Joseph Antley Posted October 18, 2009 Author Posted October 18, 2009 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness 2 Tim 3:16 (NIV)?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ???????? ??????? ???????? ???? ?? ????. ? ???????? ? : ??In other words, the Bible is true because it says it is? Also, what's up with posting the Arabic?Jesus does not apply, he is God.Jesus certainly thought he applied. " And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house." (Matthew 13:57)Just because someone is rejected, does not mean they are telling the truth. Make sense? No one ever said otherwise. You, on the other hand, said that Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet because Christians rejected him. Which we then responded by pointing out that most of the Lord's prophets, including Jesus himself, were rejected."Make sense?"
Heartleap Posted October 18, 2009 Posted October 18, 2009 Jesus does not apply, he is God. Just because someone is rejected, does not mean they are telling the truth. Make sense? Clarification: Being rejected does not determine whether someone is telling the truth. Either they are or they are not. So Paul being rejected by some people does not make him wrong. Joseph Smith being rejected by some people does not mean he told the truth. God tells me I can trust Paul's writing by scripture. Joseph Smith has to be tested to see if his words agree with Scripture. There are many things he wrote in the D&C & Temple Ordinances that are not in the Bible, or Book of Mormon. Heartleap...
Joseph Antley Posted October 18, 2009 Author Posted October 18, 2009 Clarification: Being rejected does not determine whether someone is telling the truth. Either they are or they are not. So Paul being rejected by some people does not make him wrong. Joseph Smith being rejected by some people does not mean he told the truth.No one ever said it did. Again, you were the one who said that Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet because he was rejected.God tells me I can trust Paul's writing by scripture. Joseph Smith has to be tested to see if his words agree with Scripture. There are many things he wrote in the D&C & Temple Ordinances that are not in the Bible, or Book of Mormon. And there are many things that Jesus taught his apostles before and after he was resurrected that aren't in the Bible. Does that mean the things he told them aren't true?"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." (John 21:25)"To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God." (Acts 1:3)
Heartleap Posted October 18, 2009 Posted October 18, 2009 In other words, the Bible is true because it says it is? Also, what's up with posting the Arabic?It is True because God says it is. The Arabic came with the scripture. Maybe your Prophet can read it? Jesus certainly thought he applied. " And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house." (Matthew 13:57) Just because someone is dishonored. this does not make mean he is telling the truth. There are many liars who have been dishonored. There are many good people who have been dishonored, Rejection is not a test of truthfulness either way. God allowed the letters of Paul to be in the New Testament there for they are scripture and can be used as such. No one ever said otherwise. You, on the other hand, said that Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet because Christians rejected him. Which we then responded by pointing out that most of the Lord's prophets, including Jesus himself, were rejected."Make sense?"Joseph Smith is not recognized by non LDS Christians as a Prophet. Being rejected by non LDS Christians is not the determinig factor whether he was one or not. Gods word is. And if Joseph Smith's teaching do not agree with the word of God than who is wrong? him or God? If you have to dismiss the teaching of the Bible to follow Mormonism then I think that should be a bit of a red flag.Heartleap...
Heartleap Posted October 18, 2009 Posted October 18, 2009 No one ever said it did. Again, you were the one who said that Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet because he was rejected.And there are many things that Jesus taught his apostles before and after he was resurrected that aren't in the Bible. Does that mean the things he told them aren't true?"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." (John 21:25)"To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God." (Acts 1:3)They were not needed for scripture. Heartleap...
Joseph Antley Posted October 18, 2009 Author Posted October 18, 2009 It is True because God says it is.You do realize that it's Paul writing there, not God? Unless you have equated Paul with God?The Arabic came with the scripture. Maybe your Prophet can read it?I do not believe mocking prophets of any faith is allowed here.Just because someone is dishonored. this does not make mean he is telling the truth. There are many liars who have been dishonored. There are many good people who have been dishonored, Rejection is not a test of truthfulness either way.For the umpteenth time, no one said that being rejected means your message is true.God allowed the letters of Paul to be in the New Testament there for they are scripture and can be used as such.How do you know that? You've only quoted one of the letters as saying that all scripture is beneficial. That verse doesn't even say that Paul's letters are scripture.Joseph Smith is not recognized by non LDS Christians as a Prophet. Being rejected by non LDS Christians is not the determinig factor whether he was one or not.That's not what you said earlier.Gods word is. And if Joseph Smith's teaching do not agree with the word of God than who is wrong? him or God? If you have to dismiss the teaching of the Bible to follow Mormonism then I think that should be a bit of a red flag.Mormons do not dismiss the Bible, as there is no contradiction. Joseph Smith understood the Bible as it was meant to be understood.
Joseph Antley Posted October 18, 2009 Author Posted October 18, 2009 They were not needed for scripture. Heartleap...You missed the point (again).Earlier, you said that Joseph Smith didn't agree with scripture because he taught things not in the Bible. Jesus taught and did things not in the scriptures as well. You are holding a double standard.
