Does Lds Doctrine Contradict The Bible?

[danielwoods]

The question isn't what those words and phrases meant to the Greeks. The question is what did those words and phrases mean to the Christians of the time or in the Christian context. The Greek Lexicon can be helpful sometimes but it can also mislead.

The words meant the same to the Greeks as it did to the Christians of the time. They used the same language. "Binding" "Loosing" Future tense and Past tense. All very basic grammar.

[cdowis]

Interesting point of view. Since the original hearers spoke Greek (among other languages), I'm certain they didn't have to get out the Greek Lexicon. Which in fact I didn't do. What I did do was point out the tense of the words. Future and past put together in one phrase. Interesting isn't it?

If what you say is true, we'd have no translations at all, not even the KJV. Instead we'd all have to learn Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic). So, clearly translating text, using those tools that allow that, are not the tools of evil deceivers.

I guess if you believe that the discussion is over once the Lexicon comes out, that sort of protects the interpretation based on JS, because it can't be challenged.

"Translation" is not the issue.

Clearly the discussion is not "over", but the search for truth is, when you exclude a significant source of God's word. For example, it would be fruitless to discuss Christian doctrine only using the OT, excluding the New Testament from the discussion.

Edited July 2, 2013 by cdowis

[Calm]

Now here is what they said. "How often does someone build a foundation for their home (likening it to a church)? Answer, usually only once...".

Unless one relocates or the foundation is damaged or not up to code or one wants to expand the foundation:

Edited July 2, 2013 by calmoriah

[danielwoods]

"Translation" is not the issue.

Clearly the discussion is not "over", but the search for truth is, when you exclude a significant source of God's word. For example, it would be fruitless to discuss Christian doctrine only using the OT, excluding the New Testament from the discussion.

Clearly the point is that when your "significant source" conflicts with a plain reading of the text in the NT, then there is an interpretative departure. We depart on principles of interpretation. In other words, my interpretation must be wrong, not because it appears wrong, or is parsed incorrectly, rather because it disagrees with your "significant source."

It doesn't disagree with my "significant source" (God).

ETA:

You edited it to say

For me, it would be fruitless to discuss Christian doctrine, but exclude the New Testament from the discussion.

How am I excluding the NT, when I am discussing passages in the NT?

Edited July 2, 2013 by danielwoods

[Vance]

The words meant the same to the Greeks as it did to the Christians of the time.

And that is why you fail.

They used the same language. "Binding" "Loosing" Future tense and Past tense. All very basic grammar.

Even today, the words used in the English translation, mean something different to different groups. It is like you have said before, (but are now, apparently denying) different groups have different interpretations. The non-Christian Greeks would have understood differently than the Christians. Even the followers of Jesus understood his words differently from his critics.

[Vance]

"Translation" is not the issue.

Clearly the discussion is not "over", but the search for truth is, when you exclude a significant source of God's word. For example, it would be fruitless to discuss Christian doctrine only using the OT, excluding the New Testament from the discussion.

Just as it is fruitless to exclude the context provide by the OT to accurately understand the NT.

[Vance]

Clearly the point is that when your "significant source" conflicts with a plain reading of the text in the NT, then there is an interpretative departure.

Good thing ours doesn't.

We depart on principles of interpretation.

And even with this you are consistently inconsistent.

In other words, my interpretation must be wrong, not because it appears wrong, or is parsed incorrectly, rather because it disagrees with your "significant source."

It is wrong because it is wrong. Now if you would like to delve into topics where your interpretation disagrees with your "significant source" (the Bible), then we can go down that path.

It doesn't disagree with my "significant source" (God).

Sure it does. God speaks through His prophets. That is His method of operation and has been from the beginning. Your "significant source" declares this to be so, yet you disagree.

[danielwoods]

And that is why you fail. Even today, the words used in the English translation, mean something different to different groups. It is like you have said before, (but are now, apparently denying) different groups have different interpretations. The non-Christian Greeks would have understood differently than the Christians. Even the followers of Jesus understood his words differently from his critics.

