Hope you’re all enjoying this episode, don’t forget to subscribe! Timestamps: 00:00 Why Study 'The Great Apostasy' in Detail? 05:18 What Should Latter-day Saints Study In Christian History? 22:31 Christian Persecution and Emerging Freedom 29:35 The Organisation of The Bible 35:20 The Gnostic Gospels 39:07 Was there Awareness of a Need for a Restoration? 43:43 Dr Combs Historical Study of the Nature of God 1:00:30 Studying Early Christianity and it's Impact on Faith
Thank you for describing the Nicene Creed! My husband was Episcopalian and when I attended his church with him, I would cringe when they recited that creed. But now I see how wonderful this creed is. Truth is so wonderful!
The study of the people your guest mentions is a great study. One can see how the apostasy from the early Church was not a single event or short period. Many doctrines from the early Church survived into 100-500 or so years post-apostles before being changed or eliminated. For example, the early Christian knowledge of an embodied God was still in existence at the time of St. Augustine as seen by the example of his mother who believed the early doctrine while Augustine could only accept the unembodied God of Plato and helped bring that into Christianity. Here are a few quotes that I have found through my reading of early Christian history on the invention and development of the Nicene Trinity over 1000 years or so. It is clearly impossible (if one accepts historical evidence as relevant at all) to escape the claim that the later formulations of dogma cannot be reached by a process of deductive logic from the original propositions and must contain an element of novelty. Wiles, Making of Christian Doctrine, p. 4. The emergence of the full trinitarian doctrine was not possible without significant modification of previously accepted ideas. Wiles, Making of Christian Doctrine, p. 144. there is no trinitarian doctrine in the Synoptics or Acts. (in the New Testament) nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead. in John there is no trinitarian formula. Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity, pp. 14, 16, 29. These passages give no doctrine of the Trinity, but they show that Paul linked together Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They give no trinitarian formula...but they offer material for the later development of trinitarian doctrine. ...(Paul) has no formal trinitarian doctrine and no clearcut realization of a trinitarian problem, but he furnishes much material for the later development of a trinitarian doctrine. Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity, pp. 22-23. There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But the three are there, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and a triadic ground plan is there, and triadic formulas are there....The Biblical witness to God, as we have seen, did not contain any formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, any explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity, pp. 32, 35. The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament. P. Achtemeier, ed., Harper's Bible Dictionary, p. 1099. This double series of texts manifests Paul's lack of clarity in his conception of the relation of the Spirit to the Son. Paul shares with the OT a more fluid notion of personality than the later theological refinements of nature, substance, and person. His lack of clarity should be respected for what it is and be regarded only as the starting point of later development. J. Fitzmyer, Pauline Theology: A Brief Sketch, p. 42. Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as other, presents a somewhat unsteady silhouette. Two things have happened. There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. R.L. Richard, "Trinity, Holy," in New Catholic Encyclopedia 15 vols., 14:295. There is in them (the Apostolic Fathers), of course, no trinitarian doctrine and no awareness of a trinitarian problem. Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 44. The Church had to wait for more than three hundred years for a final synthesis, for not until the Council of Constantinople (381) was the formula of one God existing in three coequal persons formally ratified. J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 87-88. Where the doctrine (of the Trinity) was elaborated, as e.g. in the writings of the Apologists, the language remained on the whole indefinite, and, from a later standpoint, was even partly unorthodox. Sometimes it was not free from a certain subordinationism. F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd ed., p. 1394. The God of the Hebrew Bible is for the most part an anthropomorphic and anthropopathic being, that is, a God who has the form and emotions of humans....The God of the philosophers is a different sort of being altogether: abstract (the Prime Mover, the First Cause, the Mind or Soul of the Universe, etc.), immutable and relatively unconcerned with the affairs of humanity....Popular piety does not need or want an immutable and shapeless Prime Mover; it wants a God who reveals himself to people, listens to prayer, and can be grasped in human terms. This is the God of the Shema, the Bible, and the liturgy. This is the God of practically all the Hebrew and Aramaic, and some of the Greek, Jewish literature of antiquity. It is not, however, the God of the philosophers. Shaye J.D. Cohen, From Maccabees to the Mishnah, vol. 7 of the Library of Early Christianity, pp. 86, 87.
Wow, this is fantastic and helps in understanding the philosophers imprint on the early church! Thankyou so much for taking the time to share your studies! This podcast was wonderful 👏!
I don't know any church members that outright dismiss our Christian heritage during the Great apostasy. I think many Christians outside the church assume we dismiss it because of the term apostasy, but again I've never seen this attitude within the church. The premise of this video is therefore strange to me.
The book Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up is a fantastic read. It’s a critique of evangelical churches in light of the early Christian church. It’s not a book meant to compare to the LDS church, but as I was reading it, it was so clearly laying out a case to compare the LDS church to early Christianity.
