Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[danielwoods]

Demonstrate your a priori assumption that God or the Holy Spirit is the author of the Bible.  If God is the author he has done a poor job.  The book is internally inconsistent and the original manuscripts were not preserved.  What a weak God who cannot even preserve His own book so we can check out what we have today against the originals.

 

The Bible simply cannot be trusted.

2 Peter 1:20-21: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 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. (KJV)" 

 

As to your criticism of not having the original autographs. This wasn't the practice of the Jews, to keep originals. Rather, the practice was to both memorize and make exact copies of the originals, and destroy the old copies. While this may sound like a horrible way to preserve historical texts, the dead sea scrolls demonstrated that the practice was sound and accurate. So while your criticism sounds logical on the surface, it ignores the reality that both the NT and OT are reliable. 

[danielwoods]

You asked for a reference. It you know anything about Mormons you should know they do not claim all their doctrine is in the Bible. 

 

Nor does your precious inconsistent Bible claim it is a closes canon.  Never, ever does it claim that. The largest Christian Church in the worlds rejects a closes canon though they do not add new scripture but they have other methods for teaching extra biblical teachings they claim are from God.

 

When the books that are in the Bible were written there was no Bible.... not for many long years after.   So the fact that it is not in the Bible has no meaning for Mormons.  They believe God is powerful enough to speak to men today.  Apparently your God is too weak to do so.

 

And yet it is a controversial claim, that their teachings are not derived from the Bible. 

[bluebell]

And yet it is a controversial claim, that their teachings are not derived from the Bible.

A teaching can be biblical without being derived from the bible.

[Teancum]

Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's Misquoting JesusBy: Timothy Paul Jones The Reliability of the New Testament: Bart Ehrman & Daniel Wallace in DialogueEdited By: Robert B. Stewart What Have They Done with Jesus? Beyond Strange Theories and Bad History Ben Witherington III Scholars Distort the Gospels Craig A. Evans 

I will see who these people are and whether they are really "colleagues"

[Teancum]

Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's Misquoting JesusBy: Timothy Paul Jones The Reliability of the New Testament: Bart Ehrman & Daniel Wallace in DialogueEdited By: Robert B. Stewart What Have They Done with Jesus? Beyond Strange Theories and Bad History Ben Witherington III Scholars Distort the Gospels Craig A. Evans

A very quick look reveals these are all evangelical ministers and/or teach and conservative theological schools. In other words they are Christian apologists.

I am sure they give you much comfort in the face of hard facts. But I view them as you mightt view LDS apologists like Daniel Peterson or Terryl Givens. I will look more into them when or if time permits. On the other hand why should I bother when you dismiss Ehrman's (and others) having never read a word they write?

Edited January 5, 2015 by Teancum

[danielwoods]

But revelation is also part of every word that comes from the mouth of God.  The words of the bible were revelation from God after all.

 

You didn't answer my last question though.  Where does the bible teach that studying the itself (and only itself) is better than relying on revelation from God?

 

I agree that revelation and God's word are synonymous with each other. The difficulty is knowing what is revelation, which is why studying previous revelation (God's word) is so important. 

 

To me this answers your question. Anyone can come along and claim to have revelation from God. How do we know they are making an accurate claim? To me, the answer is based on previous revelation (Gods word), which is why study of it is so important. 

[danielwoods]

A teaching can be biblical without being derived from the bible.

 

Not sure I agree... I can't think of an example. 

[Teancum]

2 Peter 1:20-21: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 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. (KJV)" 

 

As to your criticism of not having the original autographs. This wasn't the practice of the Jews, to keep originals. Rather, the practice was to both memorize and make exact copies of the originals, and destroy the old copies. While this may sound like a horrible way to preserve historical texts, the dead sea scrolls demonstrated that the practice was sound and accurate. So while your criticism sounds logical on the surface, it ignores the reality that both the NT and OT are reliable.

So you appeal to the Bible to prove the Bible is good breathed......uh okie dokie....

The fact that you don't see that as a problem speaks volumes.

And so what about the proactice of the Jews. Was not ypur God powerful enough to to tell those he used to by his divine dictators that they needed to do something different to preserve his texts?

Thus we see by the manuscripts we do have that the text is not reliable as well as what was decided to include and not include.

[danielwoods]

A very quick look reveals these are all evangelical ministers and/or teach and conservative theological schools. In other words they are Christian apologists.

I am sure they give you much comfort in the face of hard facts. But I view them as you mightt view LDS apologists like Daniel Peterson or Terryl Givens. I will look more into them when or if time permits. On the other hand why should I bother when you dismiss Ehrman's (and others) having never read a word they write?

 

If you want to discuss Ehrmans best arguments, specifically, that is what I offered. I don't find it very enlightening to play source fallacy games, which is why I'm not playing. 

[Teancum]

And yet it is a controversial claim, that their teachings are not derived from the Bible.

And if the Bible actually claimed to be the sole source of Gods word you may have a point. But it doesn't.

