344 replies to this topic

[Uncle Dale]

Rob Bowman, on 23 November 2010 - 08:05 PM, said:

Dale,

Do you relegate the Gospels or any of the other books of the NT to the same category as that of Augustine and the other church fathers? Or just Paul?

For my own spiritual purposes, I set the words of Jesus
above and beyond the instructional teachings of those who
came after him. For example, I read the Q-sayings with a
higher degree of edification than I read Revelation.

Among the non-Jesus materials, the epistle of James
especially "speaks to me." I'm glad that some ancient
Catholic Council decided to retain it in the canon.

But I take my cue from my Jewish extended family, whose
members place the Torah on a higher level of holiness
and importance than "the prophets" and "the writings."

Martin Luther was among those reformers who contemplated
a deutero-canonical status for some NT texts. Luckily for
me his poor opinion of the "strawy epistle" of James was
not well received by his fellow Protestants.

Quote

I'd be interested to know what that "one minor point of the Apostles' Creed"
is that you don't accept.

I do not accept creeds in general, unless they are composed exclusively
of scriptural quotations, minus any theological interpretation. But the
point my Lutheran friends found so disturbing, was when I said that there
was no need for a Jesus-follower to accept that he was born of a virgin --
and especially not the related doctrinal expansions of St. Anne's
immaculate conception, nor the perpetual virginity of Mary. Some of my
views were received as "possible;" but the fact that Mary's hymen was
in tact both before and after Jesus' birth seemed un-negotiable.

Perhaps different Lutherans would have been less adamant in upholding
the creedal statements -- at least I hope so.

UD

[Anakin7]

From my LDS JEDI Archive on Baptism - http://www.angelfire...Ibebaptized.htm


                                                     In His Debt/Grace
                                                         Anakin7
                                                     LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Pa Pa]

Vance, on 23 November 2010 - 01:27 PM, said:

How about Paul's words recorded in Acts?  You know like "not sparing the flock", are they binding on Christians today?

Oh, and what about the words of the other Apostles.  Are they subordinate to (your interpretation of) Paul's?

In many groups...

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 23 November 2010 - 07:16 PM, said:

All of the Bible is equally God's word.

Really?

So the words of Jesus are not more important that the words of others?

I am wondering what God had to say to Moses about this.

Deu 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
  19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

Who was God speaking of?

What does Peter say about this?

Acts 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
  23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

Who was Peter talking about?

Acts 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

And what does Paul say about this?

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Does "in all things" include words? Does it include teachings? Should we not reconcile the words of all others to the words of Jesus, instead of reconciling the words of Jesus to the easily misunderstood words of Paul?

Quote

Paul's words are not preeminent over those of Jesus.

Obviously!

Quote

The words of Jesus in the Synoptics are not more inspired than the words of Jesus in the Gospel of John.

Obviously!

Quote

And my interpretation of their words is not preeminent over any of them.

Obviously!  It is nice of you to say that.  If only your actions matched your words.

Quote

The religion that elevates some (alleged) scripture over other scripture,

You mean like Moses' religion?

And Peter's religion?

And Paul's religion?

Their religion elevates the words of Jesus above all others.

Quote

or some people's interpretations of scripture over the scripture itself, . . .

Like you do?

Quote

. . . is not mine, . . .

Ah, but it is.  You take your (mis)interpretation over the clear and plain words of the prophets.

Quote

  it is yours.

Like Moses', Peter's, and Paul's.

Quote

It is your religion that claims that the modern scriptures "clarify" (read: correct) the Bible.

Yes, the modern words of Jesus take preeminence over the words of all others.

Quote

It is your religion that claims that the words of the living prophet today take precedence over the words of the Bible.

It is our religion that is the most compliant with the teachings found in the Bible.

Edited by Vance, 24 November 2010 - 08:22 AM.

[Pa Pa]

Rob Bowman, on 23 November 2010 - 07:16 PM, said:

Vance,

You wrote:



Again, you know the answers to these questions already. All of the Bible is equally God's word. Paul's words are not preeminent over those of Jesus. The words of Jesus in the Synoptics are not more inspired than the words of Jesus in the Gospel of John. And my interpretation of their words is not preeminent over any of them.

