RevTestament Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: Newly destroyed cities are rarely described as wealthy however after 30 years you'd have enough time to rebuild it with trade. That's a pretty huge point. OK, I was talking about dating the gospel of John and you were throwing in Laodicea from Revelation 3, so I lost you at first before I realized what you were doing. I consider that to be a prophetic writing rather than an historical one. So analyzing the 7 churches from the standpoint of these seven cities I personally believe is a waste of time. I don't really regard John as the author of Revelation. He was more like its transcriber imho - much like JS was the translator of the Book of Mormon. I believe the book was dictated to John, so trying to date it from historical hints I think is just the wrong tact. Quote John describes a certain type of persecution that was characteristic not of Nero but of Domitian. There are counter-arguments against the Domitian persecutions. (Mainly arguing that the evidence for widespread Domitian persecution is weaker than it appears) Nero put down a Jewish revolt but by then the Christians had started separating. There's no indication that the Jewish revolt was tied to the Christians by Nero. Contrast this with Domintian's reign where persecutions of Christians were empire wide and not limited to Rome proper or the revolt in Jerusalem. But as with many arguments it's not any one point that is convincing. Were the persecutions of Nero and Domitian contrasted I'd agree it'd not be enough. However the distinction in addition to other points makes it far more compelling. I should add the strongest argument for the Domitian point is by Adela Yarbro Collins. I tried to find a good link but couldn't beyond the Google Books link. It's worth reading though. I date the Book of Revelation mainly by the description of the seven kings which I believe is a reference to the emperors of Rome which give a clue as to who the beast is. The sixth who is not yet fallen when the book was written was Nero or possibly Vespasian - depending on how you count. I count using Julius Caesar as the first. Vespasian is the seventh because the book is warning the Jews of the destruction of Jerusalem at that point. Since Nero died in 68 AD this gives us a working date for when the book was penned. I believe the gospel of John was probably written after the Book of Revelation as well as the epistles of John. Quote The Book of Revelation doesn't only talk about Jerusalem but the Seven Churches in Asia Minor. It's the description of those churches that allows the dating as they don't fit 70 AD. Perhaps, but as I said I believe that is not an historically based writing. It is prophetic, and is fulfilling the Isaiah passage which says seven women shall take hold of one man saying they want to be called by his name. Quote Umm. What? Irenaeus says it was written at the end of the reign of Domitian. He may well be wrong but he's not just placing disciples there. The main counterargument is that the antecedent of "it was seen" could be read ambiguously. Again were that the only point it wouldn't amount to much but it's part of a wider circumstantial argument. Let me be more clear. I'm talking about Polycarp who trained Irenaeus. According to tradition Polycarp became the Bishop of Smyrna and would have probably been the one responsible for further disseminating John's writings together with Ignatius of Antioch. Unfortunately, we really have very little reliable information about John from these early sources, so they don't really help much with dating other than being contemporaries of John. It would be nice to have an accurate history of the Church from this time, but we just don't really have it. We have a few scattered bits and pieces from a few men with questions of their reliability. Link to comment
clarkgoble Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 39 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Hi Clark! Good reply! Do you have data of first century Jews living well into their 70s? So if we assume the apostles were 20 years in 30 AD, that would make them 60 years old in the year 70 AD. The gospels were written after 70 AD, so I suspect all the apostles were teenagers in the year 30. There's no good data for Jews. Typically demographic data comes from Egypt and is assumed to apply to Palestine. (That's where we get the data that Mary likely would have married at 12 or 13) The thing to recall for average age is that it's hugely biased by deaths of babies and children. Typically if you made it to your late 20's you'd do all right, if not great by modern standards. Egyptian data has typically an average age of 30 for women and 34 for men for those who survive childhood. During the Ptolemaic period where we have statistics, average death age (which excludes children) is 54 for men and 58 for women. So the number that lived over 70 was small - probably list than 1% - but it's not that unusual. (1% of a population is a lot of people) For "nobels" it was fairly common to make ti to ones 70s although the main reasons were lack of physical damage due to physical labor and better nutrition. If John was among the leaders of Christianity we'd expect health more akin to a typical nobel - primarily again due to the type of labor and nutrition. It's worth noting that there's an assumption few people were old in the ancient world. While true, again that's biased by most people dying before they hit 20. In classic Greek "men of renown" had a median age of 70. Of course to be reknown pretty much requires you live past 30. So there's a bit of inherent bias there. 51 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: It is my understanding that you are a science evolution guy. How do you reconcile the three Nehites and John doctrine with science? So far as I know there's nothing inherent to biology that would prevent a sufficiently advanced technology from extending age. I rather suspect that now that CRISPR techniques can be applied to human cells in human beings without the messiness of a retrovirus delivery system that we'll start doing it ourselves within 100 years. If it's near future technology we can likely do I rather doubt there's much problem with God doing it. 1 Link to comment
