Does It All Hinge Upon The Crucifiction?

[Maidservant]

Also, I think there's a passage somewhere -- perhaps in Isaiah -- that alludes to the mark in the sure place. I'm not scriptorian enough to locate it off hand.

I dunno but there's this: Isaiah 49:16. One of the most important keys I ever learned to the rest of the scriptures. It unlocked pretty much everything I ever learned since I read this.

[EllenMaksoud]

Hi Ellen,

Thought I would first note, I am an evangelical Christian, rather than LDS.

To your general question in the OP, I liked Rongo's response that it hangs more on the ressurection than the crucifixtion.

Bold mine, I too have wondered the Muslim rejection of the crucifixion. I know it's stated in the Qur'an in 4:157 that Jesus wasn't crucified.. only that it appeared so.. like an illusion, or a look a like was killed or something like that. This would seem the obvious reason. But it makes a person want to ask why 4:157 was there in the firstplace, in light of a good bit of writing that actually supports the crucifixtion.

My thought is that the belief in a ressurected Savior, has salvific impact. Islam doesn't teach that.

To take a stance like Muhammad did, one must deny the ressurection of Christ and simply accept that God snatched Jesus up to heaven. Translated to heaven, as it were, like Enoch or something. This certainly diminshes who Christ was, if was the ressurected Son of God.....

If such was the case, the Christ didn't shed his blood for our sins and I don't see how any statement about our forgiveness through grace could be seriously taken.

I don't have a very friendly view towards these sorts of teachings personally, but I thought I would offer my two cents on the matter.

All the best,

Mudcat

I don't have a huge argument with what you say. Muslims make the argument that the Qur'an is in it's original form from the day of Muhammad. I'm not so sure of that. Plus, in my opinion the Fatwas, and the Hadeeths have really muddied the water, and it seems like in places they completely change the meaning of the Qur'an. There is a small group of Muslims in the UK, now days that believe in the Qur'an only. I also think it likely that certain places in the Qur'an got changed over time.

I'm not against change. In the LDS church, several things have changed since 1830 and I think it makes the church living and dynamic.

In my christian experience, I believe I saw selective obedience to the word of Heavenly Father. The Pastor would try to explain things away by saying this or that was for that time. I can still hear the shouted words from the pulpit, "The Bible is the pure inerrant word of God!". He did not seem to realize that for me, a man shouting was terrifying, and made me quite fearful.

[Mudcat]

Perhaps, because that is the later and more positive development of the two. But then, was the crucifiion necessary for the resurrection?

Most certainly, CV. I don't imagine it would have been otherwise, if something else were superlative. Sounds terrible to use "superlative" and "crucifixion" together... but that is what I think it was.

On some level, nearly everything that happened to Christ through the course of His life could be conceived as significant beyond significance. You could look to the sermon on the mount, Peter following and failing as Christ walked on the water... It's all meant to be there.

I think we are tracking on the same page CV.

[Mudcat]

Hi Ellen,

Thanks for the reply.

I don't have a huge argument with what you say. Muslims make the argument that the Qur'an is in it's original form from the day of Muhammad. I'm not so sure of that. Plus, in my opinion the Fatwas, and the Hadeeths have really muddied the water, and it seems like in places they completely change the meaning of the Qur'an. There is a small group of Muslims in the UK, now days that believe in the Qur'an only. I also think it likely that certain places in the Qur'an got changed over time.

I think that is a fair point you offer. A lot of times, most of us who are unfamiliar with Islam don't view the distinction between differing Islamic views. Sometimes we seem to lump every differing view that considers itself as Muslim, as Muslim. It might make sense in some way of designating folks, but it doesn't do much in the way of understanding anyone.

I'm not against change. In the LDS church, several things have changed since 1830 and I think it makes the church living and dynamic.

The only change I am for, is the one that leads us closer to God. But I think I understand you here.

In my christian experience, I believe I saw selective obedience to the word of Heavenly Father. The Pastor would try to explain things away by saying this or that was for that time. I can still hear the shouted words from the pulpit, "The Bible is the pure inerrant word of God!". He did not seem to realize that for me, a man shouting was terrifying, and made me quite fearful.

