For Hoops: "Evidence" of Scriptural Hearsay

[Jason]

Not sure. I'm assuming, generally, the same way most people do.

And how is that?

God spoke to him through His word.

Do you mean "he read it in the Bible" or "God spoke to him"?

HIs students. Who can, in turn, testify to the truthfulness of it by it's coherence with biblical truth.

So anything in line with biblical truth is a revelation or inspired? How are we to determine what is and is not biblical truth?

What is different from your teacher's revelation and Joseph Smith's first vision that makes one a revelation and the other not?

[Hoops22]

You're being coy. But I'll play along

And how is that?

Do you mean "he read it in the Bible" or "God spoke to him"?

God spoke through His word.

So anything in line with biblical truth is a revelation or inspired? How are we to determine what is and is not biblical truth?

Typical lds.

No, any revelation must be in line with Biblical truth.

I'd start by reading, studying, discussing.

What is different from your teacher's revelation and Joseph Smith's first vision that makes one a revelation and the other not?

Well, we are dealing with just the first vision? And which account of it? But we'll let that ride.

The difference is that JS revelation is contrary to revealed Biblical truth. Can not be revelation then.

[Jason]

You're being coy. But I'll play along

I'M being coy?

God spoke through His word.

Which means what exactly?

Typical lds.

No, any revelation must be in line with Biblical truth.

I'd start by reading, studying, discussing.

If reading, studying, and discussing is all it takes, then why are my conclusions of what is Biblical truth, reached after reading, studying, and discussing, not as good as yours?

The difference is that JS revelation is contrary to revealed Biblical truth. Can not be revelation then.

In what way is it contrary?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The difference is that JS revelation is contrary to revealed Biblical truth. Can not be revelation then.

What is biblical truth? Can you define that?

[Hoops22]

What is biblical truth? Can you define that?

Revealed Biblical Truth.

[Jason]

Revealed Biblical Truth.

Which means what? How does one determine when you have bonnified "revealed biblical truth" and when you don't?

[Hoops22]

Which means what exactly?

God reveals Himself through His word

If reading, studying, and discussing is all it takes, then why are my conclusions of what is Biblical truth, reached after reading, studying, and discussing, not as good as yours?

You tell me. Perhaps you need some Biblical revelation.

In what way is it contrary?

Well, Im a bit confused about which vision we're talking about. But I'd start with two gods.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Revealed Biblical Truth.

Ok that really didn't answer anything. What is "revealed biblical truth"?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

God reveals Himself through His word

You tell me. Perhaps you need some Biblical revelation.

Well, Im a bit confused about which vision we're talking about. But I'd start with two gods.

What constitutes Gods word?

[David T]

Well, Im a bit confused about which vision we're talking about. But I'd start with two gods.

Acts 7: 55-56

"But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God."

JS-H

"When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the otherâ??This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!"

[Jason]

God reveals Himself through His word

You tell me. Perhaps you need some Biblical revelation.

Well, Im a bit confused about which vision we're talking about. But I'd start with two gods.

Hoops, you obviously have no interest in actually answering any questions.

I reaffirm my original conclusion. You don't believe in our spiritual experiences specifically because we are LDS. It's blind prejudice, with nothing more to it than that, and not worthy of any additional discussion.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What constitutes Gods word?

I guess you don't want to answer this question. I can guess that you think God's word = the bible only. If that is the case were does it say that in the bible?? If not can you clarify what "God's word" is?? What is revealed biblical truth? Untilwe define these terms I don't see how a serious discussion can continue.

[Hoops22]

Hoops, you obviously have no interest in actually answering any questions.

I reaffirm my original conclusion. You don't believe in our spiritual experiences specifically because we are LDS. It's blind prejudice, with nothing more to it than that, and not worthy of any additional discussion.

I answered each and every one. You can reaffirm your original conclusions all you want, but, much like the "witnesses" described in this thread, there is no evidence to support your conclusion.

[Hoops22]

I guess you don't want to answer this question. I can guess that you think God's word = the bible only. If that is the case were does it say that in the bible?? If not can you clarify what "God's word" is?? What is revealed biblical truth? Untilwe define these terms I don't see how a serious discussion can continue.

The Bible.

And now you will go through the tiring litany of the councils decided what was in, some things were left, God can't be contained in a book, and on and on. But that is not the question of this thread - or the question posed to me.

The Bible has evidence to support it's claims. That Jesus was born in Jerusalem, that Paul travelled to Spain, and so on. These are fairly verifiable. That lends credence to the Bible. There is no support whatsoever for "the Spirit told me to turn left cause I felt evil in the air." That is a significant difference between the two.

