Why Would We Trust The Cannon Of The Apostate Church?

[EllenMaksoud]

In my opinion, the church went apostate in the middle of the book of Acts. So, why would we trust their later work? What about the Apocrapha? The book of Nichodemus, The Book of Mary?

[inquiringmind]

In my opinion, the church went apostate in the middle of the book of Acts. So, why would we trust their later work? What about the Apocrapha? The book of Nichodemus, The Book of Mary?

I think Joseph said he was told that the canonical books of scripture were inspired, and that the apocrypha was a mixture of truth and error (somewhere in Doctrine and Covenants.)

[tagriffy]

OK, slow down here. Where in the middle of Acts do you think the early church went apostate, and why? And do you grasp the implications of what you are saying?

What about the Apocrypha, the book of Nicodemus, and the book of Mary? What is it you are asking about them? Are you contending they should be canonical? That there is something in them we need to pay attention to?

[tagriffy]

I think Joseph said he was told that the canonical books of scripture were inspired, and that the apocrypha was a mixture of truth and error (somewhere in Doctrine and Covenants.)

The reference you are looking for is Doctrine and Covenants section 91.

[inquiringmind]

The reference you are looking for is Doctrine and Covenants section 91.

Thank you.

[Storm Rider]

I have learned to love the Bible and it is the scripture I read most often. The timing of the apostasy is, imho, irrelevant and I would say that it has no impact o the value and reliability of the entire New Testament. Further, all books of scripture to me hold value and are worthy of being read. However, when doing so we read and glean for truth from them rather than reading them for guidance. Guidance comes from the Standard Works of the Church.

[inquiringmind]

OK, slow down here. Where in the middle of Acts do you think the early church went apostate, and why? And do you grasp the implications of what you are saying?

What about the Apocrypha, the book of Nicodemus, and the book of Mary? What is it you are asking about them? Are you contending they should be canonical? That there is something in them we need to pay attention to?

Wouldn't an Apostasy in the middle of the book of Acts tie in with the Muslim belief that Jesus was only a prophet until Paul (who they view as an arch villain) came along and made Him into a God?

Doesn't the book of Nicodemus contain the idea (also contained in The Koran) that Jesus wasn't really crucified, but taken up to heaven by God while the Romans and Jews were deceived into thinking that Judas (who they crucified) was Jesus?

And doesn't the Koran condemn Trinitarian Christians as Polytheists for believing in three Gods, and ascribing partners to Allah?

Edited May 31, 2013 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

P.S. I'm not too familiar with "The Book of Mary," but it sounds like an infancy Gospel, and I just found this.

One parallel story between an Infancy Gospel and the Qur'an is found in the Arabic Gospel Of The Infancy Of The Savior and Surah 19:29-34, where the story of Jesus speaking as a baby in the cradle in narrated.

The Arabic Gospel Of The Infancy Of The Savior:

v2 "He has said that Jesus spoke, and, indeed, when He was lying in His cradle said to Mary His mother: I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos, whom thou hast brought forth, as the Angel Gabriel announced to thee; and my Father has sent me for the salvation of the world."[3].

Abdullah Yusuf Ali The Quran

Surah 19:29-34

"But she pointed to the babe. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?" He said: "I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet; And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live; (He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable; So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)"! Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute.[4]

In both narratives Jesus is presented as a baby in the cradle giving a highly theological discourse in the presence of The Virgin Mary about his respective mission in both religions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_Infancy_Gospel#Quranic_parallels_with_the_Infancy_Gospels

[tagriffy]

Wouldn't an Apostasy in the middle of the book of Acts tie in with the Muslim belief that Jesus was only a prophet until Paul (who they view as an arch villain) came along and made Him into a God?

Off the top of my head, I don't remember if this is a Muslim belief.

Doesn't the book of Nicodemus contain the idea (also contained in The Koran) that Jesus wasn't really crucified, but taken up to heaven by God while the Romans and Jews were deceived into thinking that Judas (who they crucified) was Jesus?

