Vance Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 (edited) This does clarify things some what. I have a couple of questions though.1) It seemed at first that you were saying that the law given through and alongside the second tablets was different than what God intended to give alongside the first tablets.The above quote however doesn't specifically identify what or where the 'higher law that they failed to obey' came from.So was there a difference, if so can you show any verses from Exodus-Deuteronomy that show this distinction?Sometimes it is as if you are NOT actually reading what I am writing. As I said in the previous post.Admittedly I am inferring that the "transgression" Paul credits for the addition of the Law of Moses was the wickedness the people were engaging in when Mose descended the mountain the first time with the tablets.Whether it was that "transgression" or another is not the important thing. The important thing is that Paul recognized that the Gospel was given first, but due to "transgression", the Law of Moses was added. And he uses this point to support his argument that the works of the Law of Moses was irrelevant toward salvation.2)Where does Paul say the gospel was given first?As I pointed out in post #368, and #373.In Gal 3:8 (see the whole chapter for context) Paul clearly declares that Abraham had the gospel. If I have my chronology correct, Abraham preceded Moses by a couple of centuries (430 years according to Paul).In Heb 4:2 it clearly indicates that the gospel was preached to ancient Israel, but because it didn't take ("not being mixed with faith") it "did not profit them".3) Your quote also mentioned that baptism in water was a part of the Law of Moses, where is this in the OT?I don't know that I said it is in the OT. But then again, why would anyone expect the OT to be a complete and accurate history considering the cycles of apostasy throughout history?But here is something that might help you.http://classic.scrip...s.org/en/bd/b/7From a Greek word meaning to dip or immerse. Baptism in water is the introductory ordinance of the gospel, and must be followed by baptism of the Spirit in order to be complete. As one of the ordinances of the gospel, it is associated with faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentance, and the laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. Baptism has always been practiced whenever the gospel of Jesus Christ has been on the earth and has been taught by men holding the holy priesthood who could administer the ordinances. Although there is some obscurity in the Bible as to the antiquity of baptism before the time of Jesus, from latter-day revelation it is clear that Adam was baptized (Moses 6: 64-68) and that the patriarchs and prophets since his time have taught the gospel and administered the ordinances that pertain to the gospel. This includes both water baptism and the laying on of hands for the Holy Ghost (Moses 8: 23-24). The Book of Mormon shows also that baptism was taught and practiced long before the coming of Jesus Christ (2 Ne. 31; Mosiah 18: 8-17). In the N.T. Paul speaks of the children of Israel being baptized by Moses “in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Cor. 10: 1-4). Noah and Abraham are spoken of as “preachers of righteousness,” which means they taught the gospel and administered its ordinances (Gal. 3: 8; Heb. 4: 1-2; 2 Pet. 2: 5; cf. Moses 8: 23-24).Baptism symbolizes death, burial, and resurrection, and can only be done by immersion. It is clear that John the Baptist and Philip baptized in that manner (Matt. 3: 16; Acts 8: 37-39; Rom. 6: 1-6; Col. 2: 12; D&C 20: 72-74; D&C 128: 12-13). Any other method is not baptism.We learn from latter-day revelation, which confirms the teaching in the Bible, that the Aaronic Priesthood has authority to baptize with water, whereas the Melchizedek Priesthood has power to baptize not only with water but also to confer the Holy Ghost (D&C 13; JS-H 1: 68-72). We note also that John the Baptist, who had the Aaronic Priesthood, recognized this distinction and used it to illustrate one of the differences between his mission and the mission of Jesus, who had the priesthood of Melchizedek (Matt. 3: 11; Mark 1: 8; Luke 3: 15-16; John 1: 25-33; cf. Acts 8: 5-25).Baptism is not optional if one wishes the fullness of salvation. Jesus said a person must be born of water and of the Spirit (John 3: 3-5). When he sent the twelve apostles forth to teach the gospel he told them that whosoever believed and was baptized would be saved; and whosoever did not believe would be damned (Mark 16: 16). Jesus himself was baptized “to fulfill all righteousness” (Matt. 3: 15; 2 Ne. 31: 4-11). But the Pharisees, being unwilling to accept the gospel “rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized” (Luke 7: 30).Baptism in water has several purposes. It is for the remission of sins, for membership in the Church, and for entrance into the celestial kingdom; it is also the doorway to personal sanctification when followed by the reception of the Holy Ghost.The age at which baptism should be administered is not specified in the Bible, although it is evident that candidates were to be old enough to be capable of belief and have some understanding. In latter-day revelation we learn that the Lord has set the age at eight years as the time when a person begins to become accountable and can be baptized (D&C 20: 71; D&C 68: 25-28). This was also the age given in O.T. times (JST Gen. 17: 11).Baptism is a most sacred ordinance, which a person, having received it, can remember throughout life as a reminder of the personal commitment to Jesus Christ. Its symbolism is beautiful, and its consequences ever so desirable. John the Baptist had the signal honor among all men to take the Son of God into the water and baptize him, after which he saw the Holy Ghost descend upon Jesus. By being baptized Jesus obeyed the law himself, and set the example for all mankind. Edited July 30, 2012 by Vance
djholmess Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 I understand that you are saying the gospel came before Moses - I agree in a general sense (I would disagree about the content of what the 'gospel' is). However my main question regarding my first point above is that before you were saying that the first tablets Moses brought down off the Mountain contained the gospel and that after Moses broke the tablets because of Israel’s sin God sent down the second tablets which contained a different message - the law.Do you have any verses or even LDS teachings that back this up - I have never heard anyone LDS or otherwise make this claim before so I am interested to see where you get this from.I don't know that I said it is in the OT. But then again, why would anyone expect the OT to be a complete and accurate history considering the cycles of apostasy throughout history?Why would anyone expect the OT to be accurate....maybe because Jesus did?