[stux]

The Bible has evidence to support it's claims. That Jesus was born in Jerusalem, that Paul travelled to Spain, and so on. These are fairly verifiable. That lends credence to the Bible. There is no support whatsoever for "the Spirit told me to turn left cause I felt evil in the air." That is a significant difference between the two.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has evidence to support it's claims. That Joseph Smith was born in Vermont, the Saints settled in Utah, and so on. These are fairly verifiable. That leads credence to the Book of Mormon and the claims of a restoration. There is no support whatsoever for "God through his word told me _____ and i felt it was in support of my interpretation the bible." That is a significant difference between the two.

... Are you kidding me? We could try this as well.

Jesus Christ never rose from the dead and all the evidence supports this claim. No one has ever risen from the dead, that the most significant numbers can attest to seeing no resurrected being and the most insignificant make the claim with no evidence only verifies that Christ never rose from the dead. There is no support whatsoever for "I read it in a book which is the only witness the world has of this Jesus Christ and God told me through his word." That is the significant difference between the two. One has real evidence while the other is just words with no physical proof.

I could go on and on your arguments are not only arrogant, but extremely shallow, which is not a problem. Everyone has terrible arguments that they make. The problem is that you are not open to any form of honest or critical discussion. The only way is your way and anyone who attempts to show differently has a hidden agenda with an attempt to display the same tired litany as always. To further block the possibility of discussion you throw out the most vague and ambiguous responses that I have seen from anyone on this board. You continue to repeat the same exercise 2 or 3 times until you are forced to expound a little. You simply rephrase the same response and add a few words to the mix and call it good. The problem still remains that no definitive or credible answer has been given. Your approach and form of discussion displays that you are either so closed minded and arrogant that you are unwilling to actually debate or discuss, which negates the reason of even being here unless your reason is to simply convert the "ignorant" which is still no reason at all. The other conclusion is that that your simply aware of how contradictory and shallow your arguments are and so you avoid any clear definition and answers in order to hide behind your vague veil of response and attacks.

This thread is almost 5 pages and you still have not given any good answers to the OP questions. This little game you play here is sad and its a shame anyone attempts to find a concise position from you because its obvious your not willing to give one. I find a lot of your responses and veiled attacks pretty humorous, but its not that funny when i realize that this content is all your currently willing to provide or capable of providing. Either way it would be nice if more people just ignored your responses until you are capable of real participation. I'm guessing from your usual pattern if you responded to my post you would claim ignorance and deny any of the behaviors I observed. Most likely you would follow with a question of how i can possible see that and ask for evidence. If I did comply with your request you would just twist your words around and willingly ignore the evidence presented. The same tiring game would begin again and the cycle would continue. Either way almost everything you have contributed is not worth looking at so I won't be back to this thread to see if you even bother to respond to my post. If you even think about responding to this post either to change behavior or attempt to discredit me I would appreciate it if you proved me wrong by actually answering the OP clearly showing where you stand.

[Hoops22]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has evidence to support it's claims. That Joseph Smith was born in Vermont, the Saints settled in Utah, and so on. These are fairly verifiable. That leads credence to the Book of Mormon and the claims of a restoration.

Well, no, not at all. If we could find some evidence that the events in the bom actually took place, any verifiable evidence at all, real places, artifacts, you get the idea. We have these for the Bible. There are none for the bom.

Jesus Christ never rose from the dead and all the evidence supports this claim. No one has ever risen from the dead, that the most significant numbers can attest to seeing no resurrected being and the most insignificant make the claim with no evidence only verifies that Christ never rose from the dead.

But, of course, there is evidence to the contrary.

I could go on and on your arguments are not only arrogant, but extremely shallow, which is not a problem. Everyone has terrible arguments that they make. The problem is that you are not open to any form of honest or critical discussion.

Well, when there is honest and critical discussion I'll be open to it.

The only way is your way and anyone who attempts to show differently has a hidden agenda with an attempt to display the same tired litany as always.

No, the only way is the Biblical way - which just happens to be my way as well.

To further block the possibility of discussion you throw out the most vague and ambiguous responses that I have seen from anyone on this board. You continue to repeat the same exercise 2 or 3 times until you are forced to expound a little.

I've learned from experience here that lds responders will consistently rephrase or add words to ones response to set up and knock down an argument never made.

Your approach and form of discussion displays that you are either so closed minded and arrogant that you are unwilling to actually debate or discuss, which negates the reason of even being here unless your reason is to simply convert the "ignorant" which is still no reason at all.

Well, I have a third possibility in mind.

The other conclusion is that that your simply aware of how contradictory and shallow your arguments are and so you avoid any clear definition and answers in order to hide behind your vague veil of response

It would be refreshing if some responders would respond to what I actually write.

and attacks.

I've attacked no one.