I'd have to obtain a new set of New Testament Apocrypha to check on Nicodemus. The Qur'an does depict the crucifixion in this manner, though I don't have a copy to cite sura and verse.

And doesn't the Koran condemn Trinitarian Christians as Polytheists for believing in three Gods, and ascribing partners to Allah?

I'm not sure of the exact language. I'd have to get a copy to look it up.

[inquiringmind]

Off the top of my head, I don't remember if this is a Muslim belief.

I'd have to obtain a new set of New Testament Apocrypha to check on Nicodemus. The Qur'an does depict the crucifixion in this manner, though I don't have a copy to cite sura and verse.

I'm not sure of the exact language. I'd have to get a copy to look it up.

Here are some quotes from the Quran.

"O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was an apostle of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His apostles. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs." (Koran 4:171)

"They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word, verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them." (Koran 5:73)

Edited May 31, 2013 by inquiringmind

[tagriffy]

Here are some quotes from the Quran.

"O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was an apostle of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His apostles. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs." (Koran 4:171)

"They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word, verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them." (Koran 5:73)

Cool. Now I don't have to wait until morning.

[rpn]

Apostasy tends to happen little by little. Generally good people who mostly do right and have been taught, just chaining one thing. Sometimes the change is actually intended to be better obedient to God as they see fit. And most of the time even when the institution or individual leaders runs amok, there remain faithful adherents who are inspired to preserve good things of God. God has a pattern of preserving scriptures for the benefit of His children. For those scriptures that we know the origin of the tradition for we just check them against other scriptures we know to be inspired. Fact is, we mormons do that for the Quran too, presumably because we know that the Gospel incorporates ALL TRUTH, whatever flawed mortal may have recorded it.

[inquiringmind]

... God has a pattern of preserving scriptures for the benefit of His children. For those scriptures that we know the origin of the tradition for we just check them against other scriptures we know to be inspired. Fact is, we mormons do that for the Quran too, presumably because we know that the Gospel incorporates ALL TRUTH, whatever flawed mortal may have recorded it.

I know it's considered politically incorrect to say anything against Islam, but the Koran was supposedly recited by Mohammed and recorded by his disciples within his lifetime.

If the book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants are true revelation from God, how could Mohammed have been a true prophet when he said he heard this from the angel Gabriel?

"O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was an apostle of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His apostles. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs." (Koran 4:171)

"They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word, verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them." (Koran 5:73)

Doesn't the book of Nicodemus contain the idea (also contained in The Koran) that Jesus wasn't really crucified, but taken up to heaven by God while the Romans and Jews were deceived into thinking that Judas (who they crucified) was Jesus?

I'd have to obtain a new set of New Testament Apocrypha to check on Nicodemus. The Qur'an does depict the crucifixion in this manner, though I don't have a copy to cite sura and verse..

And how could anything resembling the Gospel be true if Jesus wasn't the one who really died on the cross?

Edited May 31, 2013 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

DElete

Edited May 31, 2013 by inquiringmind

[thesometimesaint]

We are the only true, and living church on the face of the earth. However that doesn't mean that other churches/religions don't also have a measure of truth. That the Muslims have a portion of truth, but not the whole truth.

[EllenMaksoud]

The reference you are looking for is Doctrine and Covenants section 91.

I admit that I do not have extensive formal education in theology. I read a lot and am retired so I have lots of time to do that.

I notice that there are several things in the NT that even we, the LDS, ignore with the lame feeling excuse that these certain scriptures were for that time and culture. I feel that departure from the true path started with the writings of Paul. I especially take issue with the killing of Ananias and Sephiria. Either the author did a really bad job of explaining the circumstances, or the Holy Spirit was not there at that time. With my Muslim background, they feel that the OT was "The Book" but they pretty much reject the NT except for the first four gospels.

[EllenMaksoud]

Wouldn't an Apostasy in the middle of the book of Acts tie in with the Muslim belief that Jesus was only a prophet until Paul (who they view as an arch villain) came along and made Him into a God?