I agree that it is a great book and a great introduction to "the early-day Saints", as JSJr called them. The author would probably vehemently disagree that it is a book to promote LDS theology (because he's still mostly evangelical) but it does basically prove that Christianity as it was handed down after Nicea until today is not the Christianity that Christ and the early Church fathers taught. I would add that the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS is closer to the true Christian church but also has many things that need reforming as well. That will happen when Christ comes again, though.
@@forallthesaintspod The guy is not fully correct in saying that latter-day saints got the term great apostasy from just only the early Protestants converts who came into the restored church. Because the Lord speaks his words from out of Zion in the last days Joel 3:15-20. because the gospel has been restored back again on the earth. That's why the last days the Lord speaks by revelation from out of Zion from his prophets as the prophet Joel seen it in vision. The Great Apostasy is also found in the all following scripture references. Isaiah 24.5 changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. Isaiah 29:15. This people draw near unto me with their mouth. Isaiah 60:2 Darkness shall cover the earth and gross darkness the minds of the people. Amos 8:11. A great famine.. of hearing the words of the Lord. Matthew 13:25 his enemy came along and sowed tares among all the wheat. Matthew 24:5, saying I am Christ and shall deceive many. 2 Thessalonians 2:3 shall not come, except there come a falling away first. If there was no great apostasy then there would be no tares among all the wheat.
I have listened three times and need to double that! I love learning of the early church and Gods involvement with mankind through the ages. Breathtaking are the sacrifices of the early believers oftentimes. Thankyou! Time to listen again.
When speaking to others I take care to say that the Godhead consists of three individual personages, who together share and work towards one eternal goal, I take care to avoid the word “being” when describing them as that word seems to freak out those who are not of our faith…
I love reading about early Christians/ity. Richard Lloyd Dewey writes a great Joseph Smith biography, which has a robust appendix that talks about the apostasy and then dives right into what prepared the earth for the restoration by talking about the key Christian characters, especially those who helped bring the Bible to print for all to read. All should check it out! Life sucks right now for Christians worldwide as DEI/CRT/KWEER ideology becomes the religion of the world, but I can’t imagine what our early Christian ancestors went through during “the dark ages”. Great episode!
As convert of over 50 years I have always felt a desire to understand the nature of the "apostasy" and the connections that kept Christian thought alive over the centuries. Years ago, while in a small branch in Michigan, I came across a book that they were disposing of that I still have today. The 1952 Priesthood Manual entitled "The Divine Church, - Down through Change, Apostasy & therefrom, and Restoration" by James L. Baker. I was fascinated by the in depth look at the events following the death of the Apostles including the Apostolic Fathers, apologists, and early church historians. It includes many of the same historical figues as Dr. Combs mentions such as Origin of Alexandria, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Clement of Alexandria, Tatian, Irenaeus, Cyprian of Carthage, Hippolytus and later Eusebius - referencing his "Ecclesiastical History." Imagine that for your elder's Quorm class on Sunday!
I might argue that the original doctrine of the trinity is more of a compromise between multiple groups. Thus, though it may sound correct the reason why it changed (and that even many today have difficulty explaining it) is because the idea is supposed to allow for multiple interpretations. I do think later some modalist like or modalists pulled it more towards their beliefs.
This sounds like we're pandering to the criticisms from the Evangelicals and other Christian sects. I don't care what they think or what "problems" it causes when we describe the nature of God in our terminology.
At the 40 sec mark you identified the term "great apostasy" is not in our scriptures....in multiple translations....2 Thes 2:3.... in French "que l'apostasie" ..... In Italian "sia venuta l'apostasia" .... In Portuguese "primero a apostasia".. . Spanish "la apostasia".... It is safe to say that 400 years after Christ's death..... the whole world was in a fallen state..... void of saving ordinances .... a state of Apostacy.... being a GLOBAL phenomenon.... how can that not be great.... ? Straining at a gnat, to swallow a camel....
Thanks for sharing your insight. It is interesting what insights can come from studying scriptures in different languages. Since our experience and understanding of specific words change over time, it can be easy to misunderstand the probable original word meaning. Then, of course, even using the same language there are differences in understanding of a definition. I do like the example of the word 'being' talked about in the video. I equate 'being' with the words "person, individual, or entity". Yet it was discussed that some people view the word "being" more as a type or species. Considering all this, I can see how easy it is for people to misunderstand and misrepresent another person's beliefs.
We say the sacrament is symbolic , but early Christians who practiced that holy sacrament definitely did not believe the Eucharist was symbolic. Read any early church father for yourself and don’t just take it through the LDS lens. Ignatius of Antioch knew the original apostles, he was taught by them. He absolutely taught about the Eucharist was the actual body, blood , soul, and divinity of Christ. He wrote about this in several letters on his way to Rome where he knew he’d be killed. Those letters were preserved and we have them today. I feel this part of the conversation was disingenuous to represent the early church believing the sacrament was only symbolic, if this author doesn’t know that then I question his motives. Read the gospel of John. Christ couldn’t be more clear.
