Why Would We Trust The Cannon Of The Apostate Church?

[tagriffy]

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

That wasn't what I was going to check. The question was whether the book of Nicodemus contained something. In order to find out, I'd have to get another copy of the New Testament Apocrypha. The question had nothing to do with its compatibility with the Gospel.

[tagriffy]

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.

I think I see what you are saying. I tend not to tie the apostasy to any particular historical event. You certainly wouldn't be the first person to feel that Christianity got off track when Paul came into the picture. I have my own problems with the story of Ananias and Sapphira, but regardless of how well/badly the author handled the episode, the story functioned to make a specific point, and that is what I'm ultimately looking at.

Let's go back to your OP, now. If you pinpoint the apostasy to the Ananias episode and ask why we should trust the later work, you should realize that all of the New Testament, and Nicodemus, and Mary were written sometime after this point. If we can't trust anything after this point, we can't trust anything that was written by Christians at all. I don't think that is what you intended to say.

Did you have specific points you wanted to make about the Apocrypha and the books of Nicodemus and Mary?

[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?)

OK, Shirk in Islam is the sin of Polytheisim.

I think the two largest issues in understanding all this is that because of the Babel curse, we neither have the ability to understand the other language or their intention.

Please keep in mind that even the best Quranic translation, by Yusef Ali, is a paraphrase of classical Arabic and no one speaks it any more. So, the hapless translator, no matter his intentions,

Added to that, Westerners try to see Islam as a monolithic structure of belief when in fact, it is just as fragmented as Christianity, or worse. Muslims are killing each other more than the West is killing them. It is rapidly becoming clear that the Islam I love so much exists only within my own romantic head. To add insult to injury most Muslim states have little or no separation between church and state, except Turkey perhaps.

So, we Westerners try to pretend we understand Islam by lumping it into one box, when the school of thought that is causing the ruction today started out as the Salafi movement, and that evolved into the Wahhabist school of terror. The are the ones who got this matter of face covering for women all mixed up. In the original form, the face covering started out that it was only used between a woman and her father or husband, and was a way of showing honor. This concept is illustrated very well in the book "Veiled Sentiments", and to a lesser degree in the movie "Johanna Akbar".

I apologise for my excursion into Islam, I didn't mean to.

Spiritual error is easily found in Christianity. Look at what happened during the inquisition, or the attempted persecution of Martin Luther or the murder of Wycliffe and his contemporaries. What kind of error is it that allowed John Hagee to stand at the pulpit and yell that "All Muslims are going to hell", or for a 60 year old man to have 80 or so wives and even one that was 14, or spawned exclusivistic schools of thought like what Ellen G. White came up with? I think that most of these things happened because of perhaps Psychopathology.

[ERayR]

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

I am not saying I subscribe to Ellen's premise but I don't see the church going apostate as a deterrent to an inclusion of the book of Acts being included in scripture.

[EllenMaksoud]

I think I see what you are saying. I tend not to tie the apostasy to any particular historical event. You certainly wouldn't be the first person to feel that Christianity got off track when Paul came into the picture. I have my own problems with the story of Ananias and Sapphira, but regardless of how well/badly the author handled the episode, the story functioned to make a specific point, and that is what I'm ultimately looking at.

Let's go back to your OP, now. If you pinpoint the apostasy to the Ananias episode and ask why we should trust the later work, you should realize that all of the New Testament, and Nicodemus, and Mary were written sometime after this point. If we can't trust anything after this point, we can't trust anything that was written by Christians at all. I don't think that is what you intended to say.

Did you have specific points you wanted to make about the Apocrypha and the books of Nicodemus and Mary?

Actually, I am just trying to resolve this matter myself. My thinking is quite messy, and I don't have a husband to tell me to go fix dinner and stop this silly blogging.

I am a writer and inadvertently my eloquence sometimes fools people into thinking that I am more than I am.

At the time of Joseph Smith, the area in which he lived was called the Burned Over District, because of the plethora of different religous beliefs. Perhaps he felt that the chuch at that particular time was apostate. Myself, I think that apostacy has carried forward into present day, though not all churches are as fallen as some, IMHO.

[EllenMaksoud]

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

I violated the terms of release from the hospital and now have myself worn out. I intend to follow your example, Nap HO!

[tagriffy]

Actually, I am just trying to resolve this matter myself. My thinking is quite messy, and I don't have a husband to tell me to go fix dinner and stop this silly blogging.

I am a writer and inadvertently my eloquence sometimes fools people into thinking that I am more than I am.