clarkgoble Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 5 minutes ago, RevTestament said: OK, I was talking about dating the gospel of John and you were throwing in Laodicea from Revelation 3, so I lost you at first before I realized what you were doing. I consider that to be a prophetic writing rather than an historical one. So analyzing the 7 churches from the standpoint of these seven cities I personally believe is a waste of time. I don't really regard John as the author of Revelation. He was more like its transcriber imho - much like JS was the translator of the Book of Mormon. I believe the book was dictated to John, so trying to date it from historical hints I think is just the wrong tact. Oh, I was dealing with the original question that took the dating of the book of Revelation to be problematic at 90 - 96 AD. I'm not sure I accept your view of the text - to me it's more akin to Nephi's vision of Joseph's in D&C 76. But that's not worth quibbling over. I do think the nature of the Seven Churches matters since they're described at present. Link to comment
SamuelTheLamanite Posted January 2, 2018 Author Share Posted January 2, 2018 (edited) 34 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: So far as I know there's nothing inherent to biology that would prevent a sufficiently advanced technology from extending age. Are you transhumanist Clark? It is my understanding that most transhumanist are not religious. 34 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: There's no good data for Jews. Typically demographic data comes from Egypt and is assumed to apply to Palestine. (That's where we get the data that Mary likely would have married at 12 or 13) The evangelical critics of Joseph Smith's polygamy probably don't like that. 12 or 13 is crazy thought 34 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: So there's a bit of inherent bias there. Thanks for being honest Clark. So at what age do you think the apostles were killed? Do you believe they were still alive in the years 70-79 AD? Edited January 2, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite Link to comment
clarkgoble Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 4 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Are you transhumanist Clark? It is my understanding that most transhumanist are not religious. The evangelical critics of Joseph Smith's polygamy wouldn't like that Thanks for being honest Clark. So at what age do you think the apostles were killed? Do you believe they were still alive in the years 70-79 AD? No, most trans humanists end up adopting a computational functionalist ontology of mind I find highly implausible. Among many things I find implausible. There are Mormon transhumanists but I’m most definitely not one of them. However I find a useful heuristic when dealing with science or technology objections to ask if it’s plausible if we’ll have the technology within 100 - 200 years given current scientific understanding. If we would then it’s not much of an objection against religion. There are of course objections we could raise given scientific understanding, such as limits imposed by general relativity. However critics seem oddly reluctant to make those sorts of objections so Mormons tend to make them to each other. (Blake Ostler and I had many debates years ago over the implications of relativity to his particular brand of theology) As for when the apostles died I really don’t know or care much. There are traditions about Peter and Paul that sound moderately trustworthy but who knows? Honestly there’s so much we don’t know about the early Church particularly prior to 70 AD. 1 Link to comment
clarkgoble Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 23 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: That is the only definition I find in lds.org Yes but that’s kind of irrelevant to the problem of equivocation. Link to comment
Calm Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 "Luke 2:36–38 There was also a prophet, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, and then was a widow until she was eighty-four.[*] She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem." The Bible has record of a woman who lived to at least 84 years if you want a first century Jew who lived past age 70. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_the_Prophetess Link to comment
mnn727 Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 Most scholars agree that the Apostles the Gospels were named after were not the actual writers. Link to comment