No where did Ignatius say Eucharist was the actual body, blood , soul, and divinity of Christ. The doctrine of Transubstantiation or Real Presence is very specific and it doesn't get spelled out until after 300 AD. Meaning that you don't see anyone saying that in the Eucharist there occurs a "change", "transelementation", "transformation", "transposing", "alteration", etc of the bread into the body of Christ. Read Luke 22:19.
@@dylanwilliams2202 You’re wrong. The view that the Eucharist was symbolic is a view held only in last few centuries. The Fourth Lateran Council held in 1215 defined transubstantiation which merely provided definitions of what was already known. This guest woefully misrepresented what the early church taught and believed. My guess is that he has done that on purpose. I question his scholarship if he can’t even get that correct. As for Ignatius, in a letter to the Smyrnaeans “take note to those who hold heterodox opinions on the Grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They deny the gift of God and are perishing in their disputes’” In a letter to the Romans “I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible.” If you don’t believe that teaches the holy sacrament it is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ I feel sorry for you. And that is just ONE early church father teaching this, there are so many more! I encourage you to read about them. Have a blessed day!
@@rhyde0731 No, I'm not wrong. Both of those quotes didn't refute anything I said nor did anything else in your comment. Nothing said there would indicate the doctrine of Transubstantiation without presupposing it. This is like a Trinitarian using John 1:1 saying it clearly teaches the Trinity when nothing in there even remotely teaches it. If you want to believe Ignatius does/was teaching Transubstantiation despite it clearly not then be my guest but don't sit here and spread false information. I didn't mention The Fourth Lateran Council held in 1215. I said this language started after 300 AD, so you are about 900 years away from where I am.
@@dylanwilliams2202 you are wrong, but that’s okay! It’s okay to be wrong sometimes, but if you want to find out the truth I highly recommend dedicating a portion of your time to studying the early church fathers. I promise it will change your life. The bread and wine is not merely symbolic, that has only been a heretical view from modern religions. I won’t be responding to this thread anymore. I’m guessing you’ll respond since you seem like the kind of person who likes to have the last word. I hope someday you find the truth about the Eucharist. Peace be with you.
I think people are getting all upset because the speaker said he didn't like the term GREAT being used with the word APOSTASY. (Some people don't even believe in any type of apostasy.) I believe the presenter was trying to help people have more appreciation for early church history. There is a lot of complexity and some misunderstandings because every person looks at things through the lenses of their own understanding of words, definitions of words, beliefs, and experiences. Let's all relax a bit and understand that people usually have very good reasons to believe the way they do often coming from study, scriptures, and prayer.
We're true true church. We should learn everything of we want to convert everyone! If I Told a Buddhist that in a “Word of Wisdom” they may find the highest path to enlightenment, a “Celestial Kingdom” might become self-evident. If I told a Muslim that in the five Pillars of Faith they may find Isa, May Christ reveal himself to them, and too, become self-evident. If I told a scientist that in a primordial prelude, they may find an Alpha and Omega, the first law of thermodynamics may also become self-evident. What we may not yes understand, An Expression of our Venus. This is our restored and Resurrected Remembrance - By The Vector of Melchizedek. This restoration, The Apple of his Venus.
Just today I felt a deeper urge (& urgency?) to learn more about things I have gaps in regarding Christianity generally and as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Thank you both for being a beginning answer to my promptings. ☺️
@@forallthesaintspod hope you have this speaker again - or others like him/similar. As well as everyone else you introduce us to! Less homogeneity is good for a thinking person!
@@n.d.m.515 you’re so funny 😝 that doesn’t make any sense logically that at the time of the apostles that the things they wrote about what Jesus taught them was already wrong. it seems more probable that the Christianity that Jesus taught was more like what the early Christians practiced instead of a complete and total different gospel written 1500 years later. newer isn’t always better.
I am surprised that Dr. Combs contradicts what every general authority and every missionary in the LDS Church teaches, and that Ben Hancock doesn't mind this contradiction at all. It seems that a consistent theology is not a feature of Mormonism at all
I’m not sure he does contradict them in any way. It’s just helpful and faith-affirming to dig into that significant period of time and take what we can learn from it.
@@forallthesaintspod it would be great to organize a discussion with Brad Wilcox who regularly states other denominations are "playing church" and Combs who does not assert a great apostasy but values 1800 years of mainstream Christianity. Which one is it?
@@forallthesaintspodDr. Combs also has a correct understanding of the Trinity, which means the church hierarchy and thousands of LDS missionaries are misrepresenting mainstream Christianity for almost two centuries. I love how you tealize this at the end of your conversation. Niw yhe question is: why did the church teach you false things about other Christias?
@@charlesmendeley9823 The question could also be, "why do other churches teach false things about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?" It is obvious that my understanding of what you believe, and your understanding of what I believe are probably not accurate. Part of that, I assume, is from how we understand the terms we use. As an example, if I understand the word 'smart' to mean intelligent, but another person understands it to mean 'handsome or beautiful', we are going to have difficulty. We both may think the other to be lying. It is easy to misunderstand other people's true thoughts, beliefs, and intentions. Let's realize that most people are doing the best they can with the understanding they have. We don't have to assign the worst possible motives to someone's actions, beliefs, or statements. You certainly would not want others to assign the worst possible motives to something you say or do.