Vance Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 I understand that you are saying the gospel came before Moses - I agree in a general sense (I would disagree about the content of what the 'gospel' is). However my main question regarding my first point above is that before you were saying that the first tablets Moses brought down off the Mountain contained the gospel and that after Moses broke the tablets because of Israel’s sin God sent down the second tablets which contained a different message - the law.Still playing that canard eh. Go back and reread post #373 again. I didn't say what you are claiming I said. Do you have any verses or even LDS teachings that back this up - I have never heard anyone LDS or otherwise make this claim before so I am interested to see where you get this from.What? Have you suddenly forgotten what has been posted over the last three days? If you want to move this discussion forward, you could start from where we are now, not from where we were three days ago. Why would anyone expect the OT to be accurate....maybe because Jesus did?Really? Is that why Jesus made this accusation? Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
djholmess Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 Still playing that canard eh. Go back and reread post #373 again. I didn't say what you are claiming I said.To be clear then you see no difference between what Moses was bringing with the first tablets and what he brought with the second ones? If you do believe there was a difference can you explain what it is?
djholmess Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 Really? Is that why Jesus made this accusation?Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.And why do you think the 'Key of knowledge' refers to the words of the OT and it not being accurate and complete.In actual fact the very verse before the one you quoted is a very strong atestation to the completness of the OT51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.Abel was the first man killed in the order of the OT cannon - in Genesis. Zacharias was the last man killed in the order of the Jewish OT cannon - in 2 Chronicles. Jesus is clearly using these two references to point to all the prophets mentioned in the Jewish cannon will be required of that generation.So Jesus affirmed the content of the OT cannon right above the verse you think is talking about the OT being altered/changed.Add this to Matthew 5:17-1817 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.And we see that Jesus sees importance in every jot and tittle of the law – how can he say this if the Jews had already ‘taken away’ things out of it?
Vance Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 To be clear then you see no difference between what Moses was bringing with the first tablets and what he brought with the second ones?If you do believe there was a difference can you explain what it is?Been there, done that.
djholmess Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 Been there, done that.Well you have left me very confused. If your answer is 'no difference' why can't you just clarify that for me.
Vance Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) And why do you think the 'Key of knowledge' refers to the words of the OT and it not being accurate and complete.In actual fact the very verse before the one you quoted is a very strong atestation to the completness of the OT51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.LOL!!! So, a single OT reference is all you need to "PROVE" that the Hebrew Bible is complete?What ever. Abel was the first man killed in the order of the OT cannon - in Genesis. Zacharias was the last man killed in the order of the Jewish OT cannon - in 2 Chronicles.Not so. According to Origen, Jesus is referring to Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, who was murdered during the "massacre of the Innocents" because he refused to divulge the whereabouts of his son. Jesus is clearly using these two references to point to all the prophets mentioned in the Jewish cannon will be required of that generation.Faulty conclusion based on a faulty premise. So Jesus affirmed the content of the OT cannon right above the verse you think is talking about the OT being altered/changed.Faulty conclusion base on a faulty premise. Add this to Matthew 5:17-1817 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.And we see that Jesus sees importance in every jot and tittle of the law – how can he say this if the Jews had already ‘taken away’ things out of it?Conflating "the law" with the OT? Why?You still haven't addressed Jesus' accusation that the lawyers removed the key of knowledge. How did they remove it without somehow corrupting it? Edited July 31, 2012 by Vance 1
Vance Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 Well you have left me very confused. If your answer is 'no difference' why can't you just clarify that for me.If this is such an issue for you, why don't you just tell us when the law of Moses was added. Paul already told us why, so you tell us when.