At the time of Joseph Smith, the area in which he lived was called the Burned Over District, because of the plethora of different religous beliefs. Perhaps he felt that the chuch at that particular time was apostate. Myself, I think that apostacy has carried forward into present day, though not all churches are as fallen as some, IMHO.

Might I suggest you're going about your task the wrong way? You seem to be trying to establish the canon based on the apostasy. Try setting aside the apostasy and establish your canon first.

[Questing Beast]

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.

Extend "apostasy" to Joseph Smith's work. All FLDS consider the main stream LDS Church apostate too, most dating that to post 1890 when "the practice" was done away as a church.

But earlier "apostates" considered that JS himself became a "fallen prophet", and that most or all of his work after the Book of Mormon falls into that category. I am sure that early Christianity went through the same kind of fragmentation from the getgo. "Apostasy", therefore, is in the eyes of the beholder....

[mfbukowski]

Why Would We Trust The Cannon Of The Apostate Church?

Don't ask me- I never have!

[inquiringmind]

Spiritual error is easily found in Christianity.

And not in Islam?

What kind of error is it that allowed John Hagee to stand at the pulpit and yell that "All Muslims are going to hell"

What kind of spiritual error allows things like this to happen?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkQHArjRlV0

I understand the guy ranting with his hands bathed in blood is a second generation British immigrant, who doesn't really know anything about what women do or don't have to witness in "our lands" because England (the country he hates) is the only country he's ever really lived in.

What kind of spiritual error allows this, the Boston bombing, and 911 to happen?

[EllenMaksoud]

I think I see what you are saying. I tend not to tie the apostasy to any particular historical event. You certainly wouldn't be the first person to feel that Christianity got off track when Paul came into the picture. I have my own problems with the story of Ananias and Sapphira, but regardless of how well/badly the author handled the episode, the story functioned to make a specific point, and that is what I'm ultimately looking at.

Let's go back to your OP, now. If you pinpoint the apostasy to the Ananias episode and ask why we should trust the later work, you should realize that all of the New Testament, and Nicodemus, and Mary were written sometime after this point. If we can't trust anything after this point, we can't trust anything that was written by Christians at all. I don't think that is what you intended to say.

Did you have specific points you wanted to make about the Apocrypha and the books of Nicodemus and Mary?

As for the Apocrypha, nothing specific, but the books of Nicodemus is interesting because the ideas he had did not seem to be included in what the "church fathers" settled on. That he could have felt that Jesus Christ was not crucified is very interesting, and some feel that the loss of the crucifiction would destroy Christianity. Of course Jesus Christ's death and subsequent resurrection proves that there is a path back from death.

My only reservation is that why would God need to prove anything to us? If the knowlege of God is in our hearts, why would he bother with proving anything to the unwilling? I think the bigger question is why does God bother with us?

[mfbukowski]

Here are some quotes from the Quran.

Actually, they are not "quotes" even if you have copied it letter perfect from your copy of the Quran.

Muslims recognize the problems with the ambiguity of language and see any "translation" as an "interpretation" of the original Arabic and so any translations are not really "quotes"- they are considered "reinterpretations" - almost like commentaries- on the original.

Of course there are problems with that because like all languages, Arabic itself is ambiguous- but shhhh- we won't mention that.

[inquiringmind]

As for the Apocrypha, nothing specific, but the books of Nicodemus is interesting because the ideas he had did not seem to be included in what the "church fathers" settled on. That he could have felt that Jesus Christ was not crucified is very interesting, and some feel that the loss of the crucifiction would destroy Christianity.

And you don't?

What about Mormonism?

If you remove the atonement, wouldn't that destroy Mormonism?

[EllenMaksoud]

Might I suggest you're going about your task the wrong way? You seem to be trying to establish the canon based on the apostasy. Try setting aside the apostasy and establish your canon first.

In rooting around in religion, when I finish for the day, I always feel like I missed something, or that there is a truth staring me in the face that I have failed to percieve.

[EllenMaksoud]

And you don't?

What about Mormonism?

If you remove the atonement, wouldn't that destroy Mormonism?

[mfbukowski]

And you don't?

What about Mormonism?

If you remove the atonement, wouldn't that destroy Mormonism?

Strictly speaking, you don't need a crucifixion - you need a sacrifice. Besides, we believe that most of the atonement was done in Gethsemane

But of course that any of these events actually happened requires faith, since the history is unknowable, and therefore irrelevant.

[inquiringmind]

In rooting around in religion, when I finish for the day, I always feel like I missed something, or that there is a truth staring me in the face that I have failed to percieve.