The religion that elevates some (alleged) scripture over other scripture, or some people's interpretations of scripture over the scripture itself, is not mine, it is yours. It is your religion that claims that the modern scriptures "clarify" (read: correct) the Bible. It is your religion that claims that the words of the living prophet today take precedence over the words of the Bible.

Hard to believe that the words of Christ carry no more weight than his servants.

[ELF1024]

Matt. 7: 14  14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

[Uncle Dale]

Pa Pa, on 24 November 2010 - 09:35 AM, said:

Hard to believe that the words of Christ carry no more weight than his servants.

When Paul said that people should take a little wine for the stomach,
should we believe that the Risen Christ was speaking through Paul,
something like a puppeteer, and that the counsel was from Jesus, rather
than the puppet (Paul)?

If that is the view we take of scripture, then Paul's commandments
will indeed carry the same weight as God's commandments -- for Paul
was only the human voice for perfect Divine oracles.

Perhaps there are some Christians who look at scripture in those terms --
who can flop open their Bibles to some epistle and begin quoting "God"
in mid-paragraph -- because the Bible is a perfect Divine oracle.

???

UD

[Pa Pa]

Uncle Dale, on 24 November 2010 - 10:36 AM, said:

When Paul said that people should take a little wine for the stomach,
should we believe that the Risen Christ was speaking through Paul,
something like a puppeteer, and that the counsel was from Jesus, rather
than the puppet (Paul)?

If that is the view we take of scripture, then Paul's commandments
will indeed carry the same weight as God's commandments -- for Paul
was only the human voice for perfect Divine oracles.

Perhaps there are some Christians who look at scripture in those terms --
who can flop open their Bibles to some epistle and begin quoting "God"
in mid-paragraph -- because the Bible is a perfect Divine oracle.

???

UD

My point is if you had General Conference and Christ were the concluding speaker…would you learn farther forward to listen more intently?

[ELF1024]

Pa Pa, on 24 November 2010 - 10:44 AM, said:

My point is if you had General Conference and Christ were the concluding speaker…would you learn farther forward to listen more intently?

If Christ was to appear at General Conference as a concluding speaker I know of several people who would simply put their fingers in their ears and go "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!". Or just turn off the TV, convinced that it wasn't actually Christ.

But I digress.

Edited by ELF1024, 24 November 2010 - 10:47 AM.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

What Christ says through Moses, Isaiah, Paul, or John is just as much the word of Christ as what Christ said while walking around Galilee as reported by Matthew, Mark, or Luke. The whole Bible is the word of God. My interpretation is not more authoritative than the Bible. It is, however, more valid than the interpretations of false prophets, whoever they may be. So, for example, when Helen Schucman writes a book that claims to have been dictated by Jesus, but her book contradicts the Bible, I reject Schucman's book (A Course in Miracles). Does this mean I am elevating my interpretation of the Bible over Schucman's revelation? You betcha, because it is a false revelation. I am not embarrassed to take that stand. Likewise, I reject Mary Baker Eddy's book Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, which is the foundational book of Christian Science, because it is not the inspired revelation that it claims to be. Will a Christian Scientist claim that it is my interpretation of the Bible that is wrong? Of course, but so what? The issue is whether they are right in their claim. I know this offends you, but I have the same opinion of the alleged revelations of Joseph Smith. It would be dishonest of me if I were to try to sugarcoat the matter and say otherwise.

All I said in my first post here was that I would be happy to discuss what Paul teaches about baptism with those who agree to accept what Paul teaches about baptism. That is an obviously reasonable position to take. Your shenanigans therefore have no bearing on the issue here.

[Uncle Dale]

Pa Pa, on 24 November 2010 - 10:44 AM, said:

...if you had General Conference and Christ were the concluding speaker
...

How do we know that this has not already happened?

How would a modern audience know whether or not Jesus
was addressing them from the podium? Would he have a
Galilean accent? Or, would he speak in Elizabethan prose?