Vance, it's almost not worth replying to your posts. You're clearly not interested in a dialogue. I don't come to you and say that you failed, why do you do that to me?

Fact is that I will have only failed when I stop searching for the truth. I haven't stopped, therefore I haven't failed, despite your negative treatment. I really don't understand where you are coming from. It's almost as if you wish for me to fail. I certainly don't wish for anyone to fail, much less someone willing to dialogue.

As for the point about language. Certainly the Biblical text uses language as a medium, just like we use TV to deliver our messages. People from that time and day would have understood Jesus way easier than we do. It was their language. And Greek is far more exact, than English, so understanding medium, in this case, Greek. Is vitally important. Whether non-christian Greeks would read a future tense followed by a past tense differently is up for debate. I don't think it would be difficult for them, since it is their language after all.

Good thing ours doesn't. And even with this you are consistently inconsistent. It is wrong because it is wrong. Now if you would like to delve into topics where your interpretation disagrees with your "significant source" (the Bible), then we can go down that path.

Sure it does. God speaks through His prophets. That is His method of operation and has been from the beginning. Your "significant source" declares this to be so, yet you disagree.

Again, "it is wrong because it is wrong" isn't an arguement. It's simply a restatement of your opinion.

I have never said that God doesn't speak through his prophets. I dispute that Joseph Smith was a prophet however.

[cdowis]

I have never said that God doesn't speak through his prophets. I dispute that Joseph Smith was a prophet however.

Let's get specific.

1. Do you believe God speaks thru prophets today. Who was the last prophet.

2. You now accept the theologians and scholars as the modern day authority for God's word, as they interpret the Bible. A mixture of tradition, logic and translation tools brings us to a correct understanding of God's will. Is that correct?

Finally, does your source of God's will tell you whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation.

Edited July 3, 2013 by cdowis

[teddyaware]

Your reply doesn't answer deal with the passage directly. Rather raises other questions, and attempts to explain why I would interpret the passage the way I do.

Fact remains that I would gladly entertain other interpretations or translations of this passage. If they were valid translations of the greek.

For example. If I came to you and asked in Spanish, "Dude where's the nearest gas station?" And you pointed me to the nearest grocery store. I would be confused. And when I tell you that I was actually needing gas, you say, "You just don't believe groceries are necessary anymore do you?" I'd be like, "Huh? I don't get it."

Ultimately, I don't care how it's translated, as long as it's correctly. As in, how the original writers and speakers intended it to be understood.

Concerning my motivation to read it as I do, it certainly isn't because I don't believe that prophets or apostles are for today. You might be surprised to learn that I believe there are prophets and leaders of the church today. Now, I don't agree that the LDS church is *the* church because I don't think that a prophet or anyone who is leading people, will contradict what is already known (as I have said earlier in this thread). And certainly JS contradicted much of what we already know is truth.

So, as far as my motivation goes. I find it interesting, that instead of dealing with the passage, you project a certain type of motivation on me. I think it's probably a foundational pillar in the LDS belief system. To understand this passage to mean that Peter was given the Keys which were then passed down to JS.

Which gets us back to my original point, that the LDS method of interpretation rests on how JS interpreted it.

Daniel,

Would you please restate your interpretation of Matthew 16:19 in very simple language -- language simple enough for an 8 year old child to understand? This will help me to answer you directly on this point of discussion. If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to know exactly what it is you believe Christ is saying and giving to Peter the Apostle in this verse. The simpler you're able to state your position, the better I'll be able to dialogue with you on this important point.

Edited July 3, 2013 by teddyaware

[Flyonthewall]

Let's look at the context.

Rev. 19 And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God:

² For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.

³ And again they said, Alleluia And her smoke rose up for ever and ever.

⁴ And the four and twenty elders and the four beasts fell down and worshipped God that sat on the throne, saying, Amen; Alleluia.

⁵ And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great.

⁶ And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

⁷ Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

So, from the context we can tell that the they are in Heaven. And in that context the marriage is to take place. You are correct, that the statement isn't made explicitly, however, your case isn't helped, because as I pointed out, this is the only marriage talked about, in Heaven.