What do you think of the Mormon concept of the atonement?

You wrote

...the books of Nicodemus is interesting because the ideas he had did not seem to be included in what the "church fathers" settled on. That he could have felt that Jesus Christ was not crucified is very interesting, and some feel that the loss of the crucifiction would destroy Christianity....

Do you not feel that the concept of the atonement is essential to Mormonism?

[tagriffy]

As for the Apocrypha, nothing specific, but the books of Nicodemus is interesting because the ideas he had did not seem to be included in what the "church fathers" settled on. That he could have felt that Jesus Christ was not crucified is very interesting, and some feel that the loss of the crucifiction would destroy Christianity. Of course Jesus Christ's death and subsequent resurrection proves that there is a path back from death.

My only reservation is that why would God need to prove anything to us? If the knowlege of God is in our hearts, why would he bother with proving anything to the unwilling? I think the bigger question is why does God bother with us?

As I remember, Nicodemus is a third or fourth century work. It never really had a chance to be considered for canonization in the emerging Christian orthodoxy. I don't have the means to look it up right now, so someone should correct me here if necessary. In any case, the idea that Jesus was not really crucified is a proto-Gnostic idea that the Fourth Gospel was trying to refute.

If God created us, that is reason enough for him to bother with us. The question is like asking why a parent bother with their children.

Does God really need to prove anything to us? That would seem to be an even more fundamental question.

[EllenMaksoud]

And you don't?

What about Mormonism?

If you remove the atonement, wouldn't that destroy Mormonism?

Well, I am not trying to destroy religion, really, but simply trying to reduce belief to its lowest common denominator. In our day, what is the rock that lies at the base of the church? Who was it that sat on a white horse, dressed in white, that held a sword and told me to stop that day in Kirtland?

[tagriffy]

And you don't?

What about Mormonism?

If you remove the atonement, wouldn't that destroy Mormonism?

No.

[inquiringmind]

Strictly speaking, you don't need a crucifixion - you need a sacrifice. Besides, we believe that most of the atonement was done in Gethsemane

But of course that any of these events actually happened requires faith, since the history is unknowable, and therefore irrelevant.

How many times in The Book of Mormon, and in the Doctrine and Covenants does it say that Christ was crucified?

And doesn't it say somewhere that he visited the Western hemisphere AFTER his crucifixion and resurrection?

Didn't Lehi's visions speak of the crucifixion?

How much would be left of the Book of Mormon if you remove all reference to the crucifixion and resurrection?

Are you saying these are non essentials?

[tagriffy]

Do you not feel that the concept of the atonement is essential to Mormonism?

That's something I don't know about. I've had problems in the past trying to square the idea of eternal progression with the necessity of the atonement. I've yet to come to any conclusion.

[EllenMaksoud]

Actually, they are not "quotes" even if you have copied it letter perfect from your copy of the Quran.

Muslims recognize the problems with the ambiguity of language and see any "translation" as an "interpretation" of the original Arabic and so any translations are not really "quotes"- they are considered "reinterpretations" - almost like commentaries- on the original.

Of course there are problems with that because like all languages, Arabic itself is ambiguous- but shhhh- we won't mention that.

LOL, You speak a da Arabi?

Finally someone that really ... gets it... One of my favorite places in the Qur'an is surah 4:34, where it plainly says that a husband may strike a rebellious wife. (Hah, why would the dude bring a stick to a gun fight!)

YET! in the hundreds of Muslims I know here is in the US, only one ever felt that it gave him liberty to do so.

It was at that point that Islam really started to fall apart on me. If I can not sit down and read the Qur'an and get direction for my life, what use is it?

I can go right into the Bible or Bom and shortly get something that will improve me as a person should I choose to obey it.

[Ahab]

That's something I don't know about. I've had problems in the past trying to square the idea of eternal progression with the necessity of the atonement. I've yet to come to any conclusion.

Eternal progression is possible only because of the atonement, othewise we would never even be restored to the condition of Adam and Eve before they fell, much less move beyond that to become as perfect as our Father in heaven. It's only because of the atonement that repentance does any good, otherwise we would never be cleansed from our sins no matter how many times we tried to do something right because we would have still be accountable for doing things wrong. There's a whole lot to the atonement that you don't seem to be aware of, much less comprehend.

[EllenMaksoud]

What do you think of the Mormon concept of the atonement?

You wrote

Do you not feel that the concept of the atonement is essential to Mormonism?

I would be an inglorious fool to not say that the atonement saved my life. Thank you for bringing that up.