clarkgoble Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 11 hours ago, Calm said: The Bible has record of a woman who lived to at least 84 years if you want a first century Jew who lived past age 70. In addition to Anna there's also Psalm 90:10 that gives the typical lifespan as 70 years old. 2 hours ago, mnn727 said: Most scholars agree that the Apostles the Gospels were named after were not the actual writers. I tend to agree with that, although that doesn't mean much. Most of Joseph's writings weren't written by him either. Scribes were a common thing. I think the evidence is strong that they were originally oral traditions that were then used by later scribes (Q & Mark). Then further documents (Luke, Matthew) were made from those. Likely there were many traditions originally from the apostles and those account for the variants of the gospels. Wanting the gospels to be first hand accounts written by the name they ascribe to never made sense to me. But the false dichotomy of their either being modern histories written by the named figure or else their having no connection to the apostles or witnesses is also problematic. Again the Book of Mormon is a good parallels since all the texts except 1 Nephi - Enos were compiled and summarized by Moroni from unknown accounts centuries after the fact. 1 Link to comment
RevTestament Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 13 hours ago, clarkgoble said: Oh, I was dealing with the original question that took the dating of the book of Revelation to be problematic at 90 - 96 AD. I'm not sure I accept your view of the text - to me it's more akin to Nephi's vision of Joseph's in D&C 76. But that's not worth quibbling over. I do think the nature of the Seven Churches matters since they're described at present. This is why I think that is an erroneous approach. Turn to the passage in Isaiah regarding Eliakim. It describes Eliakim in present terms as the son of the high priest but then starts talking about nailing him in a sure place so that he will become a father and the government will be laid upon him. Surely that is not a description of Eliakim in his day. He was not nailed in a sure place, and the government was not laid upon his shoulder - the government was handed over to Babylon for 70 years. So it is a prophetic writing. Trying to date it from an historical perspective will be quite frustrating. I think that is what you are trying to do with Revelation based on those passages of the 7 churches. They didn't apply to that day they were written. They apply to spiritual churches simply using names of some of the most prominent Gentile churches. I know that is not a generally accepted view, but it is mine. Trying to date the book using those seven churches is an exercise in futility as far as I'm concerned. Have fun. Link to comment
clarkgoble Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, RevTestament said: This is why I think that is an erroneous approach. Turn to the passage in Isaiah regarding Eliakim. It describes Eliakim in present terms as the son of the high priest but then starts talking about nailing him in a sure place so that he will become a father and the government will be laid upon him. I don't think Eliakim is described in present terms. Rather most translations of Isaiah 22:20 say, "in that day...." indicating the future. Even in the KJV it has "it shall come to pass..." Unless you're referring to something else. I think that contextually Revelation seems to be talking to the present state of the Seven Churches. We can debate the relationship of Rev 2-3 to the rest of the text of course. (Not to mention the interspersion of elements of the endowment in the message to each church and how it relates to a circle geographically) But I'm not sure it's persuasive to say it's future prophecy. I am quite sympathetic to their not being straightforward messages though. Edited January 2, 2018 by clarkgoble 1 Link to comment
RevTestament Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 34 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: I don't think Eliakim is described in present terms. Rather most translations of Isaiah 22:20 say, "in that day...." indicating the future. Even in the KJV it has "it shall come to pass..." Unless you're referring to something else. I think that contextually Revelation seems to be talking to the present state of the Seven Churches. We can debate the relationship of Rev 2-3 to the rest of the text of course. (Not to mention the interspersion of elements of the endowment in the message to each church and how it relates to a circle geographically) But I'm not sure it's persuasive to say it's future prophecy. What you are saying is that you don't think you could be in one of the seven churches, because it's historical. Dismissed from the historical sounding text though, I think you will agree that the passages don't seem historical. It's fine to believe you can't overcome and receive those promises because you had to live in the rich community of Laodicea for it to apply to you. No worries. Ether 4:16 16 And then shall my arevelations which I have caused to be written by my servant John be unfolded in the eyes of all the people. Remember, when ye see these things, ye shall know that the time is at hand that they shall be made manifest in very deed. Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 18 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Robert, you ignored Frier. Do you want to engage in a conversation with me? You can tell me to read Nibley and others, but that is not a conversation. Do I have to read Nibley before you can answer my question? If you don't have an answer just tell me, it is okay not to know. Before all else, I recommended that you read Albright & Mann on Matthew, which you promptly ignored. You have no conception of New Testament scholarship, and you make completely unacceptable statements about it. I was hoping that you might make a sincere attempt to understand it. You don't wish to do so, preferring to continue wallowing in your ignorance. You wanted to discuss NT apocrypha, of which you know nothing, so I recommended that you first learn about the NT itself. Then later perhaps dealing with the apocrypha. Nibley was merely a source for you to consult if you insisted on dealing a subject on which you have no preparation whatsoever and should ignore for now. I also gave you a website which deals with that material in a responsible manner. You ignored what I said. 18 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Okay, how can we know circulating stories are accurate? How do oral traditions tell us much about Jesus and his ministry? For one thing, some oral comments are passed on by yokels, and yokels is as yokels does. Other oral materials are passed on systematically by careful and capable people who use oral structure (including rhyming , meter, and parallelistic poetry, as in chiasmus) and who have students who likewise systematically learn the epic poems and sagas. Such was the case for Homeric Epic. Dependence on writing apparently misleads you, Sam: Quote “For this invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage the use of their own memory within them. You have invented an elixir not of memory, but of reminding; and you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for they will read many things without instruction and will therefore seem to know many things, when they are for the most part ignorant and hard to get along with, since they are not wise, but only appear wise.” (Socrates, Phaedrus 274c-275b) 18 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Robert, nothing that Brigham Young said contradicts what I said. I said scriptures can't be scriptures without a prophet writing or dictating them and I gave you the definition of the church. Brigham Young did not mean the words of evil men are scriptures. Again, you specifically rejected Brother Brigham's fully accurate words, and now you are doing a 180 degree turn and accepting them. Your failed definition does not agree with Brigham, and it does not agree with scholars. Are you afraid to adopt accurate definitions, and to admit that you were wrong? You have a propensity to pop off with ridiculous statements without thinking them through, and then you try to defend them -- even if they are indefensible. That is not the way to have a meaningful conversation. You need to make a decision to be humble and willing to learn from real scholarship. Otherwise you will make no personal progress in knowledge, and you will always be a dollar short and day late here. Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 19 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Robert, if you tell me to read this or that I will just assume you don't want to engage in a conversation with me. You can assume whatever you like, as usual. Or you can carefully think through what I have been saying and take it to heart. In the latter case, you might learn something that would help you understand sources and materials which confuse you now. We can have a real conversation only if you decide to begin learning something, rather than making your ignorance the measure of all things. Link to comment
clarkgoble Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 (edited) 44 minutes ago, RevTestament said: What you are saying is that you don't think you could be in one of the seven churches, because it's historical. Dismissed from the historical sounding text though, I think you will agree that the passages don't seem historical. It's fine to believe you can't overcome and receive those promises because you had to live in the rich community of Laodicea for it to apply to you. No worries. Ether 4:16 16 And then shall my arevelations which I have caused to be written by my servant John be unfolded in the eyes of all the people. Remember, when ye see these things, ye shall know that the time is at hand that they shall be made manifest in very deed. I don't think I can agree they sound ahistoric. I agree there's something more going on, but it also seems clear that he's using the real historic churches as symbols for something else. Yet as symbols, the historic churches only work as those symbols if they line up to what they describe. I don't think Mormon's comments in Ether 4 or similar ones in 1 Nephi really address Rev 2-3 which clearly are separate from the main vision. Rev 4:1-2 clearly indicate a big shift. Now I personally think there are reasons to be skeptical of a lot on Revelation. I think it's one of those texts that is so ambiguous as phrased as to mean almost anything. Unless one gets, as Nephi apparently did, an interpretation by an angel, I just don't trust much written about the text. That seems somewhat independent though from what's necessary for the text to work symbolically. But this is probably not worth pushing too far. My experience is that once you start arguing about the meaning of Revelation you drop into an abyss where you're trying to nail jello to the wall. There's simply too many interpretive schemes with no clear objective way to pick one. Ultimately my argument was just that there were strong reasons to date the text to 90-96 AD and few to