians), at least by comparison to the others.
This thread isn’t about me. And you are now just trying to throw a load of caveats and conditions at the problem to excuse the fact that you are firing blanks and are just too damn lazy to do some proper research into showing that what I said cannot be the case. Also, you can’t. So there’s that. Insisting someone else believe as a rebuttal is just circular nonsense. Imagine a defence lawyer insisting that his case is predicated on the prosecution just starting with the belief that his case is true. You’d rightly be laughed out of the court. I’m laughing at you right now for even suggesting such a childishly stupid nonsensical cop out. Your response is pathetic.
I can see you only as an empty vessel. You have nothing to offer.
Regards,
MG
What crappy thing to say anytime about anyone. Is this the Light of Christ influence?
I can see you only as an empty vessel. You have nothing to offer.
Regards,
MG
What crappy thing to say anytime about anyone. Is this the Light of Christ influence?
It's something I don't say lightly. I have not seen IHQ offer anything substantial except criticism of that which he may not even fully understand. And I don't think the Light of Christ would discourage calling out something for what it is. Facts are facts. I know you feel a need to protect him.
What crappy thing to say anytime about anyone. Is this the Light of Christ influence?
It's something I don't say lightly. I have not seen IHQ offer anything substantial except criticism of that which he may not even fully understand. And I don't think the Light of Christ would discourage calling out something for what it is. Facts are facts. I know you feel a need to protect him.
Regards,
MG
No one is an empty vessel.
And no, I don’t think I need to protect him.
Edit: This has nothing to do with IHQ. It has to do with you referring to a fellow being as an “empty vessel”—an item of no value. It’s a crappy thing to say about anyone.
Edit: I noticed Shade’s filter is changing my perfectly good use of ‘crappy’ into ‘crappy.’ I don’t mean ‘crappy.’ My word starts with an S.
This thread isn’t about me. And you are now just trying to throw a load of caveats and conditions at the problem to excuse the fact that you are firing blanks and are just too damn lazy to do some proper research into showing that what I said cannot be the case. Also, you can’t. So there’s that. Insisting someone else believe as a rebuttal is just circular nonsense. Imagine a defence lawyer insisting that his case is predicated on the prosecution just starting with the belief that his case is true. You’d rightly be laughed out of the court. I’m laughing at you right now for even suggesting such a childishly stupid nonsensical cop out. Your response is pathetic.
I can see you only as an empty vessel. You have nothing to offer.
Regards,
MG
I couldn’t care less how you see me, nor is it relevant. What is relevant is your inability to stick to the topic at hand and offer something substantive and qualitative to the on topic points that I raised in response to your questions.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