[Teancum]

If you want to discuss Ehrmans best arguments, specifically, that is what I offered. I don't find it very enlightening to play source fallacy games, which is why I'm not playing.

Read one of his books. Otherwise it is pointless and it becomes clear you really have no interest in views that may challenge your beliefs.

[danielwoods]

So you appeal to the Bible to prove the Bible is good breathed......uh okie dokie....

The fact that you don't see that as a problem speaks volumes.

Your criticism is curious. You are asking me how I know God is the author. Yet, in your criticism, you attempt to imply that it's circular reasoning to reference the one document that we are discussing. Who would you like to ask? An atheist? Do you think a non-Biblical reference would be better? I can quote Church fathers if you'd like.

 

To a skeptic the very question is unreasonable, since they have a belief, that there is no God to reference in the first place. 

 

And so what about the proactice of the Jews. Was not ypur God powerful enough to to tell those he used to by his divine dictators that they needed to do something different to preserve his texts?

Thus we see by the manuscripts we do have that the text is not reliable as well as what was decided to include and not include.

 

Actually, God taught man to work within the limits of what he had. In the beginning, I actually believe that our brains were better from the beginning, and man was able to memorize much more than we are now (but that's just my theory, that's all).

 

What we see from the manuscript evidence, is that the text is very reliable, by comparison to other ancient works. And we're able to identify things that were added later, because of the large amount of manuscript evidence. 

[danielwoods]

And if the Bible actually claimed to be the sole source of Gods word you may have a point. But it doesn't.

 

But any new "revelation" that doesn't agree with the previous revelation isn't what it claims. 

[Teancum]

Daniel Woods I will try to respond later. I am tired and I need a break from this today.

 

I have a busy schedule and am traveling this week so if I don't respond right away that is why.

[danielwoods]

Read one of his books. Otherwise it is pointless and it becomes clear you really have no interest in views that may challenge your beliefs.

 

Having changed my views before (I was an atheist), I can tell from what I have read of him, he's not worth reading, 8th grade arguments don't impress me. 

[Teancum]

But any new "revelation" that doesn't agree with the previous revelation isn't what it claims. 

 

 

Just quickly, three persons that are all God but one substance that you think comes from the NT does not agree with the previous revelation... the OT.  Just ask Jews how they feel about that. In fact I think it is clear that the ideas you espouse from the historical Christian creeds are an attempt to put the square peg of teachings from the NT about God into the round hole of the later monotheistic teachings of the OT.

[Teancum]

Having changed my views before (I was an atheist), I can tell from what I have read of him, he's not worth reading, 8th grade arguments don't impress me. 

 

 

Ok if you are really this much of a simpleton I think we might as well move on from the issue Ehrman and many many others raise.  It is clear you cannot handle it.

[bluebell]

Not sure I agree... I can't think of an example.

The teaching of the resurrection is biblical but it existed long before the bible and therefore is not derived from it.

[Anakin7]

       A # of years ago I had several LDS Missionaries come to The Anchient Biblical Manuscript Center located in Claremont Ca for a visit with Michael Phelps [An Evangelocal Baptist] The Director of the Center at that time and he gave us an 1-2 hour talk concerning Biblical manuscripts. He stated that the Evangelical presntation that all the Biblical Manuscripts are in 99.7 agreement is not true, it is more on the 85 % side.

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

[coolrok7]

What major doctrines are effected by these differences as a result based on this one persons view, Evangelical or not?

By the way the idea of innerancy goes to the autographs, not the copies that are left as it is assumed none are still in existence or are identified as such.

Edited January 5, 2015 by coolrok7

[thesometimesaint]

What major doctrines are effected by these differences as a result based on this one persons view, Evangelical or not?

 

A good place to start is to compare OT with NT.

[danielwoods]

Just quickly, three persons that are all God but one substance that you think comes from the NT does not agree with the previous revelation... the OT.  Just ask Jews how they feel about that. In fact I think it is clear that the ideas you espouse from the historical Christian creeds are an attempt to put the square peg of teachings from the NT about God into the round hole of the later monotheistic teachings of the OT.

 

You might be surprised that I agree with you. Which is why Jesus said, if you don't believe me, then believe based on the works I do (miracles) that are from the Father. It was a radical change and challenged the thinking and beliefs of the Jews at that time. However, it was the Jews who were the first believers, and that radical teaching came with radical miraculous events, culminating in the resurrection. 

[danielwoods]

The teaching of the resurrection is biblical but it existed long before the bible and therefore is not derived from it.

 

That may be true, I'm not sure. I think the oldest book in the Bible hints at resurrection, so I don't know. 

[Vance]

CFR That the Bible says Jesus was ALWAYS human. 

CFR That the Bible says Jesus was NOT always human.

[Vance]

It actually doesn't say that. The word human isn't there. We were created out of the dust of the ground.

It says exactly what it says.  Jesus' body was also created out of the dust of the ground.  So?

 

Jesus is the only begotten. No other is begotten from the Father, only Christ.

Agreed.  But that doesn't make him non-human EVER, because the Father was human also.