I think the truth of the Christian view can't fully be presented by those who hold it. Because the truth of such a view is predicated on their own sinful nature.

That said, sounds like the pastor you had was a judgemental sort. Not really appropriate as I see it. The believer, despite their position, shouldn't stand as a judge over things. Rather they should stand as the defense on the matter.

All the best.

Mudcat

Edited January 30, 2013 by Mudcat

[EllenMaksoud]

Hi Ellen,

Thanks for the reply.

I think that is a fair point you offer. A lot of times, most of us who are unfamiliar with Islam don't view the distinction between differing Islamic views. Sometimes we seem to lump every differing view that considers itself as Muslim, as Muslim. It might make sense in some way of designating folks, but it doesn't do much in the way of understanding anyone.

The only change I am for, is the one that leads us closer to God. But I think I understand you here.

I think the truth of the Christian view can't fully be presented by those who hold it. Because the truth of such a view is predicated on their own sinful nature.

That said, sounds like the pastor you had was a judgemental sort. Not really appropriate as I see it. The believer, despite their position, shouldn't stand as a judge over things. Rather they should stand as the defense on the matter.

All the best.

Mudcat

The LDS absolutely insist that I not attack other Christians. My anger and bitterness was so HOT that it has taken me a while to become obedient to the Holy Spirit in that area. In my opinion, I think that the designation EV only belongs to a certain segment of Christianity that I call Attack Christians. Lutherans and others of that ilk, as far as I am concerned are relatively mild folk. My own experiences have put me in the place that I can't even stand to listen to,"Onward Christian Soldiers" as I think to view ones self as a soldier for the lord is egocentric. I would much rather think of Christians as servants of a most holy Heavenly Father.

[Ahab]

I think the truth of the Christian view can't fully be presented by those who hold it. Because the truth of such a view is predicated on their own sinful nature.

Not quite how I see it. The truth of such a view (the Christian view) is predicated on the nature of Christ, our Christian exemplar.

The rest of us are, at best, still trying to become like he is.

That said, sounds like the pastor you had was a judgemental sort. Not really appropriate as I see it. The believer, despite their position, shouldn't stand as a judge over things. Rather they should stand as the defense on the matter.

I think we can righteously judge, at least sometimes, with our knowledge of what God has told us, like how we can judge between good and evil. The key though is to make sure we don't confuse what God has told us with thoughts we may add to what God has told us about something to the point where what we think God said isn't in agreement with what he actually meant. Words alone sometimes aren't enough to give us a correct understanding, even when they are God's words, which is why we need to understand the spirit of the message with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

[altersteve]

My opinion is that since the Crucifixion did happen, the answer is yes. "What if" questions like this are meaningless to me.

[Scott Lloyd]

I dunno but there's this: Isaiah 49:16. One of the most important keys I ever learned to the rest of the scriptures. It unlocked pretty much everything I ever learned since I read this.

I'm acquainted with that one, but it's not the one I was referencing, which I have since found. It is Isaiah 22:23, and it reads:

And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father’s house.

[Damien the Leper]

I don't know that He had to necessarily die by crucifixion. The resurrection is absolutely necessary, but I don't think there is necessarily anything mystically significant about crucifixion, as opposed to beheading or other means of execution.

Of course, with the foreknowledge that He would be crucified, we have prophecies by "brass plates" and Book of Mormon prophets. And, His nail marks would have a future significance.

McKay, I agree, Resurrection is the absolutely most important part of the Gospels. Except for Mark. I disagree that the longer ending of Mark is accurate or authentic.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Valentinus

[3DOP]

It is not my intent to spread heresy, but if a moderator objects to this thread, please take it dow

So, I am aware of several works of Barnabas. This is the same Barnabas that was mentioned in the NT right? Well, there seems to be a lot of discussion and disagreement about whether Barnabas or Luke wrote them. Interestingly, the books of Barnabas, except the book of Hebrews was not canonized. This is whole area is a bit of a leap for me because I am not sure that I should trust the opinion of the same people that drove the church into apostasy with the process of canonization.

I believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God, his many miracles, his fasting in the wilderness, and his virgin birth, since the Four Gospels support the idea. So, we get down to the crux of the matter, was Jesus Christ crucified and is the crucifiction critical to Christian belief?

For me his crucifiction is not critical, because his word and his works don't need it. Most people believe the crucifiction is critical and I understand that.

It is just a bit difficult to me because some of the same people who seem to have done most to disrupt and persecute the church are also used as sources to support certain scripture.

So, very soon I intend to study Early History at PSU, Portland to increase my understanding, and I would very much like the input of those on this Forum

You are "not sure that I should trust the opinion of the same people that drove the church into apostasy with the process of canonization," but you are attending Portland State University to "increase my understanding."?

First, as an LDS, you just can't believe that everything that Catholics or Protestants teach is wrong. Secondly, why do you think PSU is going to help your faith when you just started a thread that seemed to complain because there were non-LDS opinions here on the internet? I would have to doubt if you are going to get more love for Mormonism at PSU than you do at this website. Thirdly, we "apostates" think that the letter to the Hebrews is part of the Bible, but as an LDS you don't believe it is part of the Bible because we said so, but because your own prophets have said so. I have never heard of any Mormons wanting to pitch one of the 27 New Testament books. There are texts in Hebrews that according to the way LDS interpret them are unique with regards to the Melchisedec priesthood. Maybe you have enough Latter-day revelation to cover that teaching and throw out Hebrews but I can't imagine how or why you think it would be advisable nearly 200 years after your church has already accepted it and found nothing objectionable.

If I were a new LDS, I couldn't possibly see the upside to increasing my new faith at Portland State or to placing a cloud over the Letter to the Hebrews.

[Ahab]

If I were a new LDS, I couldn't possibly see the upside to increasing my new faith at Portland State or to placing a cloud over the Letter to the Hebrews.

I'm thinking that when she's saying PSU she's referring to the (LDS) Institute of Religion that is in the campus area, where she can get courses covering the Bible as well as the Book of Mormon and a lot of other scripture. If not I think he should be thinking in those terms, unless she's just talking about running into some LDS on campus who might be able to teach her a thing or two. The classes at the Institute would probably do her the most good, though, along with instruction from the Holy Spirit, and hopefullly a few good people who happen to at least understand some things about our religion.

[EllenMaksoud]

You are "not sure that I should trust the opinion of the same people that drove the church into apostasy with the process of canonization," but you are attending Portland State University to "increase my understanding."?

First, as an LDS, you just can't believe that everything that Catholics or Protestants teach is wrong. Secondly, why do you think PSU is going to help your faith when you just started a thread that seemed to complain because there were non-LDS opinions here on the internet? I would have to doubt if you are going to get more love for Mormonism at PSU than you do at this website. Thirdly, we "apostates" think that the letter to the Hebrews is part of the Bible, but as an LDS you don't believe it is part of the Bible because we said so, but because your own prophets have said so. I have never heard of any Mormons wanting to pitch one of the 27 New Testament books. There are texts in Hebrews that according to the way LDS interpret them are unique with regards to the Melchisedec priesthood. Maybe you have enough Latter-day revelation to cover that teaching and throw out Hebrews but I can't imagine how or why you think it would be advisable nearly 200 years after your church has already accepted it and found nothing objectionable.

If I were a new LDS, I couldn't possibly see the upside to increasing my new faith at Portland State or to placing a cloud over the Letter to the Hebrews.

Um, I think you just wish to argue. You did not read my post effectively, though my sentence structure may leave something to be desired. I did not and do not say that the Book of Hebrews should be removed, only that its authorship is disputed.

If you have ever been around the people who discuss this stuff at a higher level... I do not like so much!

[EllenMaksoud]

I'm thinking that when she's saying PSU she's referring to the (LDS) Institute of Religion that is in the campus area, where she can get courses covering the Bible as well as the Book of Mormon and a lot of other scripture. If not I think he should be thinking in those terms, unless she's just talking about running into some LDS on campus who might be able to teach her a thing or two. The classes at the Institute would probably do her the most good, though, along with instruction from the Holy Spirit, and hopefullly a few good people who happen to at least understand some things about our religion.