In the context, the voices were in heaven, and your conclusion takes for granted that they could not be talking about an event on earth. When Jesus was baptized, a voice came from heaven, but was speaking of Jesus, who was on earth.

So there is precedent for heavenly voices talking about something on earth. In other words, the context you lay out is not obvious, nor automatic, but is forced, by you, to fit your understanding. Which is the same thing you say we do.

In the end, we can throw scriptures out all day and never move beyond our own interpretations. The same problem that has been going on for ages. In order to accurately understand the scriptures, one must move beyond the words on the surface. Like the parables of Christ, if you simply go by the words, the real message is missed. The pattern that has been used from the foundation of the world is that prophets expound upon the real messages in the scriptures.

Many people today do not believe prophets are necessary, and do not believe there is a prophet alive today. Not everyone in the OT or NT accepted the prophets before them...

So I will wish you well in your search for truth.

[danielwoods]

Let's get specific.

1. Do you believe God speaks thru prophets today. Who was the last prophet.

2. You now accept the theologians and scholars as the modern day authority for God's word, as they interpret the Bible. A mixture of tradition, logic and translation tools brings us to a correct understanding of God's will. Is that correct?

Finally, does your source of God's will tell you whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation.

1. Yes. There are still prophets alive today.

2. Your question isn't clear. All theologians and scholars don't agree with one another. And for that matter, all prophets don't either.

As to the "Correct understanding of God's will." That is found in both the Biblical Text, and direction connection to God, through relationship.

Water baptism isn't necessary for salvation because it is merely a symbolic action, representing what happened in our hearts and lives. However, "Baptism" into Christ is necessary.

[danielwoods]

Daniel,

Would you please restate your interpretation of Matthew 16:19 in very simple language -- language simple enough for an 8 year old child to understand? This will help me to answer you directly on this point of discussion. If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to know exactly what it is you believe Christ is saying and giving to Peter the Apostle in this verse. The simpler you're able to state your position, the better I'll be able to dialogue with you on this important point.

Since a simple future tense if followed by a perfect participle passive, it indicates that "having been bound in Heaven" is in the completed past tense, meaning it is bound already. And what you (as a church) will bind in the future, must match what has already been bound in Heaven.

The example of Peter in Acts 15 is a perfect example of this in action.

Having the "keys" or access to Heaven, gave them the ability to bind on earth what has already been bound in Heaven.

This fits the paradigm taught throughout the Bible, that the flow of power and control comes from God to us, not the other way around. We don't bind something and then due to some "key" that something is then bound in Heaven. Nope. That is backwards.

[teddyaware]

Since a simple future tense if followed by a perfect participle passive, it indicates that "having been bound in Heaven" is in the completed past tense, meaning it is bound already. And what you (as a church) will bind in the future, must match what has already been bound in Heaven.

The example of Peter in Acts 15 is a perfect example of this in action.

Having the "keys" or access to Heaven, gave them the ability to bind on earth what has already been bound in Heaven.

This fits the paradigm taught throughout the Bible, that the flow of power and control comes from God to us, not the other way around. We don't bind something and then due to some "key" that something is then bound in Heaven. Nope. That is backwards.

My request was that you present your interpretation of what Christ said and gave to Peter, in Matthew 19:16, in a way an eight year old could understand. This you did not do. So, for the sake of furthering this discussion, let's pretend I'm back to being an eight year old boy of average intelligence. So then, how would you explain to me what Christ said to Peter in this verse, and do so in such a way that I, as an eight year old, could easily understand the Saviour's intended meaning; and this so that I might then go ahead and successfully teach the same simple concepts and principles to other children of similar intellectual capacity. Very often, great spiritual truths are simple and easy enough for a young child to understand. It shouldn't be too difficult for you to explain in very simple, elementary language what spiritual blessings and heavenly powers Christ bestowed upon the Apostle Peter in this verse. Edited July 3, 2013 by teddyaware

[danielwoods]

In the context, the voices were in heaven, and your conclusion takes for granted that they could not be talking about an event on earth. When Jesus was baptized, a voice came from heaven, but was speaking of Jesus, who was on earth.