Hoops22 Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 You do realize that it's Paul writing there, not God? Unless you have equated Paul with God?So, Jesus was not speaking through Paul? Is that your position?
Hoops22 Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 I understand the question is difficult, but hopefully you can muster an answer.Why should they be? Do you have any evidence that they should be?
Joseph Antley Posted October 19, 2009 Author Posted October 19, 2009 So, Jesus was not speaking through Paul? Is that your position?Uh, yes, that is absolutely my position. Paul may have been speaking under inspiration, but it was still Paul speaking, not Christ.
Joseph Antley Posted October 19, 2009 Author Posted October 19, 2009 Why should they be? Do you have any evidence that they should be?You still haven't answered my question.Those I mentioned have just as much evidence as scripture as do the Pauline epistles. Many early Christians considered them as such.
Hoops22 Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 You still haven't answered my question.Those I mentioned have just as much evidence as scripture as do the Pauline epistles. Many early Christians considered them as such.What is this evidence?
Ron Beron Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness 2 Tim 3:16 (NIV)Heartleap...Paul was referring to the OT and ironically rejects such in his own explanation of the doctrines of Jesus.
Ron Beron Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 So, Jesus was not speaking through Paul? Is that your position?Why would Jesus speak through Paul only to contradict himself? It doesn't make sense.
Ron Beron Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 What is this evidence?The Ebionites as well as James and Peter et al completely rejected Pauline theology as has others throughout the centuries including Thomas Jefferson.
Hoops22 Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 Why would Jesus speak through Paul only to contradict himself? It doesn't make sense.Of cours it does. Jesus was speaking of His program of the church, which, until Paul, had been not even on the radar of Israel or the early church.
Ron Beron Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 Of cours it does. Jesus was speaking of His program of the church, which, until Paul, had been not even on the radar of Israel or the early church.What church? There wasn't a church. Both the earliest Christians and the Pauline followers saw Jesus' return to be imminent or maranatha. His teachings, however. were consistent with the Jewish teachings of the age and contradicted Paul's later assertions to a "church without the law". One simply cannot see Paul has a traditional follower of Jesus. Rather, his ideas and teaching ran counter to the established doctrine set down by Jesus and officiated by James and the other apostles. If there was a chain of apostatic events Paul was most probably the first link.
Vance Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 Hoops and co. are again elevating (their interpretation of) Paul's words above those of Jesus.So, apparently we need to show what the Bible says about this sort of thing.From Deu 18:15
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 Hoops and co. are again elevating (their interpretation of) Paul's words above those of Jesus.Are all of those translations
Vance Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 Yes they are, you have stripped it of it's context.
Hoops22 Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 What church? There wasn't a church. Both the earliest Christians and the Pauline followers saw Jesus' return to be imminent or maranatha. His teachings, however. were consistent with the Jewish teachings of the age and contradicted Paul's later assertions to a "church without the law". One simply cannot see Paul has a traditional follower of Jesus. Rather, his ideas and teaching ran counter to the established doctrine set down by Jesus and officiated by James and the other apostles. If there was a chain of apostatic events Paul was most probably the first link.I agree. It was during Paul's 3 years (I think it was 3 years) between his conversion and going to Jerusalem that he received his revelation of the church.I know we disagree in all this somewhere, and that it will pop up soon.
Hoops22 Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 Why would Jesus speak through Paul only to contradict himself? It doesn't make sense.To reveal his program for drawing gentiles to himself, which was unheard of before, by the mechanism of the church.
Joseph Antley Posted October 19, 2009 Author Posted October 19, 2009 What is this evidence?They claim to be written under inspiration, they date to around the same time as the rest of the New Testament, and they were accepted as scripture by many early Christians.Exactly the same evidence as most of the New Testament. Now, again -- why do you accept the letters of Paul (or the epistles of Peter or John) and not the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle of Clement, or the Shepherd of Hermas?
Zakuska Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 Of cours it does. Jesus was speaking of His program of the church, which, until Paul, had been not even on the radar of Israel or the early church.And yet God through all the prophets had prophecied this "so called church age (ie Gospel going to the Gentiles) clear back in the OT. Romans 10 19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to ajealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you. 20 But aEsaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that bsought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. Isa. 63: 19 19 We are thine: thou never barest rule over them; they were not called by thy a<A title="Isa. 65: 1." href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/isa/65/isa/63/19a" type=A mark="a">name. And it was Peter who originally sent Paul to the Gentiles in the first place. Acts 10 9
Vance Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 To reveal his program for drawing gentiles to himself, which was unheard of before, by the mechanism of the church.Still pushing that "the kingdom" isn't "the church" drivel?Your credibility with regard to knowing what the scriptures actually say and then understanding it is slightly less than ZERO, after your last kingdom/church adventure.BUT!!!!We still love you!And you really are entertaining if not believable.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.