pick 70 AD. I don't want to pretend they are unarguable, just that I think the strength of argument is definitely on that late 1st century date rather than around the time of the first destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. As I said earlier it's harder to date John, but that's less of an issue simply because it's primarily transmitting traditions about Jesus rather than a single revelation. As such it can simultaneously be making use of old oral traditions and yet be part of the scribal author's worldview. (And John more so than any text other than perhaps Hebrews is very Platonic - something lacking in Revelation.) My guess is that the gospel of John probably does reflect the Johnine tradition. However the historic place of John just seems unclear to me. What was his relation with Peter or Jesus' brother in Jerusalem? When Peter died, what role did John take? If the apostasy was primarily withholding temple rites and priesthood, what role did John take? We don't know. Yet in many ways those are important questions. Edited January 2, 2018 by clarkgoble Link to comment
Calm Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 (edited) 19 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Robert, if you tell me to read this or that I will just assume you don't want to engage in a conversation with me. Look on it as telling someone you want to discuss Spanish literature in depth. If they pointed you towards a beginning Spanish course, would you look on them as not wanting to engage in a conversation or wanting you to get to the point you could actively participate and understand what was being discussed? You might think depending on Google translation as sufficient, but unless you knew Spanish at least to a limited extent you wouldn't be able to judge how good a job the translation was. Edited January 2, 2018 by Calm Link to comment
RevTestament Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: I don't think I can agree they sound ahistoric. I agree there's something more going on, but it also seems clear that he's using the real historic churches as symbols for something else. Yet as symbols, the historic churches only work as those symbols if they line up to what they describe. I don't think Mormon's comments in Ether 4 or similar ones in 1 Nephi really address Rev 2-3 which clearly are separate from the main vision. Rev 4:1-2 clearly indicate a big shift. Now I personally think there are reasons to be skeptical of a lot on Revelation. I think it's one of those texts that is so ambiguous as phrased as to mean almost anything. Unless one gets, as Nephi apparently did, an interpretation by an angel, I just don't trust much written about the text. That seems somewhat independent though from what's necessary for the text to work symbolically. But this is probably not worth pushing too far. My experience is that once you start arguing about the meaning of Revelation you drop into an abyss where you're trying to nail jello to the wall. There's simply too many interpretive schemes with no clear objective way to pick one. Ultimately my argument was just that there were strong reasons to date the text to 90-96 AD and few to pick 70 AD. I don't want to pretend they are unarguable, just that I think the strength of argument is definitely on that late 1st century date rather than around the time of the first destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. As I said earlier it's harder to date John, but that's less of an issue simply because it's primarily transmitting traditions about Jesus rather than a single revelation. As such it can simultaneously be making use of old oral traditions and yet be part of the scribal author's worldview. (And John more so than any text other than perhaps Hebrews is very Platonic - something lacking in Revelation.) My guess is that the gospel of John probably does reflect the Johnine tradition. However the historic place of John just seems unclear to me. What was his relation with Peter or Jesus' brother in Jerusalem? When Peter died, what role did John take? If the apostasy was primarily withholding temple rites and priesthood, what role did John take? We don't know. Yet in many ways those are important questions. I understand the historical viewpoint, and I will give you my take on it. Notice those are all eastern Churches. Where is the Church of Rome? Umm....no angel of the church of Rome....hmm. I wonder why? I thought the church of Rome was supposed to be the mother of all the churches... yet no promise to her...hmm... Well enough of that. Have a good one Clark. Enjoyed chattin with ya. Link to comment
clarkgoble Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 1 hour ago, RevTestament said: I understand the historical viewpoint, and I will give you my take on it. Notice those are all eastern Churches. Where is the Church of Rome? Umm....no angel of the church of Rome....hmm. I wonder why? I thought the church of Rome was supposed to be the mother of all the churches... yet no promise to her...hmm... No Church in Jerusalem either nor surrounding areas nor Egypt. Link to comment
RevTestament Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: No Church in Jerusalem either nor surrounding areas nor Egypt. The Church in Jerusalem was busy getting destroyed and Egypt was a "spiritually forbidden" place in Revelation. I'm not going to debate something that is spiritual Clark. The eastern Churches were the ones who resisted the Nicene Creed, and held several councils which are not now recognized as ecumenical by the Roman Church. Yet, as the state church gained power they were eventually snuffed out - their bishops replaced, etc. You don't have to attach any significance to that, but I do. Link to comment
