Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

pseudogratix

What is Biblical Christianity...

Recommended Posts

Well, I believe it makes clear the fact that it preaches a certain gospel and that there will be people who try to preach another gospel. Therfore, the only way to be sure you have the correct gospel is to check to see if what people say is consistent with what has already been revealed.

Share this post


Link to post
pseudogratix, I have been answering your question in my posts to this thread. There are many things within the frame of Biblical Christianity.

I have begun by stating that Biblical Christianity agrees with what the Bible says about the nature of God, that he is the only God, and that he is not man. Additonally Biblical Christianity believes that God is spirit:

John 4:24 - God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

John 4:24, The Greek says : "GOD is spirit" [pneuma ho theos] ie spiritual in Nature, the noun being anarthrous [without the definate article. As the late Raymond Brown considered by many to havve been the worlds leading authority on Johns Gospel explains : "This is not an essential Definition of GOD , but a description of GODs dealing with men; it means that GOd is spirit tward men because that he givves the spirit [xiv] which begets them anew. There are in fact two other such descriptions in Johns writtings GOD is light [ 1 John 1:5,] and GOD is Love [1 John 4:8], thou no one has argued that GOD is A light, or a species of love. In short, one must worship the Father through the spirit which he has givven to the Church [John 14:16], there being no hint or suggestion that he is himself "A Spirit".

The context shows that it is not GODS nature that is being expressed but our worshiping in the spirit that is the message.

Share this post


Link to post
... I'm curious as to your opinion why they haven't been published in something similar to say the NIV?

I have no idea. Regardless, my point is that the Church's doesn't have a KJV-only position like some fundamentalist Baptist churches do.

Share this post


Link to post

But don't you find it a bit strange that in 2005 the only Mormon scriptures are in King James English?

Share this post


Link to post
Well, I believe it makes clear the fact that it preaches a certain gospel and that there will be people who try to preach another gospel. Therfore, the only way to be sure you have the correct gospel is to check to see if what people say is consistent with what has already been revealed.

Well, when Paul wrote that letter to the Galatians, his letter wasn't part of the Bible. In fact, there wasn't a Bible then. So, I guess you would need to remove Paul's letters from your Bible for it to be Biblical. Maybe Paul was the one preaching the other Gospel? After all, he wasn't even one of the original apostles.

Share this post


Link to post
pseudogratix, I have been answering your question in my posts to this thread.  There are many things within the frame of Biblical Christianity.

I have begun by stating that Biblical Christianity agrees with what the Bible says about the nature of God, that he is the only God, and that he is not man.  Additonally Biblical Christianity believes that God is spirit:

John 4:24 - God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

John 4:24, The Greek says : "GOD is spirit" [pneuma ho theos] ie spiritual in Nature, the noun being anarthrous [without the definate article. As the late Raymond Brown considered by many to havve been the worlds leading authority on Johns Gospel explains : "This is not an essential Definition of GOD , but a description of GODs dealing with men; it means that GOd is spirit tward men because that he givves the spirit [xiv] which begets them anew. There are in fact two other such descriptions in Johns writtings GOD is light [ 1 John 1:5,] and GOD is Love [1 John 4:8], thou no one has argued that GOD is A light, or a species of love. In short, one must worship the Father through the spirit which he has givven to the Church [John 14:16], there being no hint or suggestion that he is himself "A Spirit".

The context shows that it is not GODS nature that is being expressed but our worshiping in the spirit that is the message.

In Biblical historical context the other "gospel" that Paul was addressing was the adding of mosaic circumsision to the Gospel, where in LDS theology do we stand "Condemed for this ?", its not there.

Share this post


Link to post
But don't you find it a bit strange that in 2005 the only Mormon scriptures are in King James English?

No. It isn't completely King James English, though. There are some features of KJE, sure, but it isn't KJ English only. You many want to talk to Royal Skousen about that. For example, see "The Original Language of the Book of Mormon: Upstate New York Dialect, King James English, or Hebrew?" @ http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbm...252aWV3LnBocA==

Share this post


Link to post

The book of Acts makes it clear that Jesus revealed himself to Paul on the road to Damascus and told him to go and preach the gospel. This is an essential part of Biblical Christianity and therefore Paul's words are credible. Beyond that, the gospel preached by Paul is the same one I find preached by Christ in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. That's another reason we believe the Bible to be inspired and authoritative above other writings, it's consistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Perhaps a better title of this thread should be : What Makes Your Form Of Christianity Biblical ?. Anyone ever read Richard R. Hopkins Book : Biblical Mormonism, subtitled : Responding To Evangelical Criticism Of LDS Theology ?. Grace .