So there is precedent for heavenly voices talking about something on earth. In other words, the context you lay out is not obvious, nor automatic, but is forced, by you, to fit your understanding. Which is the same thing you say we do.

In the end, we can throw scriptures out all day and never move beyond our own interpretations. The same problem that has been going on for ages. In order to accurately understand the scriptures, one must move beyond the words on the surface. Like the parables of Christ, if you simply go by the words, the real message is missed. The pattern that has been used from the foundation of the world is that prophets expound upon the real messages in the scriptures.

Many people today do not believe prophets are necessary, and do not believe there is a prophet alive today. Not everyone in the OT or NT accepted the prophets before them...

So I will wish you well in your search for truth.

The context of Rev. 19 begins with Chapter 4.

John wrote:

4 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

² And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.

From that point on, in the book of Revelation, there is no longer any mention of the Church. And his perspective is from above, as he says, "up hither" in Heaven. When we get to Chapter 19, notice it says,

"Rev. 19 And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God:"

Now, your contention that this is just as likely a voice he heard coming from heaven, like when the Jesus was baptized, "the context you lay out is not obvious, nor automatic, but is forced, by you, to fit your understanding."

Let's say you are correct, and John heard them from Heaven. How does this change the fact that it's the only marriage talked about in Heaven?

But, of course I disagree. I think the context is fairly clear, especially when compared to your example.

One obvious difference, John states he's "up hither", and further, the observations he makes, are from a perspective, as if he's there in Heaven. Juxtapose that with the baptism event. The voice comes out of Heaven, while the observer and everyone else is on Earth.... And further, the statement is made that Much people are "In Heaven".

Your last contention spells out your principle of interp.:

"In order to accurately understand the scriptures, one must move beyond the words on the surface. Like the parables of Christ, if you simply go by the words, the real message is missed. The pattern that has been used from the foundation of the world is that prophets expound upon the real messages in the scriptures."

I would agree if this was a parable. It isn't. However, I agree that this is how many LDS interpret things. They "move beyond the words" and look to a leader or "prophet" in this case, for answers. Which is fine, but it is where the difference in interpretation comes in. In essence, the meaning isn't found in the Biblical Text alone, but in someone else, especially if the meaning isn't what the prophet wanted.

[teddyaware]

The context of Rev. 19 begins with Chapter 4.

John wrote:

4 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

² And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.

From that point on, in the book of Revelation, there is no longer any mention of the Church. And his perspective is from above, as he says, "up hither" in Heaven. When we get to Chapter 19, notice it says,

"Rev. 19 And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God:"

Now, your contention that this is just as likely a voice he heard coming from heaven, like when the Jesus was baptized, "the context you lay out is not obvious, nor automatic, but is forced, by you, to fit your understanding."

Let's say you are correct, and John heard them from Heaven. How does this change the fact that it's the only marriage talked about in Heaven?

But, of course I disagree. I think the context is fairly clear, especially when compared to your example.

One obvious difference, John states he's "up hither", and further, the observations he makes, are from a perspective, as if he's there in Heaven. Juxtapose that with the baptism event. The voice comes out of Heaven, while the observer and everyone else is on Earth.... And further, the statement is made that Much people are "In Heaven".

Your last contention spells out your principle of interp.:

"In order to accurately understand the scriptures, one must move beyond the words on the surface. Like the parables of Christ, if you simply go by the words, the real message is missed. The pattern that has been used from the foundation of the world is that prophets expound upon the real messages in the scriptures."

I would agree if this was a parable. It isn't. However, I agree that this is how many LDS interpret things. They "move beyond the words" and look to a leader or "prophet" in this case, for answers. Which is fine, but it is where the difference in interpretation comes in. In essence, the meaning isn't found in the Biblical Text alone, but in someone else, especially if the meaning isn't what the prophet wanted.