The classes at PSU would be to learn more about the secular history of the time, 100-1200 AD, roughly. I did find the Institute the other day and plan to approach them also. My problem at this point is at my age the energy is not in such good supply.

[Ahab]

The classes at PSU would be to learn more about the secular history of the time, 100-1200 AD, roughly. I did find the Institute the other day and plan to approach them also. My problem at this point is at my age the energy is not in such good supply.

I can relate. If I were you I'd just cuddle up with some good books about that time in history from people like Hugh Nibley and, well, whoever else has written some good books about how things were back then. Hugh includes a lot of footnotes listing other good books to read too. Here's a link to a list of his books so you can see what he wrote while looking for those most closely connected with that time period.

http://www.byubookstore.com/ePOS/form=robots/catalog.html&this_category=278&store=439&design=439

I think I understand what you mean about wanting to be careful about books from Catholic and Protestant sources, since they generally have a corrupt and apostate view of true history built into their religious paradigm, so what would work best would be to learn from someone who is LDS as they go over the books and writings from back then as they interject some thoughts from our paradigm. I learned a lot from Hugh, while also being aided by the Holy Spirit, and I think you would benefit too. I'm thinking particularly about one called Mormonism and Early Christianity, but he wrote a lot of other good books too. He was a history professor at BYU.

[EllenMaksoud]

I can relate. If I were you I'd just cuddle up with some good books about that time in history from people like Hugh Nibley and, well, whoever else has written some good books about how things were back then. Hugh includes a lot of footnotes listing other good books to read too. Here's a link to a list of his books so you can see what he wrote while looking for those most closely connected with that time period.

http://www.byubookst...=439&design=439

I think I understand what you mean about wanting to be careful about books from Catholic and Protestant sources, since they generally have a corrupt and apostate view of true history built into their religious paradigm, so what would work best would be to learn from someone who is LDS as they go over the books and writings from back then as they interject some thoughts from our paradigm. I learned a lot from Hugh, while also being aided by the Holy Spirit, and I think you would benefit too. I'm thinking particularly about one called Mormonism and Early Christianity, but he wrote a lot of other good books too. He was a history professor at BYU.

Thank you. I am admonished by the sisters upon pain of who knows what to be sweet and loving to all. So it makes it difficult to speak truthfully about my experiences. For example, I know the son of a Jewish Rabbi who has several Phd's in religious studies and knows languages I have not even heard of except in passing. He says that whole sections of the Torah are massively mistranslated in the KJV. I have not seen how those sections are treated in the JSV.

I am not throwing those books out, but his words have made me wish to learn for myself. In his opinion, he thinks that some contemporary christian translations are idiotic. He eventually became athiest because of all this. He is one of those people who is so intelligent that I do not know how to be around him

[Ahab]

Being very curious about early church history, I was just reading that Hypatia of Alexandra was murdered by dismemberment around 415 AD by Christian extremists. Part of it was said to be due to Jewish dance parties and the mayhem that occured during them. I'm having trouble dealing with the idea of Jews being party animals.

The council of Nicea was in 325 and that was where the Nicean creed developed.

Apparently, the Western Canon of the Bible around 380 AD.

Wow, this was most certainly a turbulent time in early church history. I've been trying to understand the point at which the early church went Apostate and it looks like a major point in that process was when Constantine legitimatized the church around 313 AD.

It almost appears as if one could spend their life time studying that 300 years.

You might also want to try Hugh's book called Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity.

[Ahab]

Thank you. I am admonished by the sisters upon pain of who knows what to be sweet and loving to all. So it makes it difficult to speak truthfully about my experiences. For example, I know the son of a Jewish Rabbi who has several Phd's in religious studies and knows languages I have not even heard of except in passing. He says that whole sections of the Torah are massively mistranslated in the KJV. I have not seen how those sections are treated in the JSV.