@@rutht2023 I am referring to his study of Nicene Christianity (from 43:43) which he agrees with. This is not what LDS missionaries and general authorities teach.
there was no great apostasy. there was no apostasy or Jesus was a liar because he promised not even the gates of hell could destroy his church and it still exists to this day. Jesus and the apostles warned of false prophets….even if an angel of light shows up and teaches a different gospel do not follow them.
"even if an angel of light shows up and teaches a different gospel do not follow them." Have you thought that maybe it is you who is teaching a different gospel since you do not believe the one you have in which even Jesus said the night cometh in which no man could work.... That means his followers would not be able to work... apparently because the Church would go astray. Revelation 12 says the Church would be persecuted into the wilderness for a time, times and a half or 3.5 years or 1260 days, which have been interpreted as years as made clear by Daniel 9. The apostles themselves alluded to this apostasy, and said that Yeshua would be received in the heavens UNTIL the restoration of all things.... To be a restoration, there must have been a loss of things. Jesus saying the gates of hell would not prevail against His rock is like saying Hell would not prevail against His word... but like I have pointed out, his own word acknowledged that the night or darkness would come... in other words the people would become blind again. But, you are right in the sense that in the end the darkness would not prevail, because all the New Testament recognizes that the truth would be restored.
@@RevelationTestament Vade retro satana come to the true Jesus, pray and obey when he answers. a good feeling is not sufficient discernment. In Jesus name set them free from the lies of the enemy.
@@Poeina The Deuterinomists killed ancient Christianity. Margaret Barker has a lot of insight into how much beautiful symbolism was lost. Please consider studying it out.
@@Poeina You are completely misquoting Matthew 16:18. That is saying that the gates of hell wouldn't prevail against the rock who is Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 10:4), not the Church. Hence why it says “and on this rock (Jesus Christ) I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” This has shown to have been the case because 1 Peter 3:19 tells of Christ going in and teaching to spirits in prison that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. (1 Peter 4:6) and that preaching is still happening today because every knee will bow and confess Jesus is Lord (Philippians 2:10-11) on judgment day. You could also say that it was the testimony of Jesus Christ that Peter had with the context, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock (Peter's testimony) I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.", which is what a lot of the Early Church Fathers said it meant. The gates of hell did not prevail because Jesus Christ broke through the bands of death and hell and his gospel went into hell like a rock smashing through a gate. The gates of hell are *gates* not a person or entity and those *gates* did not prevail against Christ. Even if I were to entertain the idea of it talking of the Church then it still would hold true because the gates of hell didn't prevail against the Church because the Church came back.
Christ said the gates of hell wouldnt prevail against his church and that he would be with his followers until the end of age. Never was there a prophesy that his church would disappear and need to be restored. The mental gymnastics of mormons is embaracing. Christ never said my church will disappear for nearly 2000 years. Nonsens3
There has always been a group of those who believe in Christ and try to carry His way since He came. The Spirit still worked. However, the Priesthood authority was lost over time. Dissensions and apostasies, wolves in sheeps clothing coming into the churchs, fake apostles, fake prophets gradually took greater hold. In the Epistles of Paul we see that of Pauls Bishops and those be ordained to lead Jesus's Church forsook him and became apostate. Emperor Constantine taking control of the Church is one spot us Latter-day Saints also see as important because we believe that because of that, and the subsequent creeds formed from the counsels he set up, much truth was taken and distorted. Just like the Jewish apostasy meant that the Jews could not recognize their savior and fought Him, Christians today struggle to recognize the restoration and fight it.
You guys dont know crap! There would have been no need for the heavens to receive Christ "until the restitution of all things! You dont know crap! The great apostasy was for 1260 years, just look st Revelstiin 12:6 and the JST Revekation 12:5!!! You apoarently havent learned much!!!
Hope you’re all enjoying this episode, don’t forget to subscribe! Timestamps:
00:00 Why Study 'The Great Apostasy' in Detail?
05:18 What Should Latter-day Saints Study In Christian History?
22:31 Christian Persecution and Emerging Freedom
29:35 The Organisation of The Bible
35:20 The Gnostic Gospels
39:07 Was there Awareness of a Need for a Restoration?
43:43 Dr Combs Historical Study of the Nature of God
1:00:30 Studying Early Christianity and it's Impact on Faith
Thank you for describing the Nicene Creed! My husband was Episcopalian and when I attended his church with him, I would cringe when they recited that creed. But now I see how wonderful this creed is. Truth is so wonderful!
The study of the people your guest mentions is a great study. One can see how the apostasy from the early Church was not a single event or short period. Many doctrines from the early Church survived into 100-500 or so years post-apostles before being changed or eliminated. For example, the early Christian knowledge of an embodied God was still in existence at the time of St. Augustine as seen by the example of his mother who believed the early doctrine while Augustine could only accept the unembodied God of Plato and helped bring that into Christianity.