If what Christ says through Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, President
Kimball, or President Monson is just as much the word of Christ
as what Christ said while walking around Galilee as reported by
Matthew, Mark, or Luke, then how do we know that a Conference
speaker is not conveying the precise words of Christ today?

UD


.

Edited by Uncle Dale, 24 November 2010 - 10:59 AM.

[Rob Bowman]

Pa Pa,

You wrote:

Pa Pa, on 24 November 2010 - 09:35 AM, said:

Hard to believe that the words of Christ carry no more weight than his servants.

We are dependent on Christ's servants for our knowledge of all of his words. If you accept Christ's words in the Gospels, you are receiving those words through his servants Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And Christ himself said to his servants whom he sent out to speak for him, "The one who listens to you listens to me, and the one who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16).

[Uncle Dale]

Rob Bowman, on 24 November 2010 - 10:56 AM, said:

...If you accept Christ's words in the Gospels, you are receiving those words through his servants Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
...

And, by extension, if you accept Jesus' teachings in the
Coptic Gospel of Thomas, you are sustaining those gnostic
editors who altered Q-sayings from Luke and Matthew.

Nevertheless, avoiding the gnostic insertions, there are
whole passages of Jesus' teachings in Thomas which are
practically identical to the canonical Q-sayings.

Just because "Thomas" conveyed those Jesus teachings,
I do not suppose we need elevate Thomas to a doctrinal
voice equal to that of Jesus -- and certainly not the
gnostic insertions/overlay of this composite text.

If Thomas is thus a composite, exhibiting varying degrees
of authenticity, why should we not inspect Matthew, etc.,
with the same sort of caution we use in reading "Thomas?"

UD

[Rob Bowman]

Dale,

I really don't think this is relevant to the issue in this thread. The thread raises the question of Paul's teaching on baptism. I simply responded that I am happy to discuss the question with people who agree to accept what Paul actually teaches on baptism. If that's not you, okay.

Uncle Dale, on 24 November 2010 - 11:07 AM, said:

And, by extension, if you accept Jesus' teachings in the
Coptic Gospel of Thomas, you are sustaining those gnostic
editors who altered Q-sayings from Luke and Matthew.

Nevertheless, avoiding the gnostic insertions, there are
whole passages of Jesus' teachings in Thomas which are
practically identical to the canonical Q-sayings.

Just because "Thomas" conveyed those Jesus teachings,
I do not suppose we need elevate Thomas to a doctrinal
voice equal to that of Jesus -- and certainly not the
gnostic insertions/overlay of this composite text.

If Thomas is thus a composite, exhibiting varying degrees
of authenticity, why should we not inspect Matthew, etc.,
with the same sort of caution we use in reading "Thomas?"

UD

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

I think you and just one other person here so far has agreed to accept what Paul says about baptism. Let me ask you this: what is the proper procedure, in your view, for correctly interpreting Paul's teachings?

zerinus, on 23 November 2010 - 02:22 PM, said:

Yes, provided that it is correctly understood and interpreted. Paul is notorious for saying things that are "hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest" (2 Peter 3:16). My experience is that Evangelicals are among the worst offenders of those "unlearned and unstable" folks who "wrest" the writings of Paul.

[Uncle Dale]

Rob Bowman, on 24 November 2010 - 11:13 AM, said:

Dale,

I really don't think this is relevant to the issue in this thread. The thread raises the question of Paul's teaching on baptism. I simply responded that I am happy to discuss the question with people who agree to accept what Paul actually teaches on baptism. If that's not you, okay.

Yeah -- that's OK.
Thomas says nothing noteworthy about baptism,
and the topic is not at all mentioned in the Q-sayings
of Jesus, in the canonical scriptures.

That is why we move away from Jesus, to Paul, in order
to find grist for the ordinance mill.

The Mormons avoid this side-trip, by having the 3rd Nephi
Christ launch into teachings about baptism, ere his feet
are upon solid ground at the Bountiful Temple. There, in
that text, Jesus himself clearly articulates what orthodox
baptism is --- and, soon after, baptizes a disciple. The
canonical Jesus never did any such thing, of course.