This thread is almost 5 pages and you still have not given any good answers to the OP questions. This little game you play here is sad and its a shame anyone attempts to find a concise position from you because its obvious your not willing to give one. I find a lot of your responses and veiled attacks pretty humorous, but its not that funny when i realize that this content is all your currently willing to provide or capable of providing.

Glad you enjoyed it - to a point.

Either way it would be nice if more people just ignored your responses until you are capable of real participation. I'm guessing from your usual pattern if you responded to my post you would claim ignorance and deny any of the behaviors I observed.

I do.

Most likely you would follow with a question of how i can possible see that and ask for evidence.

Evidence.

If I did comply with your request you would just twist your words around and willingly ignore the evidence presented.

I gladly respond to any evidence you would have. I'm not sweatin'

The same tiring game would begin again and the cycle would continue. Either way almost everything you have contributed is not worth looking at so I won't be back to this thread to see if you even bother to respond to my post.

Oh, I'll bet you do.

If you even think about responding to this post either to change behavior or attempt to discredit me I would appreciate it if you proved me wrong by actually answering the OP clearly showing where you stand.

I have. #38 is a good place to start.

And I am making a distinction, which I believe is reasonable, between general revelation intended for the nation of Israel and/or His church. General revelation now is gleaned from study of His word. Lds are fond of misusing this verse - one, when properly understood, fully supports my contention

James 1:5

5If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. 6But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; 8he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does.

This is a promise of guidance in response to prayer for wisdom, not a promise that guidance will come as an internal, personal revelation giving rise to a feeling. We are called to study, research, and depend on the assistance of others. We are promised wisdom - which is the ability to use our knowledge wisely.

The stories in this thread are hardly this.

But the writers of the Bible, recording in prophecy, in visions, and in eyewitness accounts - many of the men confirmed their testimonies by a martyrs death.

Juxtaposed with the bom - lds will claim JS died a martyr's death - but did he really? Lds will claim there were witnesses to the transcription of the bom - but were they really? These questions are certainly debatable.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Do you mean "he read it in the Bible" or "God spoke to him"?

To which you replied

You're being coy. But I'll play alongGod spoke through His word.No, any revelation must be in line with Biblical truth.

So God spoke to your teacher through his word which you just comfirmed was the bible. And any revelation must be in line with the bible or be contained in the bible.

The Bible.And now you will go through the tiring litany of the councils decided what was in, some things were left, God can't be contained in a book, and on and on. But that is not the question of this thread - or the question posed to me.

Actually I wont, your mind reading skills are not very good. I think your thought pattern is a little circular. If it isnt in the bible it isn't true? That seems to be what you are saying. If not please clarify. If it is were does it say that in the bible. The fact of the matter is that you cannot claim that all revealed truth is in the bible as the the bible never once makes refrence to itself.

The Bible has evidence to support it's claims. That Jesus was born in Jerusalem, that Paul travelled to Spain, and so on. These are fairly verifiable. That lends credence to the Bible. There is no support whatsoever for "the Spirit told me to turn left cause I felt evil in the air." That is a significant difference between the two.

That is nice, however Jesus resurrection last I checked was not supported by any form of science. Just because a few places happen to match up doesn't mean that it is true, so once again how do you know the bible is true. Come on try and convince me.

[Hoops22]

To which you repliedSo God spoke to your teacher through his word which you just comfirmed was the bible. And any revelation must be in line with the bible or be contained in the bible.

Correct. I previously gave verses that supported my contention that God will preserve His word. Therefor, any revelation that purported to be from Him must be supported from the Bible.

Actually I wont, your mind reading skills are not very good. I think your thought pattern is a little circular. If it isnt in the bible it isn't true?

Well, no, not exactly. Using the examples from this thread, those instances certainly could have been "promptings", as they do not contradict Biblical teaching.

If it is were does it say that in the bible. The fact of the matter is that you cannot claim that all revealed truth is in the bible as the the bible never once makes refrence to itself.

No, it doesn't. However, by revelation and through faith in His specific word, we can be confident that what we have is from Him.

That is nice, however Jesus resurrection last I checked was not supported by any form of science. Just because a few places happen to match up doesn't mean that it is true,

When science dismisses the supernatural outright, no, it does not support the resurrection. However, we have in the Bible much more than "a few places happen to match up." That is evidence.

so once again how do you know the bible is true. Come on try and convince me.

I'm sure there are more, but these are off the top

1) It's reasonable to me that there is a god

2) It's reasonable to me that he would communicate with us.

3) It's reasonable to me that the claims of the Bible are true

4) It's reasonable to me that the historicity of the Bible supports its Truth

5) It's reasonable to me that what the Bible says about me, and mankind, is true

5) Faith