Here are a few quotes that I have found through my reading of early Christian history on the invention and development of the Nicene Trinity over 1000 years or so.
It is clearly impossible (if one accepts historical evidence as relevant at all) to escape the claim that the later formulations of dogma cannot be reached by a process of deductive logic from the original propositions and must contain an element of novelty.
Wiles, Making of Christian Doctrine, p. 4.
The emergence of the full trinitarian doctrine was not possible without significant modification of previously accepted ideas.
Wiles, Making of Christian Doctrine, p. 144.
there is no trinitarian doctrine in the Synoptics or Acts.
(in the New Testament) nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead.
in John there is no trinitarian formula.
Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity, pp. 14, 16, 29.
These passages give no doctrine of the Trinity, but they show that Paul linked together Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They give no trinitarian formula...but they offer material for the later development of trinitarian doctrine.
...(Paul) has no formal trinitarian doctrine and no clearcut realization of a trinitarian problem, but he furnishes much material for the later development of a trinitarian doctrine.
Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity, pp. 22-23.
There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But the three are there, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and a triadic ground plan is there, and triadic formulas are there....The Biblical witness to God, as we have seen, did not contain any formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, any explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons.
Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity, pp. 32, 35.
The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.
P. Achtemeier, ed., Harper's Bible Dictionary, p. 1099.
This double series of texts manifests Paul's lack of clarity in his conception of the relation of the Spirit to the Son. Paul shares with the OT a more fluid notion of personality than the later theological refinements of nature, substance, and person. His lack of clarity should be respected for what it is and be regarded only as the starting point of later development.
J. Fitzmyer, Pauline Theology: A Brief Sketch, p. 42.
Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as other, presents a somewhat unsteady silhouette. Two things have happened. There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century.
R.L. Richard, "Trinity, Holy," in New Catholic Encyclopedia 15 vols., 14:295.
There is in them (the Apostolic Fathers), of course, no trinitarian doctrine and no awareness of a trinitarian problem.
Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 44.
The Church had to wait for more than three hundred years for a final synthesis, for not until the Council of Constantinople (381) was the formula of one God existing in three coequal persons formally ratified.
J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 87-88.
Where the doctrine (of the Trinity) was elaborated, as e.g. in the writings of the Apologists, the language remained on the whole indefinite, and, from a later standpoint, was even partly unorthodox. Sometimes it was not free from a certain subordinationism.
F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd ed., p. 1394.
The God of the Hebrew Bible is for the most part an anthropomorphic and anthropopathic being, that is, a God who has the form and emotions of humans....The God of the philosophers is a different sort of being altogether: abstract (the Prime Mover, the First Cause, the Mind or Soul of the Universe, etc.), immutable and relatively unconcerned with the affairs of humanity....Popular piety does not need or want an immutable and shapeless Prime Mover; it wants a God who reveals himself to people, listens to prayer, and can be grasped in human terms. This is the God of the Shema, the Bible, and the liturgy. This is the God of practically all the Hebrew and Aramaic, and some of the Greek, Jewish literature of antiquity. It is not, however, the God of the philosophers.
Shaye J.D. Cohen, From Maccabees to the Mishnah, vol. 7 of the Library of Early Christianity, pp. 86, 87.
Thank you for taking the time to share these interesting and important quotes with us!
Wow, this is fantastic and helps in understanding the philosophers imprint on the early church! Thankyou so much for taking the time to share your studies! This podcast was wonderful 👏!
I am amazed at the incredible content coming from saints around the world! I'm grateful to have come across your channel Brother!
Thank you! I appreciate your support, it allows me to keep going!
I don't know any church members that outright dismiss our Christian heritage during the Great apostasy. I think many Christians outside the church assume we dismiss it because of the term apostasy, but again I've never seen this attitude within the church. The premise of this video is therefore strange to me.
Did you learn about Justin Martyr and Perpetua in Seminary? I didn’t?
In the future i won’t be so quick to dismiss other Christians for their beliefs.
At the Council of Nicea the majority of Bishops rejected the proposed treatise of the Nature of Deity. It has been a problem ever since.
The book Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up is a fantastic read. It’s a critique of evangelical churches in light of the early Christian church. It’s not a book meant to compare to the LDS church, but as I was reading it, it was so clearly laying out a case to compare the LDS church to early Christianity.
Thanks for the recommendation!
Great book!!
I agree that it is a great book and a great introduction to "the early-day Saints", as JSJr called them. The author would probably vehemently disagree that it is a book to promote LDS theology (because he's still mostly evangelical) but it does basically prove that Christianity as it was handed down after Nicea until today is not the Christianity that Christ and the early Church fathers taught. I would add that the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS is closer to the true Christian church but also has many things that need reforming as well. That will happen when Christ comes again, though.
@@forallthesaintspod The guy is not fully correct in saying that latter-day saints got the term great apostasy from just only the early Protestants converts who came into the restored church. Because the Lord speaks his words from out of Zion in the last days Joel 3:15-20. because the gospel has been restored back again on the earth. That's why the last days the Lord speaks by revelation from out of Zion from his prophets as the prophet Joel seen it in vision.