"19. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20. Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1)

Living prophets, inspired by the Holy Ghost like Peter, are needed in order to rightly understand the words of the prophets who are on longer with us. For "the spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets." (1 Cor 14:32)

Edited July 3, 2013 by teddyaware

[danielwoods]

My request was that you present your interpretation of what Christ said and gave to Peter, in Matthew 19:16, in a way an eight year old could understand. This you did not do. So, for the sake of furthering this discussion, let's pretend I'm back to being an eight year old boy of average intelligence. So then, how would you explain to me what Christ said to Peter in this verse, and do so in such a way that I, as an eight year old, could easily understand the Saviour's intended meaning; and this so that I might then go ahead and successfully teach the same simple concepts and principles to other children of similar intellectual capacity. Very often, great spiritual truths are simple and easy enough for a young child to understand. It shouldn't be too difficult for you to explain in very simple, elementary language what spiritual blessings and heavenly powers Christ bestowed upon the Apostle Peter in this verse.

Jesus said I will give you the keys to the kingdom, so now you have direct access to the Father to know what is right and wrong.

[teddyaware]

Jesus said I will give you the keys to the kingdom, so now you have direct access to the Father to know what is right and wrong.

Good enough. Yet this explanation of yours says little about the role the keys of the kingdom play in Peter's leadership role as an Apostle and Prophet in the Church... Now explain to the same child the second part of the verse, where, apparently, these keys given to Peter by Christ enable the Apostle to bind on earth and in heaven and to loose on earth and in heaven,

Edited July 3, 2013 by teddyaware

[cdowis]

1. Yes. There are still prophets alive today.

So their written revelations would be scripture. Should we add their words to the Bible, or start with a new book of scripture

2. Your question isn't clear. All theologians and scholars don't agree with one another. And for that matter, all prophets don't either.

Modern, living prophets make theologians irrevelant, nicht wahr. Of course scholars have their place.

As to the "Correct understanding of God's will." That is found in both the Biblical Text, and direction connection to God, through relationship.

I assume by "biblical text" you mean all of the revelations of the prophets, which includes the Bible, among others (see my comment above).

Water baptism isn't necessary for salvation because it is merely a symbolic action, representing what happened in our hearts and lives. However, "Baptism" into Christ is necessary.

And what do your modern prophets say about that. That "baptism into Christ" is a new one to me, so I guess they are teaching that doctrine.

[Flyonthewall]

The context of Rev. 19 begins with Chapter 4.

John wrote:

4 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

² And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.

From that point on, in the book of Revelation, there is no longer any mention of the Church. And his perspective is from above, as he says, "up hither" in Heaven. When we get to Chapter 19, notice it says,

"Rev. 19 And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God:"

Now, your contention that this is just as likely a voice he heard coming from heaven, like when the Jesus was baptized, "the context you lay out is not obvious, nor automatic, but is forced, by you, to fit your understanding."

Let's say you are correct, and John heard them from Heaven. How does this change the fact that it's the only marriage talked about in Heaven?

But, of course I disagree. I think the context is fairly clear, especially when compared to your example.

One obvious difference, John states he's "up hither", and further, the observations he makes, are from a perspective, as if he's there in Heaven. Juxtapose that with the baptism event. The voice comes out of Heaven, while the observer and everyone else is on Earth.... And further, the statement is made that Much people are "In Heaven".

However, chapters 6, 7, and 8 are about the opening of the seals of the book, which describe events that will happen on earth, so again, just because they are in heaven does not automatically mean they speak of events that happen in heaven.

And don't you think your argument is one from silence? Scriptures don't mention any other marriage in heaven so that means there are no other marriages in heaven? You didn't accept that when I brought up eternal marriages.

Your last contention spells out your principle of interp.:

"In order to accurately understand the scriptures, one must move beyond the words on the surface. Like the parables of Christ, if you simply go by the words, the real message is missed. The pattern that has been used from the foundation of the world is that prophets expound upon the real messages in the scriptures."

I would agree if this was a parable. It isn't. However, I agree that this is how many LDS interpret things. They "move beyond the words" and look to a leader or "prophet" in this case, for answers. Which is fine, but it is where the difference in interpretation comes in. In essence, the meaning isn't found in the Biblical Text alone, but in someone else, especially if the meaning isn't what the prophet wanted.