Vance Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 If the OT is so complete and accurate, explain these contradictions found within it. http://www.skeptically.org/bible/id8.html/Or these,http://jeromekahn123.tripod.com/newtestament/id19.html
djholmess Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 If this is such an issue for you, why don't you just tell us when the law of Moses was added. Paul already told us why, so you tell us when.It's not an issue for me at all. It just seemed like you were saying something very strange before. Therefore I wanted to try and understand your viewpoint. Now it seems like you aren't willing to talk about it or explain it.
djholmess Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 If the OT is so complete and accurate, explain these contradictions found within it.http://www.skeptical...bible/id8.html/Or these,http://jeromekahn123...ament/id19.htmlSeriously? There are answers to everyone of these if you wanted you could find them all without too much difficulty. Did you even look at some of them, they are ridiculous to anyone who has ever actually read the OT!
Vance Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 It's not an issue for me at all. It just seemed like you were saying something very strange before. Therefore I wanted to try and understand your viewpoint. Now it seems like you aren't willing to talk about it or explain it.Why should I want to carry on this exchange when you continue to misrepresent what I have said?
Vance Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 Seriously? There are answers to everyone of these if you wanted you could find them all without too much difficulty. Did you even look at some of them, they are ridiculous to anyone who has ever actually read the OT!Of course there are answers to everyone of them. There can ALWAYS be answers fabricated no matter how flimsy or unbelievable. But the fact remains that there are legitimate contradictions within the OT and the Bible. But then again, both come to us through human hands, so why would we even expect perfection or completeness?We have had several discussions here on this topic. Sorry you missed them.
djholmess Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 Why should I want to carry on this exchange when you continue to misrepresent what I have said?This is now the third time I have asked you to explain what it is you think? I'm trying not to misrepresent you but if you won't clarify then what can I do.Was there any difference between what Moses brought down with the first tablets from Sinai and the second tablets? If you say no then I think I understood what you said before. If you say yes then please explain. I don't understand how I'm making a difficult request.
Vance Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 This is now the third time I have asked you to explain what it is you think? I'm trying not to misrepresent you but if you won't clarify then what can I do.Was there any difference between what Moses brought down with the first tablets from Sinai and the second tablets? If you say no then I think I understood what you said before. If you say yes then please explain. I don't understand how I'm making a difficult request.I addressed this 4 days ago. Apparently you missed it.
djholmess Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 LOL!!! So, a single OT reference is all you need to "PROVE" that the Hebrew Bible is complete?I never said that verse 'proved' anything, just that it strongly pointed to Jesus speaking in the context of a complete OT cannon being assumed.Not so. According to Origen, Jesus is referring to Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, who was murdered during the "massacre of the Innocents" because he refused to divulge the whereabouts of his son.And why do you accept anything Origen says, don't you believe in an apostasy? Even so do you want to maybe provide a link or sumarise his arguments for thinking this?You still haven't addressed Jesus' accusation that the lawyers removed the key of knowledge. How did they remove it without somehow corrupting it?I haven't addressed it because you haven't given me anything to address. As I asked before why do you think this refers to the OT cannon being corrupt? There is nothing in the context of the chapter that suggests Jesus is refering to the Lawyers changeing or altering the words of the OT cannon.
Vance Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 It is rather OBVIOUS that the Bible isn't complete. It even admits it.John 20:30 ¶ And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:John 21:25 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. Amen.Are those "many other things which Jesus did" exclusive of his pre-Mortal OT activities?