The Great Apostasy is also found in the all following scripture references.
Isaiah 24.5 changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. Isaiah 29:15. This people draw near unto me with their mouth. Isaiah 60:2 Darkness shall cover the earth and gross darkness the minds of the people. Amos 8:11. A great famine.. of hearing the words of the Lord. Matthew 13:25 his enemy came along and sowed tares among all the wheat. Matthew 24:5, saying I am Christ and shall deceive many. 2 Thessalonians 2:3 shall not come, except there come a falling away first.
If there was no great apostasy then there would be no tares among all the wheat.
@duncansh81, you're lost in translation !!!
I have listened three times and need to double that! I love learning of the early church and Gods involvement with mankind through the ages. Breathtaking are the sacrifices of the early believers oftentimes. Thankyou! Time to listen again.
You are awesome, thanks for your kind comment.
When speaking to others I take care to say that the Godhead consists of three individual personages, who together share and work towards one eternal goal, I take care to avoid the word “being” when describing them as that word seems to freak out those who are not of our faith…
Those three persons R the 1 God( being) of Historical Christianity: they R much more than just working together !!!
Your response is wonderful. And your kindly way of speaking with him. And I didn’t know, myself, the things you know and are sharing!😊
Thank you for such kind comments, this is a topic I love and appreciate!
I love reading about early Christians/ity. Richard Lloyd Dewey writes a great Joseph Smith biography, which has a robust appendix that talks about the apostasy and then dives right into what prepared the earth for the restoration by talking about the key Christian characters, especially those who helped bring the Bible to print for all to read. All should check it out! Life sucks right now for Christians worldwide as DEI/CRT/KWEER ideology becomes the religion of the world, but I can’t imagine what our early Christian ancestors went through during “the dark ages”. Great episode!
Thank you and thanks for the recommendation!
U R Great Apostasy is a Mormon myth!!!
As convert of over 50 years I have always felt a desire to understand the nature of the "apostasy" and the connections that kept Christian thought alive over the centuries. Years ago, while in a small branch in Michigan, I came across a book that they were disposing of that I still have today. The 1952 Priesthood Manual entitled "The Divine Church, - Down through Change, Apostasy & therefrom, and Restoration" by James L. Baker. I was fascinated by the in depth look at the events following the death of the Apostles including the Apostolic Fathers, apologists, and early church historians. It includes many of the same historical figues as Dr. Combs mentions such as Origin of Alexandria, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Clement of Alexandria, Tatian, Irenaeus, Cyprian of Carthage, Hippolytus and later Eusebius - referencing his "Ecclesiastical History." Imagine that for your elder's Quorm class on Sunday!
I would absolutely love that!
Yes. Visit the Ancient Antiochene Church of God.
I pray for more dialogue between all Christians. Great video. Thank you for sharing this. 🙏🏿🩷✝️
Such a fantastic interview.
Really gave me some great new perspective on the early church! Thank you both!
Thank you very much!
I might argue that the original doctrine of the trinity is more of a compromise between multiple groups. Thus, though it may sound correct the reason why it changed (and that even many today have difficulty explaining it) is because the idea is supposed to allow for multiple interpretations. I do think later some modalist like or modalists pulled it more towards their beliefs.
Seems a fair analysis, what I do know is that Dr Combs has made me wish to study this more deeply!
This sounds like we're pandering to the criticisms from the Evangelicals and other Christian sects. I don't care what they think or what "problems" it causes when we describe the nature of God in our terminology.
Fascinating, enlightening, I learned quite a bit I hadn't heard before. Thank you
So glad to hear this, and I felt the same after recording it!
At the 40 sec mark you identified the term "great apostasy" is not in our scriptures....in multiple translations....2 Thes 2:3.... in French "que l'apostasie" ..... In Italian "sia venuta l'apostasia" .... In Portuguese "primero a apostasia".. . Spanish "la apostasia"....
It is safe to say that 400 years after Christ's death..... the whole world was in a fallen state..... void of saving ordinances .... a state of Apostacy.... being a GLOBAL phenomenon.... how can that not be great.... ?
Straining at a gnat, to swallow a camel....
Thanks for sharing your insight. It is interesting what insights can come from studying scriptures in different languages. Since our experience and understanding of specific words change over time, it can be easy to misunderstand the probable original word meaning. Then, of course, even using the same language there are differences in understanding of a definition.
I do like the example of the word 'being' talked about in the video. I equate 'being' with the words "person, individual, or entity". Yet it was discussed that some people view the word "being" more as a type or species. Considering all this, I can see how easy it is for people to misunderstand and misrepresent another person's beliefs.