Doesn't the book of Nicodemus contain the idea (also contained in The Koran) that Jesus wasn't really crucified, but taken up to heaven by God while the Romans and Jews were deceived into thinking that Judas (who they crucified) was Jesus?

And doesn't the Koran condemn Trinitarian Christians as Polytheists for believing in three Gods, and ascribing partners to Allah?

In my view, you have correctly discerned what Muslims believe, except they also believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. There are inconsistencies in Muslim belief regarding Jesus Christ and I think it stems from the lack of study. Before Martin Luther (or perhaps more correctly Wycliff), people pretty much relied on Priests to teach them the Bible. I can still remember 1960 when the new Pope told people to read their Bibles.

I don't really want to derail my own thread and get into a prolonged teaching on Islam. Rather, I am trying to make it clear in my own mind what defines apostacy, and how that is affected by perhaps putting to fine a point on the process of canonization. That process is still in the midst of disagreement even now.

[inquiringmind]

I admit that I do not have extensive formal education in theology. I read a lot and am retired so I have lots of time to do that.

I notice that there are several things in the NT that even we, the LDS, ignore with the lame feeling excuse that these certain scriptures were for that time and culture. I feel that departure from the true path started with the writings of Paul. I especially take issue with the killing of Ananias and Sephiria. Either the author did a really bad job of explaining the circumstances, or the Holy Spirit was not there at that time. With my Muslim background, they feel that the OT was "The Book" but they pretty much reject the NT except for the first four gospels.

But as Muslims, they don't believe that Jesus died on the cross, atoned for anyone's sins, or rose on the third day (do they?)

So they can't really accept the four Gospels (can they?)

BTW: What is shirk, and how exactly would they view Mormons?

Isn't this in the Quran?

Say He is Allah, The One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begets not, Nor is He begotten; And there is none. Like unto Him. (Al Qur'an 112:1-4)

And isn't that entirely incompatible with Mormonism?

In my view, you have correctly discerned what Muslims believe, except they also believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah.

But they don't take "Messiah" to mean Savior, do they?

They don't believe that Christ's death actually saves anyone (or even that He died on the cross), do they?

There are inconsistencies in Muslim belief regarding Jesus Christ and I think it stems from the lack of study. Before Martin Luther (or perhaps more correctly Wycliff), people pretty much relied on Priests to teach them the Bible.

But Mohammed claimed that the contents of the Quran were verbally dictated to him by Gabriel (who would have been more aware of the contents of the Bible than Luther or Wycliff), didn't he?

So if the doctrine of the Trinity (and/or a plurality of Gods), the doctrine of the atonement, and the Resurrection of Christ are in the Bible (and were in the original test), and both the Bible and the Quran are inspired, there shouldn't be any contradiction on these things (should there?)

Edited May 31, 2013 by inquiringmind

[thesometimesaint]

But as Muslims, they don't believe that Jesus died on the cross, atoned for anyone's sins, or rose on the third day, do they?

So they can't really accept the four Gospels, can they?

BTW: What is shirk, and how exactly would they view mormons?

Isn't this in the Quran?

Say He is Allah, The One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begets not, Nor is He begotten; And there is none. Like unto Him. (Al Qur'an 112:1-4)

And isn't that entirely incompatible with Mormonism?

But they don't take that to mean Savior, do they?

They don't believe that Christ's death actually saves anyone (or even that He died on the cross), do they?

But Mohammed claimed that the contents of the Quran were verbally dictated to him by Gabriel (who would have been more aware of the contents of the Bible than Luther or Wycliff), didn't he?

So if the doctrine of the Trinity (and/or a plurality of Gods), the doctrine of the atonement, and the Resurrection of Christ are in the Bible (and were in the original test), and the Bible is inspired, and the Quran is inspired, there shouldn't be any contradiction (should there?)

Anything that man touches is less than perfect, albeit inspired by God.