I am not throwing those books out, but his words have made me wish to learn for myself. In his opinion, he thinks that some contemporary christian translations are idiotic. He eventually became athiest because of all this. He is one of those people who is so intelligent that I do not know how to be around him

One of the nicest things about having the Holy Spirit to guide you, as your personal guide in the truth, is that he'll point out the truth wherever it is, in any translation, so you're not dependent only somebody else telling you whether or not something is a good translation. Even bad translations have truth in them. Heck, even lies do. With God as your guide you will be illuminated.

[3DOP]

Um, I think you just wish to argue. You did not read my post effectively, though my sentence structure may leave something to be desired. I did not and do not say that the Book of Hebrews should be removed, only that its authorship is disputed.

If you have ever been around the people who discuss this stuff at a higher level... I do not like so much!

Yes, I am afraid I understood you to be saying that you did not wish to trust the non-Mormons for canonizing Hebrews. My apologies for that. For your information, we do not say that it had to be St. Paul, only that it was Scripture, and the human authorship doesn't seem to make much difference. I think we agree because although the authorship isn't certain, it really isn't worth disputing. Would we gain a different understanding according to who is the author?

I am admittedly a little critical of what seems the irony of your posted misgivings to being exposed to non-LDS ideas like mine here at this site, only to understand that you are taking classes that will form your impressions of early church history at a non-LDS university known for being unfriendly to any faith. As a Catholic speaking to a new convert to the LDS faith from Islam, I would far rather you get your impressions of church history from Mormons than from people who will most likely have little sympathy for any faith. Just as Mormons might not be optimistic of me taking history classes at a state university to increase my knowledge about the Latter-day Church, so I am pessimistic about trying to increase one's understanding about the "Former-day Church" at a state university.

If, as Ahab suggested, you are merely going to Institute meetings, my apologies.

3DOP

Edited January 31, 2013 by 3DOP

[EllenMaksoud]

Yes, I am afraid I understood you to be saying that you did not wish to trust the non-Mormons for canonizing Hebrews. My apologies for that. For your information, we do not say that it had to be St. Paul, only that it was Scripture, and the human authorship doesn't seem to make much difference. I think we agree because although the authorship isn't certain, it really isn't worth disputing. Would we gain a different understanding according to who is the author?

I am admittedly a little critical of what seems the irony of your posted misgivings to being exposed to non-LDS ideas like mine here at this site, only to understand that you are taking classes that will form your impressions of early church history at a non-LDS university known for being unfriendly to any faith. As a Catholic speaking to a new convert to the LDS faith from Islam, I would far rather you get your impressions of church history from Mormons than from people who will most likely have little sympathy for any faith. Just as Mormons might not be optimistic of me taking history classes at a state university to increase my knowledge about the Latter-day Church, so I am pessimistic about trying to increase one's understanding about the "Former-day Church" at a state university.

If, as Ahab suggested, you are merely going to Institute meetings, my apologies.

3DOP

My apologies also. So much is lost in the printed word. I had not meant to be sassy. Much.

I was thinking of getting Middle Eastern history from one who is Middle Eastern. Of course I already know that this course would be slanted to make the Middle Eastern folk seem most right.

I will seek to take classes at the Institute. It was really clear to me when I was first in College that professors have their own biases.

Thank you.

Ellen

[Mudcat]

The LDS absolutely insist that I not attack other Christians. My anger and bitterness was so HOT that it has taken me a while to become obedient to the Holy Spirit in that area. In my opinion, I think that the designation EV only belongs to a certain segment of Christianity that I call Attack Christians. Lutherans and others of that ilk, as far as I am concerned are relatively mild folk. My own experiences have put me in the place that I can't even stand to listen to,"Onward Christian Soldiers" as I think to view ones self as a soldier for the lord is egocentric. I would much rather think of Christians as servants of a most holy Heavenly Father.

Bold mine, I have heard it rumored that Congress is in process of putting a bill forth to ban "Attack Christians"... I am doubtful the whole thing will go through.. but I do think at the least "Attack Christians" being limited to the usage of 10 verses rather than 30 verses or more.. is a likely outcome.

Seriously, I guess it's a matter of perspective. The last LDS thing I attended that wasn't a local church function, was at the request of my wife. Hinckley had recently deceased, Monson was the new guy and Christofferson was a brand new apostle. In our event, Christofferson was the headliner and an Elder Gay of the 70 preceded him.

