Prophecy vs. Scriptures

[Emower]

I read an interesting tidbit about early Christian history the other day. I have been reading a little about the apocrypha and all the books I have never even heard of.

I read about the Montanists, headed by a guy named, yup, Montanus.
Anyway, Montanus had a movement that was strictly orthodox in belief, and popular. Montanus stylized himself as a prophet and prophesied a great many things, which didn't come to pass. So, here is the more popular early christan movement with egg on its face. So what is the movement to do? It moved away from leader-based prophecy to the now hallmark focus of mainstream Christianity of scripture prophecy.

Just an interesting contrast to later times when faced with the same issues, our movement decides to double down on leader-based prophecy. As a result of top-down authority. It has worked well up until recently. I know we have had this discussion before as it relates to the community of Christ, but to see what may be one of the early instances of the shift to "the scriptures are more important" attitude in the early church is interesting.

[Palerider]

Apparently Montanist followers were more realistic and sophisticated than to suggest that his prophecies just needed more time to be fulfilled....

[Emower]

If Montanus would have just had his during the night maybe they would have lent him more credence.

[Corsair]

With Christmas coming up, you might enjoy reading up on the 325 AD Council at Nicea where the Nicene Creed was developed. This is supposed to be a clear sign of the Great Apostasy if you are a believing Mormon, and this allows Mormons to not learn about it. Montanus is not the only early theologian to get into a fight.

St. Nicholas, the future Santa Claus, was one of the bishops in attendance at Nicea. The debate over the nature of God literally came to blows as Bishop Nicholas punched Arias in the face for his heretical views of the non-eternal divinity of the mortal Jesus Christ. Arias lost both that fist fight and the theological debate and was later condemned as a heretic by Athanasius.

Through all of this, Emperor Constantine was kind of frustrated. He had organized and sponsored this ecumenical council and simply wanted this group of theologians to find something to agree on so that Christians could get back to church and stop arguing. The emperor was not a trained theologian and he was surprised by the vitriol between the bishops. In his journal, Constantine wrote:

"I considered the origin and occasion for these things ... as extrememly trivial and quite unworthy of so much controversy"

I have to agree with Emperor Constantine's attitude, particularly when dealing with the bad apologetics that are in place. Keep reading early Christian writings, Emower. You will find more reasons why the LDS church is so poorly established even when you aren't looking for it. I suggest the Didache next. It is basically the first century Gospel Principles manual.

[Emower]

The debate over the nature of God literally came to blows as Bishop Nicholas punched Arias in the face for his heretical views of the non-eternal divinity of the mortal Jesus Christ. Arias lost both that fist fight and the theological debate and was later condemned as a heretic by Athanasius.

This is hilarious. I would pay money to see Brigham Young come back and slap Kimball for ending the ban.

Emower. You will find more reasons why the LDS church is so poorly established even when you aren't looking for it. I suggest the Didache next. It is basically the first century Gospel Principles manual.

Will do. I have been reading Erhman's lost Christianity. Looking at some of the notes for that has got me with a great big list of things to read.

[alas]

I have always laughed at Mormon’s attitude to the council at Nicea being proof of apostasy. So, why didn’t Joseph bring back the one doctrine that the Emperor ordered that they change? Surely, stuff ordered by the secular ruler is not from God, but from the fear of one ruler. So, when Constantine ordered the bishops to get rid of the doctrine of reincarnation because he was afraid of what he would come back as, because he hadn’t exactly been a good boy, then this was not inspired by God, but ordered by the emperor. So, why didn’t Joseph bring back reincarnation? Of, because he never really studied what the bishops threw out at the council. So, really, he didn’t restore the early church. He just took the common Protestant ideas about what the Catholics were doing wrong and pretended his ideas were “restoring” the early Christian church. So, where are the woman as deacons, priests, and apostles? There is pretty solid proof that until about 300ad, women served as priesthood.

And Mormons use the idea of bishops VOTING (voting! Hahaha, that is those men deciding not God) as proof of apostasy, yet the Mormon apostles vote on matters all the time, but when THEY do it, it is God deciding. How silly of the Catholics to vote on the next Pope. But we just let the guy who lives the longest be our pope. How is that “God deciding” when voting isn’t god inspiring the bishops to pick the best man. I am pretty sure Catholics laugh right back at us as silly in the way we let fate decide what God wants.