Good Stuff
Big fan of yours, thank you
Excellent
We say the sacrament is symbolic , but early Christians who practiced that holy sacrament definitely did not believe the Eucharist was symbolic. Read any early church father for yourself and don’t just take it through the LDS lens. Ignatius of Antioch knew the original apostles, he was taught by them. He absolutely taught about the Eucharist was the actual body, blood , soul, and divinity of Christ. He wrote about this in several letters on his way to Rome where he knew he’d be killed. Those letters were preserved and we have them today. I feel this part of the conversation was disingenuous to represent the early church believing the sacrament was only symbolic, if this author doesn’t know that then I question his motives. Read the gospel of John. Christ couldn’t be more clear.
No where did Ignatius say Eucharist was the actual body, blood , soul, and divinity of Christ. The doctrine of Transubstantiation or Real Presence is very specific and it doesn't get spelled out until after 300 AD. Meaning that you don't see anyone saying that in the Eucharist there occurs a "change", "transelementation", "transformation", "transposing", "alteration", etc of the bread into the body of Christ. Read Luke 22:19.
@@dylanwilliams2202 You’re wrong. The view that the Eucharist was symbolic is a view held only in last few centuries. The Fourth Lateran Council held in 1215 defined transubstantiation which merely provided definitions of what was already known. This guest woefully misrepresented what the early church taught and believed. My guess is that he has done that on purpose. I question his scholarship if he can’t even get that correct.
As for Ignatius, in a letter to the Smyrnaeans “take note to those who hold heterodox opinions on the Grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They deny the gift of God and are perishing in their disputes’”
In a letter to the Romans “I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible.”
If you don’t believe that teaches the holy sacrament it is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ I feel sorry for you.
And that is just ONE early church father teaching this, there are so many more! I encourage you to read about them. Have a blessed day!
@@rhyde0731 No, I'm not wrong. Both of those quotes didn't refute anything I said nor did anything else in your comment. Nothing said there would indicate the doctrine of Transubstantiation without presupposing it. This is like a Trinitarian using John 1:1 saying it clearly teaches the Trinity when nothing in there even remotely teaches it. If you want to believe Ignatius does/was teaching Transubstantiation despite it clearly not then be my guest but don't sit here and spread false information.
I didn't mention The Fourth Lateran Council held in 1215. I said this language started after 300 AD, so you are about 900 years away from where I am.
@@dylanwilliams2202 you are wrong, but that’s okay! It’s okay to be wrong sometimes, but if you want to find out the truth I highly recommend dedicating a portion of your time to studying the early church fathers. I promise it will change your life. The bread and wine is not merely symbolic, that has only been a heretical view from modern religions. I won’t be responding to this thread anymore. I’m guessing you’ll respond since you seem like the kind of person who likes to have the last word. I hope someday you find the truth about the Eucharist. Peace be with you.
@@rhyde0731 Bruh
I think people are getting all upset because the speaker said he didn't like the term GREAT being used with the word APOSTASY. (Some people don't even believe in any type of apostasy.)
I believe the presenter was trying to help people have more appreciation for early church history.
There is a lot of complexity and some misunderstandings because every person looks at things through the lenses of their own understanding of words, definitions of words, beliefs, and experiences.
Let's all relax a bit and understand that people usually have very good reasons to believe the way they do often coming from study, scriptures, and prayer.
Great discussion!
Thank you!
Excellent interview 👍
Thank you sir!
We're true true church.
We should learn everything of we want to convert everyone!
If I Told a Buddhist that in a “Word of Wisdom” they may find the highest path to enlightenment, a “Celestial Kingdom” might become self-evident.
If I told a Muslim that in the five Pillars of Faith they may find Isa,
May Christ reveal himself to them, and too, become self-evident.
If I told a scientist that in a primordial prelude, they may find an Alpha and Omega,
the first law of thermodynamics may also become self-evident.
What we may not yes understand,
An Expression of our Venus.
This is our restored and Resurrected Remembrance - By The Vector of Melchizedek.
This restoration, The Apple of his Venus.
Just today I felt a deeper urge (& urgency?) to learn more about things I have gaps in regarding Christianity generally and as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Thank you both for being a beginning answer to my promptings. ☺️
This makes me happy to hear!
@@forallthesaintspod hope you have this speaker again - or others like him/similar. As well as everyone else you introduce us to!
Less homogeneity is good for a thinking person!
read the didache it was written around the same time as revelation and it’s one of the earliest confirmed Christian writings outside of the bible.
@@Poeinait is also a good introduction to how quickly and early the Apostacy was occurring.
@@n.d.m.515 you’re so funny 😝 that doesn’t make any sense logically that at the time of the apostles that the things they wrote about what Jesus taught them was already wrong. it seems more probable that the Christianity that Jesus taught was more like what the early Christians practiced instead of a complete and total different gospel written 1500 years later. newer isn’t always better.
I am surprised that Dr. Combs contradicts what every general authority and every missionary in the LDS Church teaches, and that Ben Hancock doesn't mind this contradiction at all. It seems that a consistent theology is not a feature of Mormonism at all
I’m not sure he does contradict them in any way. It’s just helpful and faith-affirming to dig into that significant period of time and take what we can learn from it.