As for Paul, his teachings on baptism interest me only as
a development beyond the religion as taught and lived by Jesus.

UD

[Anakin7]

Anakin7, on 23 November 2010 - 09:17 PM, said:

From my LDS JEDI Archive on Baptism - http://www.angelfire...Ibebaptized.htm


                                                     In His Debt/Grace
                                                         Anakin7
                                                     LDS JEDI KNIGHT

                                                      Repost

[Pa Pa]

Rob Bowman, on 24 November 2010 - 11:13 AM, said:

Dale,

I really don't think this is relevant to the issue in this thread. The thread raises the question of Paul's teaching on baptism. I simply responded that I am happy to discuss the question with people who agree to accept what Paul actually teaches on baptism. If that's not you, okay.

Correction...what Paul was taught or told about Baptism. That by so would come his remission.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 24 November 2010 - 10:53 AM, said:

What Christ says through Moses, Isaiah, Paul, or John is just as much the word of Christ as what Christ said while walking around Galilee as reported by Matthew, Mark, or Luke.

Almost true. No matter how good they were, they still had to transmit His words, and in doing so, limitations of the non-divine come into play. God didn't turn them into drones.  Also, that doesn't mean that everything said by Moses, Isaiah, Paul, or John are the words of Christ.  And it certainly doesn't mean that your interpretations of their words (whether of Christ or not) are valid.

Quote

The whole Bible is the word of God.

Being called the word of God isn't the same as being the words of God. Like you have said EVERYTHING we have came to us through non-divine mortal men.  Those non-divine mortal men were not infallible nor inerrant.  Their work is very valuable to us, but their work was not perfect, infallible, nor inerrant.  The teachings of Jesus, even though brought to us through men, are still preeminent to the words of men brought to us through men.

Quote

My interpretation is not more authoritative than the Bible.

Nor is it more authoritative than mine.

Quote

It is, however, more valid than the interpretations of false prophets, whoever they may be.

No, not really.  Just because they may be wrong, doesn't make you right.

The wrongness of your interpretations are unaffected by the work of anyone else.

Quote

Will a Christian Scientist claim that it is my interpretation of the Bible that is wrong? Of course, but so what?

And he would be right, but possibly for the wrong reason.

Quote

The issue is whether they are right in their claim.

Whether they are right or wrong, doesn't change the wrongness of your understanding.

Quote

I know this offends you, but I have the same opinion of the alleged revelations of Joseph Smith.

Why should it offend me? What bothers me is the double standards you use. Although, that, in and of itself, is evidence of the strength of the LDS position.  If you can't refute it straight up, just resort to a double standard.

Basically, you have totally ignored what I said about the preeminence of Christ, and without even acknowledging it, you simply act as though it doesn't exist.

Quote

All I said in my first post here was that I would be happy to discuss what Paul teaches about baptism with those who agree to accept what Paul teaches about baptism. That is an obviously reasonable position to take. Your shenanigans therefore have no bearing on the issue here.

Be glad to discuss Paul's teachings of Baptism (Baptism, not circumcision).  I accept Paul as being authoritative. Not as authoritative as Jesus, but authoritative.  I don't accept you as being authoritative in your interpretation and therefore reserve the right to reject it.

Oh and,
Why do you want to artificially limit the discussion to Paul's teachings?  What about other Biblical characters?

Edited by Vance, 24 November 2010 - 12:59 PM.

[LeSellers]

Uncle Dale, on 24 November 2010 - 11:22 AM, said:

The Mormons [sic] avoid this side-trip, by having the 3rd Nephi Christ launch into teachings about baptism, ere his feet are upon solid ground at the Bountiful Temple. There, in that text, Jesus himself clearly articulates what orthodox baptism is --- and, soon after, baptizes a disciple. The canonical Jesus never did any such thing, of course.

Since the Jesus of 3 Nephi is "the canonical Jesus", this statement is nonsensical.

You mean, of course, that the Jesus of the creeds never did such a thing or the Jesus in the restricted record of the New Testament didn't. But these are not the same thing at all.

Lehi