Loved that book!

Share this post


Link to post
But don't you find it a bit strange that in 2005 the only Mormon scriptures are in King James English?

No !, since it is Cultural/Traditional, but not demandable by Church heiarchy.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, but it is primarily in King James...

Share this post


Link to post
The book of Acts makes it clear that Jesus revealed himself to Paul on the road to Damascus and told him to go and preach the gospel. This is an essential part of Biblical Christianity and therefore Paul's words are credible. Beyond that, the gospel preached by Paul is the same one I find preached by Christ in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. That's another reason we believe the Bible to be inspired and authoritative above other writings, it's consistent.

They had no "Bound" Scriptures, only rolled parchments or animal skins with O.T Scriptures written on them.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes Tanyan, I'm aware that "bound" books didn't exist until long after that...

Share this post


Link to post
The book of Acts makes it clear that Jesus revealed himself to Paul on the road to Damascus and told him to go and preach the gospel.

Well, Joseph Smith also claimed to see Christ. So, he must have as good as standing with you as does Paul.

Beyond that, the gospel preached by Paul is the same one I find preached by Christ in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.  That's another reason we believe the Bible to be inspired and authoritative above other writings, it's consistent.

Anyhow Paul adds all sorts of things to the Gospels. Depending on how you read Paul's letters, there are lots of inconsistencies with the Gospels.

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, Joseph Smith does not have the same standing with me. Just because someone claims to have seen Christ does not mean they are credible. Anyone could claim that.

Share this post


Link to post

As are the Dead Sea Scrolls. What Language was Joseph Smith supposed to translate the records into ?, common sense would be the language venacular of the Day/Time period which the common language was at that time period KJV English. Any Translator would tell you the same thing if someone were to translate an anchient document it would be of the cultural language of the time period.

Share this post


Link to post
Actually, Joseph Smith does not have the same standing with me. Just because someone claims to have seen Christ does not mean they are credible. Anyone could claim that.

Sure. Just as surely as Paul could make the claim.

Share this post


Link to post

Well yes, and for many years the main version of the Bible in America was the KJV. But now we have the NIV, NASB, NLV, etc. because we no longer speak in King James English.

Share this post


Link to post
Actually, Joseph Smith does not have the same standing with me. Just because someone claims to have seen Christ does not mean they are credible. Anyone could claim that.

The same exact argument/criticism that critics [athiests/humanists] have against Christianity.

Share this post


Link to post
Well yes, and for many years the main version of the Bible in America was the KJV. But now we have the NIV, NASB, NLV, etc. because we no longer speak in King James English.

Some still do.

Share this post


Link to post
Yes, but it is primarily in King James...

Again, I can see that you think so. However, this is different than saying the LDS position is one of KJV only or even KJV English only. Again, if this were the case, the Church would insist that members throughout the world use the KJV and English versions of the triple. However, the Church doesn't insist on this at all.

Share this post


Link to post

Of course it is possible that Paul was making a false claim. However, that seems unlikely in light of the fact that he did a complete 180 from being a Jew who persecuted Christians to the writer of 2/3 of the New Testament. As for Joseph Smith, well I have already voiced my concerns about his character and the legitimacy of the books he claims to have translated.

Share this post


Link to post
Of course it is possible that Paul was making a false claim.  However, that seems unlikely in light of the fact that he did a complete 180 from being a Jew who persecuted Christians to the writer of 2/3 of the New Testament.

There are plenty of people in this world that make 180 degree turns in their life (for the better) without claiming to see Christ or even believe in Christ. What is your point?

Also, Joseph Smith went on to produce more scripture than perhaps any single individual in known history. Again, what is your point?

Share this post


Link to post
But don't you find it a bit strange that in 2005 the only Mormon scriptures are in King James English?

Actually, LDS scriptures are published in many different languages. We have a friend who recently returned from Mongolia and I believe he was assisting with translation there. He didn't speak KJE there, either.

Here's a sample of some of those found on the web:

http://www.lds.org/countries/0,16635,4190,00.html

See. Not just KJ English. :P

Personally, I think the KJE version helps us to slow down and really ponder what is being taught in a way we probably would not do if it were more conversational. That's not as important the first time as it is when we continually study them as we should.

Share this post


Link to post

My point is that Paul's conversion to Christianity gives him credibility. He is hugely important to the Christian story and it would not be what it is without him. I disagree with you that he contradicts the gospels. In fact, I find wonderful consistency along with beautiful and profound wisdom. This also gives him credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...