Despite all the stuff I get to run into as the only non LDS in my wife's family. I can't think of a moment I felt more assaulted than at Elder Gay's speech.. though I at least the fellow was straightforward.

As a side note.. when you say "Lutherans and others of that ilk" ... I do hope you realize how that sounds. If you don't, imagine you were on a Lutheran when you read it.

Edited January 31, 2013 by Mudcat

[EllenMaksoud]

Bold mine, I have heard it rumored that Congress is in process of putting a bill forth to ban "Attack Christians"... I am doubtful the whole thing will go through.. but I do think at the least "Attack Christians" being limited to the usage of 10 verses rather than 30 verses or more.. is a likely outcome.

Seriously, I guess it's a matter of perspective. The last LDS thing I attended that wasn't a local church function, was at the request of my wife. Hinckley had recently deceased, Monson was the new guy and Christofferson was a brand new apostle. In our event, Christofferson was the headliner and an Elder Gay of the 70 preceded him.

Despite all the stuff I get to run into as the only non LDS in my wife's family. I can't think of a moment I felt more assaulted than at Elder Gay's speech.. though I at least the fellow was straightforward.

As a side note.. when you say "Lutherans and others of that ilk" ... I do hope you realize how that sounds. If you don't, imagine you were on a Lutheran when you read it.

If ILK is a bad word, then how about persuaision? I attended an ELCA Lutheran church for a while and found them relatively mild folk. I have nothing against them, or the Episcopalians. My own persuasion would be toward Menonite were it not for the LDS. My Stepfather was Amish, but gave me a real distaste for them until I was able to understand that it was he who nearly murdered me not the Amish.

If you think about Jesus Christ, he was not a soldier, but a sacrifice so that we might live.

I will have to look Elder Gay up and see what he said. You do understand that since even the 90s, certain things have changed.

I am still culturally Muslim, and spiritually LDS. They have been most kind to me as I try to adapt to Western culture again.

[Ahab]

I was thinking of getting Middle Eastern history from one who is Middle Eastern. Of course I already know that this course would be slanted to make the Middle Eastern folk seem most right.

It's good to get a well rounded education, though, so that wouldn't hurt along with learning about our perspective of that history.

My question to you though is why you want to take college courses? Have you forgotten about all the hoops they generally want students to jump through? And the financial cost? And the time schedules? Are you really interested in the college credits?

I don't know about you but I do a lot better by just reading the books, and you can buy and use the same books they do in those courses without having to pay to take the classes on their schedules. You'd have to buy the books anyway, but why pay for all the "extras"? And there are usually much better books that the books they want their students to learn from, too.

I will seek to take classes at the Institute. It was really clear to me when I was first in College that professors have their own biases.

Yes, as everyone does. What I didn't like was having to jump through all of those hoops they wanted me to jump through, which I really didn't need to get the education. If you're after college credits for a degree or something like that, though, which is sometimes necessary in the work a day world, then I can somewhat understand, but otherwise I'd just go for the education without all of that extra baggage. You could even hire a tutor if you wanted some one on one time. The classes are generally too crowded to get much of that from the professors.

Don't expect too much from the Institutes courses, though. They usually offer only basic courses, and I don't think there even is one for Middle Eastern history, specificially. Still some good courses though and worth a look to find out what they offer.

[EllenMaksoud]

It's good to get a well rounded education, though, so that wouldn't hurt along with learning about our perspective of that history.

My question to you though is why you want to take college courses? Have you forgotten about all the hoops they generally want students to jump through? And the financial cost? And the time schedules? Are you really interested in the college credits?

I don't know about you but I do a lot better by just reading the books, and you can buy and use the same books they do in those courses without having to pay to take the classes on their schedules. You'd have to buy the books anyway, but why pay for all the "extras"? And there are usually much better books that the books they want their students to learn from, too.