@@forallthesaintspod it would be great to organize a discussion with Brad Wilcox who regularly states other denominations are "playing church" and Combs who does not assert a great apostasy but values 1800 years of mainstream Christianity. Which one is it?
@@forallthesaintspodDr. Combs also has a correct understanding of the Trinity, which means the church hierarchy and thousands of LDS missionaries are misrepresenting mainstream Christianity for almost two centuries. I love how you tealize this at the end of your conversation. Niw yhe question is: why did the church teach you false things about other Christias?
@@charlesmendeley9823 The question could also be, "why do other churches teach false things about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"
It is obvious that my understanding of what you believe, and your understanding of what I believe are probably not accurate.
Part of that, I assume, is from how we understand the terms we use. As an example, if I understand the word 'smart' to mean intelligent, but another person understands it to mean 'handsome or beautiful', we are going to have difficulty. We both may think the other to be lying.
It is easy to misunderstand other people's true thoughts, beliefs, and intentions. Let's realize that most people are doing the best they can with the understanding they have. We don't have to assign the worst possible motives to someone's actions, beliefs, or statements. You certainly would not want others to assign the worst possible motives to something you say or do.
@@rutht2023 I am referring to his study of Nicene Christianity (from 43:43) which he agrees with. This is not what LDS missionaries and general authorities teach.
there was no great apostasy. there was no apostasy or Jesus was a liar because he promised not even the gates of hell could destroy his church and it still exists to this day. Jesus and the apostles warned of false prophets….even if an angel of light shows up and teaches a different gospel do not follow them.
"even if an angel of light shows up and teaches a different gospel do not follow them." Have you thought that maybe it is you who is teaching a different gospel since you do not believe the one you have in which even Jesus said the night cometh in which no man could work.... That means his followers would not be able to work... apparently because the Church would go astray. Revelation 12 says the Church would be persecuted into the wilderness for a time, times and a half or 3.5 years or 1260 days, which have been interpreted as years as made clear by Daniel 9. The apostles themselves alluded to this apostasy, and said that Yeshua would be received in the heavens UNTIL the restoration of all things.... To be a restoration, there must have been a loss of things. Jesus saying the gates of hell would not prevail against His rock is like saying Hell would not prevail against His word... but like I have pointed out, his own word acknowledged that the night or darkness would come... in other words the people would become blind again. But, you are right in the sense that in the end the darkness would not prevail, because all the New Testament recognizes that the truth would be restored.
@@RevelationTestament Vade retro satana come to the true Jesus, pray and obey when he answers. a good feeling is not sufficient discernment. In Jesus name set them free from the lies of the enemy.
@@Poeina The Deuterinomists killed ancient Christianity. Margaret Barker has a lot of insight into how much beautiful symbolism was lost. Please consider studying it out.
@@Poeina You are completely misquoting Matthew 16:18. That is saying that the gates of hell wouldn't prevail against the rock who is Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 10:4), not the Church. Hence why it says “and on this rock (Jesus Christ) I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” This has shown to have been the case because 1 Peter 3:19 tells of Christ going in and teaching to spirits in prison that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. (1 Peter 4:6) and that preaching is still happening today because every knee will bow and confess Jesus is Lord (Philippians 2:10-11) on judgment day. You could also say that it was the testimony of Jesus Christ that Peter had with the context, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock (Peter's testimony) I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.", which is what a lot of the Early Church Fathers said it meant. The gates of hell did not prevail because Jesus Christ broke through the bands of death and hell and his gospel went into hell like a rock smashing through a gate. The gates of hell are *gates* not a person or entity and those *gates* did not prevail against Christ. Even if I were to entertain the idea of it talking of the Church then it still would hold true because the gates of hell didn't prevail against the Church because the Church came back.
Queue the cliche anti-mormon 🙄
Christ said the gates of hell wouldnt prevail against his church and that he would be with his followers until the end of age. Never was there a prophesy that his church would disappear and need to be restored. The mental gymnastics of mormons is embaracing. Christ never said my church will disappear for nearly 2000 years. Nonsens3
There has always been a group of those who believe in Christ and try to carry His way since He came. The Spirit still worked. However, the Priesthood authority was lost over time. Dissensions and apostasies, wolves in sheeps clothing coming into the churchs, fake apostles, fake prophets gradually took greater hold. In the Epistles of Paul we see that of Pauls Bishops and those be ordained to lead Jesus's Church forsook him and became apostate. Emperor Constantine taking control of the Church is one spot us Latter-day Saints also see as important because we believe that because of that, and the subsequent creeds formed from the counsels he set up, much truth was taken and distorted. Just like the Jewish apostasy meant that the Jews could not recognize their savior and fought Him, Christians today struggle to recognize the restoration and fight it.
This video is deceptive.
How the Book Of Mormom came to pass by Lar Neilson. The second greatest show on earth.
You guys dont know crap! There would have been no need for the heavens to receive Christ "until the restitution of all things! You dont know crap! The great apostasy was for 1260 years, just look st Revelstiin 12:6 and the JST Revekation 12:5!!! You apoarently havent learned much!!!