SamuelTheLamanite Posted January 3, 2018 Author Share Posted January 3, 2018 6 hours ago, Calm said: Look on it as telling someone you want to discuss Spanish literature in depth. If they pointed you towards a beginning Spanish course, would you look on them as not wanting to engage in a conversation or wanting you to get to the point you could actively participate and understand what was being discussed? You might think depending on Google translation as sufficient, but unless you knew Spanish at least to a limited extent you wouldn't be able to judge how good a job the translation was. Okay, I get your point. But I am just looking for a brief answer. Is is truly very complicated? Does it require tough university courses like dynamics & controls, biochemistry, or quantum mechanics to understand? Link to comment
SamuelTheLamanite Posted January 3, 2018 Author Share Posted January 3, 2018 7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: We can have a real conversation only if you decide to begin learning something, rather than making your ignorance the measure of all things. Okay teach me. Why would oral traditions be reliable? Can oral traditions tells us many facts (factual history) about the life of Jesus? What went horribly wrong with the Ascension of Isaiah? The Ascension of Isaiah may predate all the four New Testament gospels, and yet we know it teaches false doctrines like Jesus being crucified in outer space by demons. Link to comment
clarkgoble Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, RevTestament said: The Church in Jerusalem was busy getting destroyed and Egypt was a "spiritually forbidden" place in Revelation. I'm not going to debate something that is spiritual Clark. The eastern Churches were the ones who resisted the Nicene Creed, and held several councils which are not now recognized as ecumenical by the Roman Church. Yet, as the state church gained power they were eventually snuffed out - their bishops replaced, etc. You don't have to attach any significance to that, but I do. I was agreeing with you regarding the significance of the Churches, although I'd note that not all are spoken of positively. Edited January 3, 2018 by clarkgoble Link to comment
clarkgoble Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 4 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Okay teach me. Why would oral traditions be reliable? Can oral traditions tells us many facts (factual history) about the life of Jesus? What went horribly wrong with the Ascension of Isaiah? The Ascension of Isaiah may predate all the four New Testament gospels, and yet we know it teaches false doctrines like Jesus being crucified in outer space by demons. Umm. What? Did a miss a subtle joke about an other thread? Link to comment
SamuelTheLamanite Posted January 3, 2018 Author Share Posted January 3, 2018 7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: For one thing, some oral comments are passed on by yokels, and yokels is as yokels does. Other oral materials are passed on systematically by careful and capable people who use oral structure How would you reply to anti-Christian atheists like Bart Ehrman? So if I understand the four gospels were based on oral traditions that were passed by capable people, but apostate writings like the Ascension of Isaiah passed by jokels? 8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Again, you specifically rejected Brother Brigham's fully accurate words, and now you are doing a 180 degree turn and accepting them. Because you told me "false" and quoted Brigham Young. I had to read him twice to realize nothing contradicts what I said. 8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Your failed definition does not agree with Brigham, and it does not agree with scholars. Okay. When did Brigham said the scriptures can come from non-prophets? Do you realize we Mormons don't believe everything in the bible is scripture? If you read carefully Young only said, " the words of good men and the words of bad men". I think the Book of Mormon makes it clear the apostles are the authors of the New Testament gospels. How would you interpret 1 Nephi 13:39? Jews who were scattered upon all the face of the earth, that the records of the prophets and of the twelve apostles of the Lamb are true. 23 hours ago, clarkgoble said: As for when the apostles died I really don’t know or care much. There are traditions about Peter and Paul that sound moderately trustworthy but who knows? Honestly there’s so much we don’t know about the early Church particularly prior to 70 AD. That is a very sincere and honest answer, thanks again Clark. So it seems you agree we can't learn much factual history from oral traditions. 14 hours ago, mnn727 said: Most scholars agree that the Apostles the Gospels were named after were not the actual writers. Hod do you interpret 1 Nephi 13:39? Jews who were scattered upon all the face of the earth, that the records of the prophets and of the twelve apostles of the Lamb are true. Link to comment
SamuelTheLamanite Posted January 3, 2018 Author Share Posted January 3, 2018 4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Umm. What? Did a miss a subtle joke about an other thread? umm? See page two of this thread, there is no joke Link to comment
Recommended Posts