Vance Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 And why do you accept anything Origen says, don't you believe in an apostasy?And why don't you accept everything Origen says, don't you reject the apostasy? Even so do you want to maybe provide a link or sumarise his arguments for thinking this?Google can be your friend.
thesometimesaint Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 djholmess:Here is a list of fourteen Books of God mentioned in the Bible, but not contained in our canon; or in other words obviously lost books of the Bible.THE BOOK OF JASHER (x2) Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is it not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. 2 Samuel 1:18 Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher. THE BOOK OF THE ACTS OF SOLOMON 1 Kings 11:41 And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the acts of Solomon? THE BOOK OF NATHAN THE PROPHET (x2)THE BOOK OF GAD THE SEER 1 Chronicles 29:29 Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer. THE BOOK OF SHEMAIAH THE PROPHETTHE VISIONS OF IDDO THE SEER (x3) 2 Chronicles 12:15 Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? And there wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually. 2 Chronicles 13:22 And the rest of the acts of Abijah, and his ways, and his sayings, are written in the story of the prophet Iddo. THE PROPHECY OF AHIJAH 2 Chronicles 9:29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat? THE BOOK OF JEHU 2 Chronicles 20:34 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Jehu the son of Hanani, who is mentioned in the book of the kings of Israel. THE SAYINGS OF THE SEERS (ACTS AND PRAYER OF MANASSEH) 2 Chronicles 33:18, 19 Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and his prayer unto his God, and the words of the seers that spake to him in the name of the Lord God of Israel, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel. His prayer also, and how God was entreated of him, and all his sins, and his trespass, and the places wherein he built upon high places, and set up groves and graven images, before he was humbled: behold, they are written among the sayings of the seers. A PRIOR EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS 1 Corinthians 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators. THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE LAODICEANS Colossians 4:16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea. THE EPISTLE OF JOHN TO THE CHURCH RULED BY DIOTREPHES 3 John 1:9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have preeminence among them, receiveth us not. THE BOOK OF THE PROPHECIES OF ENOCH Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints. 1
KevinG Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 And why do you accept anything Origen says, don't you believe in an apostasy? The LDS view of apostasy has to do with the loss of authority and some knowledge not the loss of all knowledge concerning the Gospel. Add the great apostasy to the list of LDS teachings you should get familiar with before critiquing them.
djholmess Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 It is rather OBVIOUS that the Bible isn't complete. It even admits it.John 20:30 ¶ And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:John 21:25 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. Amen.Are those "many other things which Jesus did" exclusive of his pre-Mortal OT activities?Well if you define 'complete' as 'must have a written record of everything that Jesus has ever done' then no one has every thought the Bible was complete by your definition. I define 'complete' as consisting of all the books within its cannon that God intended. So just as Jesus recognised the OT cannon we now have a NT cannon that has come about in the same manor.
djholmess Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 djholmess:Here is a list of fourteen Books of God mentioned in the Bible, but not contained in our canon; or in other words obviously lost books of the Bible.THE BOOK OF JASHER (x2) Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is it not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. 2 Samuel 1:18 Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher. THE BOOK OF THE ACTS OF SOLOMON 1 Kings 11:41 And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the acts of Solomon? THE BOOK OF NATHAN THE PROPHET (x2)THE BOOK OF GAD THE SEER 1 Chronicles 29:29 Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer. THE BOOK OF SHEMAIAH THE PROPHETTHE VISIONS OF IDDO THE SEER (x3) 2 Chronicles 12:15 Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? And there wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually. 2 Chronicles 13:22 And the rest of the acts of Abijah, and his ways, and his sayings, are written in the story of the prophet Iddo. THE PROPHECY OF AHIJAH 2 Chronicles 9:29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat? THE BOOK OF JEHU 2 Chronicles 20:34 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Jehu the son of Hanani, who is mentioned in the book of the kings of Israel. THE SAYINGS OF THE SEERS (ACTS AND PRAYER OF MANASSEH) 2 Chronicles 33:18, 19 Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and his prayer unto his God, and the words of the seers that spake to him in the name of the Lord God of Israel, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel. His prayer also, and how God was entreated of him, and all his sins, and his trespass, and the places wherein he built upon high places, and set up groves and graven images, before he was humbled: behold, they are written among the sayings of the seers. A PRIOR EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS 1 Corinthians 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators. THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE LAODICEANS Colossians 4:16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea. THE EPISTLE OF JOHN TO THE CHURCH RULED BY DIOTREPHES 3 John 1:9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have preeminence among them, receiveth us not. THE BOOK OF THE PROPHECIES OF ENOCH Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints.So by your standards if a book from God mentions any other book that book also must be included in the list of scriptures? Do you hold the BoM to the same standards?
KevinG Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 Well if you define 'complete' as 'must have a written record of everything that Jesus has ever done' then no one has every thought the Bible was complete by your definition. I define 'complete' as consisting of all the books within its cannon that God intended. So just as Jesus recognised the OT cannon we now have a NT cannon that has come about in the same manor. ...and the Book of Mormon another testament of Jesus Christ through the same manner. Neat how God can send us additional light and knowledge isn't it!
Recommended Posts