It does not matter if it is a parable or not, it has always been that prophets are the ones that expound upon the scriptures. The meaning of the scriptures are found in God, and God has always given prophets to be a mouthpiece for Him on earth. However, there are those that have essentially told God: "We don't need the tools you have given us to interpret your word, we got it".

[Vance]

Vance, it's almost not worth replying to your posts.

Ok. Do as you will.

You're clearly not interested in a dialogue.

I am wondering the same thing about you.

I don't come to you and say that you failed, why do you do that to me?

Basically you are. You are basically saying that because I accept Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, I have failed.

And Greek is far more exact, than English, so understanding medium, in this case, Greek.

I suspect that that is very debatable.

Whether non-christian Greeks would read a future tense followed by a past tense differently is up for debate.

I suspect that many, many undocumented discussions were had among the first Christians about the meaning of those words, and so, they would have understood them correctly REGARDLESS of the tenses used. But we don't have access to the discussions, so we don't have the "Christian" context. That is why we need prophets (not scholars) to give us the correct understanding.

I don't think it would be difficult for them, since it is their language after all.

It was also within their context, so yes, it would not have been difficult for them.

Again, "it is wrong because it is wrong" isn't an arguement. It's simply a restatement of your opinion.

As is most of your postings. So?

I have never said that God doesn't speak through his prophets. I dispute that Joseph Smith was a prophet however.

We get it that you reject JS as a prophet. You have repeated that, ad nauseum. You have provided your excuses for your rejection of him. And we have found them without merit or extremely weak. So, now what? Would you care to discuss the doctrine of the "immateriality" of God? I would like to know the scriptural basis for such a doctrine. And going into the Greek would be especially fun.

[danielwoods]

"19. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20. Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1)

Living prophets, inspired by the Holy Ghost like Peter, are needed in order to rightly understand the words of the prophets who are on longer with us. For "the spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets." (1 Cor 14:32)

And if a "Living prophet" declares that this passages means he has the keys to tell God (heaven) what will be bound or loosed, then in your opinion, that prophet must be right?

[danielwoods]

Good enough. Yet this explanation of yours says little about the role the keys of the kingdom play in Peter's leadership role as an Apostle and Prophet in the Church... Now explain to the same child the second part of the verse, where, apparently, these keys given to Peter by Christ enable the Apostle to bind on earth and in heaven and to loose on earth and in heaven,

I wrote: "Jesus said I will give you the keys to the kingdom, so now you have direct access to the Father to know what is right and wrong."

Binding and Loosing are legal terms in Jewish vernacular. In essence, what is right and wrong is as basic as it gets. Acts 15, Peter used the keys to access the knowledge that we don't have to be Jews first to be saved.

The verse in question actually doesn't say we bind or loose things in Heaven. Only on Earth.

[Vance]

However, "Baptism" into Christ is necessary.

Good morning Daniel. I have searched the entire Bible and I can't find "Baptism into Christ" (or something like it). Do you have a specific Bible verse in mind, or are you putting something into the verses that isn't there?

[danielwoods]

1. Yes. There are still prophets alive today.

So their written revelations would be scripture. Should we add their words to the Bible, or start with a new book of scripture

2. Your question isn't clear. All theologians and scholars don't agree with one another. And for that matter, all prophets don't either.

Modern, living prophets make theologians irrevelant, nicht wahr. Of course scholars have their place.

As to the "Correct understanding of God's will." That is found in both the Biblical Text, and direction connection to God, through relationship.

I assume by "biblical text" you mean all of the revelations of the prophets, which includes the Bible, among others (see my comment above).

Water baptism isn't necessary for salvation because it is merely a symbolic action, representing what happened in our hearts and lives. However, "Baptism" into Christ is necessary.

And what do your modern prophets say about that. That "baptism into Christ" is a new one to me, so I guess they are teaching that doctrine.

No. I don't see prophets of today adding to scripture.

Baptized into Christ is not new:

Galatians 3^{27 "}For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

Romans 6^{3 "}Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? ⁴ We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."