Yes, as everyone does. What I didn't like was having to jump through all of those hoops they wanted me to jump through, which I really didn't need to get the education. If you're after college credits for a degree or something like that, though, which is sometimes necessary in the work a day world, then I can somewhat understand, but otherwise I'd just go for the education without all of that extra baggage. You could even hire a tutor if you wanted some one on one time. The classes are generally too crowded to get much of that from the professors.

Don't expect too much from the Institutes courses, though. They usually offer only basic courses, and I don't think there even is one for Middle Eastern history, specificially. Still some good courses though and worth a look to find out what they offer.

At my age, I can audit the classes free. The books may be another matter. One of my problems is that I learn better by hearing. While I read a great deal, it is difficult to learn new things that way.

Your name, Ahab, I assume you are Middle Eastern? Having been in that culture, I know that they have a very differerent view of History than Americans. I began to realize this when a man in Wales, and a Punjabi woman in the UK began to explain history from their point of view. According to them, the British colonialism made a right mess of world cultures. They made a huge mess when the partitioned Pakistan from India, and before that, England, Germany, France and others were running around claiming vast parts of the world as theirs.

Yes, I know that had various countries not invaded America then I likely would not be writing this. Of course, the Muslims, the Turks the Mongols, and others had been raping and pillaging for thousands of years before. I'm not trying to find the bad guys here, just trying to get a view where this will take us in the next century. As Women take a larger and larger role in society, it is my hope that they will make the boys behave a bit more. Even in Saudi Arabia, Women are making progress, and I think that some of these old Wahabbists will die off, and some of the Sauds will too. Hopefully the younger people and the fact that the oil will be gone from Saudi Arabia will force change, inshallah.

[coolrok7]

Ellen Maksoud (post #1):

It is not my intent to spread heresy, but if a moderator objects to this thread, please take it dow

So, I am aware of several works of Barnabas. This is the same Barnabas that was mentioned in the NT right? Well, there seems to be a lot of discussion and disagreement about whether Barnabas or Luke wrote them. Interestingly, the books of Barnabas, except the book of Hebrews was not canonized. This is whole area is a bit of a leap for me because I am not sure that I should trust the opinion of the same people that drove the church into apostasy with the process of canonization.

I believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God, his many miracles, his fasting in the wilderness, and his virgin birth, since the Four Gospels support the idea. So, we get down to the crux of the matter, was Jesus Christ crucified and is the crucifiction critical to Christian belief?

For me his crucifiction is not critical, because his word and his works don't need it. Most people believe the crucifiction is critical and I understand that.

It is just a bit difficult to me because some of the same people who seem to have done most to disrupt and persecute the church are also used as sources to support certain scripture.

So, very soon I intend to study Early History at PSU, Portland to increase my understanding, and I would very much like the input of those on this Forum

Ellen, coming from Islam (as you state in post #15) it is understandable that, “For me his crucifiction is not critical, . . .”. Apostasy is the falling away from the truth of God. The Mormon construct (in part their attempted justification for their existence) of a “complete” “total apostasy was not prophesied in the Bible, only that:

But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, . . .In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following. (1 Timothy 4:1-2, 6)

3. There was a complete apostasy affecting both Catholic and Protestant churches. . . .2. There was a total apostasy affecting the Catholic and Protestant churches. . . . (A UNIFORM SYSTEM FOR TEACHING INVESTIGATORS, Aug. 1961, pp.32, 58)

Following the death of the apostles, revelation ceased. The authority of God was no longer among men. Christianity sickened and died. In time, a new religion grew up in its place—a religion that professed to be Jesus Christ’s Church, but which in reality was a conglomerate of pagan worship and Greek philosophy, “having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.”. . .that eventually led to the complete apostasy of the true church and the eventual creation of an apostate religion that has been responsible for the extermination of the Messiah’s true followers and the persecution of his chosen people, the Jews. . . . (APOSTASY AND RESTORATION pamphlet, p.9)

Your question goes to the heart and soul of the purpose of Jesus coming into the world to save us from sin which is what the cross was all about (the surrounding elements of the story as well). Its prophetical fulfillment from the Old Testament (Muhammad rejected the Biblical teaching on this and yet affirms the Virgin Birth of Isa—Jesus).

Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. (Isaiah 53:1-12)