[Freedom]

I notice that there are several things in the NT that even we, the LDS, ignore with the lame feeling excuse that these certain scriptures were for that time and culture.

Can you provide some examples? I think you will find cultural nuances throughout all scripture, including the Book of Mormon. This is why we have modern revelation.

[inquiringmind]

Anything that man touches is less than perfect, albeit inspired by God.

That may be true, but I think you'll find that Mohammed (and Muslims) claim that the entire Quran was verbally recited to Mohammed, who recited it to his scribes, who wrote it down word for word as it was given by the angel Gabriel.

So what you're saying here (however true it might be from a Mormon pov), isn't what Muslims believe.

[EllenMaksoud]

But as Muslims, they don't believe that Jesus died on the cross, atoned for anyone's sins, or rose on the third day (do they?)

So they can't really accept the four Gospels (can they?)

BTW: What is shirk, and how exactly would they view Mormons?

Isn't this in the Quran?

Say He is Allah, The One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begets not, Nor is He begotten; And there is none. Like unto Him. (Al Qur'an 112:1-4)

And isn't that entirely incompatible with Mormonism?

But they don't take "Messiah" to mean Savior, do they?

They don't believe that Christ's death actually saves anyone (or even that He died on the cross), do they?

But Mohammed claimed that the contents of the Quran were verbally dictated to him by Gabriel (who would have been more aware of the contents of the Bible than Luther or Wycliff), didn't he?

So if the doctrine of the Trinity (and/or a plurality of Gods), the doctrine of the atonement, and the Resurrection of Christ are in the Bible (and were in the original test), and both the Bible and the Quran are inspired, there shouldn't be any contradiction on these things (should there?)

There is a lot of confusion, even among Muslims, about what Muslims believe. Well, I suppose that is true of Christians also, because most of us are not like the Bereans.

I'm exploring an interesting paradox right now in that Muslims believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, they also assign him the lowly place of a prophet lower than Muhammahd PBUH.

Aside from my own beliefs about religion in general, the beliefs of others sometimes seem really goofy. I imagine that I appear that way to others at times.

So, I actually perhaps mis titled this thread. Perhaps it should have said, "Understanding and defining the Apostacy".

[inquiringmind]

By the way, this is some of what Wikipedia has to say about shirk.

In a theological context one commits shirk by associating some lesser being with Allah. This sin is committed if one imagines that there is some other spirit than Allah whom it is suitable to worship. Many Islamic theologians^[who?] extend the sense of worship to include praying to some other being to intercede with Allah on one's behalf, rather than taking one's case to God Himself. The limits of the concept of worship are quite elastic and theologians often describe excessive veneration of some artifact here on earth as shirk.

Atheism is described as shirk because it denies the position of Allah as the unique creator and sustainer of the universe (tawhid ar-rububiyya, the Unity of Lordship). In the same way, the act of shirk is extended to include such things as the notion that God possesses human-like anthropomorphic qualities as well as acts of worship or piety whose inward goal is pride, caprice, or a desire for public admiration, although public prayer is a core Islamic aspect of faith, encouraged and supported in the Quran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirk_%28Islam%29#Theological_interpretation

[3DOP]

In my opinion, the church went apostate in the middle of the book of Acts. So, why would we trust their later work? What about the Apocrapha? The book of Nichodemus, The Book of Mary?

Why if the church went apostate in the middle of the book Acts, would we include the book of Acts in the canon? The Book of Acts was written after all of the events described in the Book of Acts. The first half of Acts wasn't written until long after the Apostasy according to that scenario.

So since Acts describes itself to be half-Apostate, maybe it is half-inspired????? I dunno. Just being silly. Have fun. I am confusing myself trying to figure out how it would work. I think I need a nap...Let the weekend begin!

3DOP

[Ahab]

In my opinion, the church went apostate in the middle of the book of Acts. So, why would we trust their later work? What about the Apocrapha? The book of Nichodemus, The Book of Mary?

Scripture isn't the property of an apostate church. It's not theirs. Apostates don't write scripture.