Why Are We Such Brittle Christians?

[saemo]

This is rather strange coming from you. I do enjoy your lectures here. However, I also know how you post on a different board. I have seen no dialogue there when I was posting there. Mormons were usually aggressively attacked and I do believe that you remained silent when this was happening. Dialogue with mormons are not allowed without attacking them. However, on this board, I have seen many posters attempting to have a dialogue with you. But, to no avail. To be fair, some of the more aggressive posters may post less now on the other board. I do see more attempts at understanding. But the old guard who I would consider antimormon by their posts and tone can't seem to do it.

We need to be honest saemo. I know you too well.

Yes, and I you, and I find most of the posts that you address towards me hypocritical in the extreme. You should not pretend to be so above everything that you criticize.

I keep silent here most often than not, sometimes in the face of extreme misinformation about Roman Catholicism. (As do you.) Why? Because I am not the little fixer of Internet forums, that goes around righting every person's post. That seems to be the job you want to fill, as it suits your idea of yourself as qualified above all, in an entire Internet forum. I'll let you keep that job. I have no interest in it.

Edited December 30, 2014 by saemo

[saemo]

As I understand it, the bible has some failed prophecies. For one, Paul was wrong when he said that christ would soon come. He didn't. He needed to change his prophecy. I think that there are other failed prophecies too. We need to understand that prophecy is based on many things. For example, on the faithfulness of people who may be involved or changed circumstances based on wrongful living.

Paul was not a prophet. Neither did he speak anything contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again. Believing he will come during Paul's lifetime, of the year 2000, or 2012, or next week, is not contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is an indication of the hope of the People of God, a straining towards what is to come. It is how Christians are in any age as we look for the return of Our Lord. You could say it is our condition. One of hopeful anticipation.

Edited December 30, 2014 by saemo

[saemo]

A Jewish biblical scholar studied the role of prophets in the OT, and concluded the following:

According to Yohanan Muffs, a prophet is actually an “agent of the Lord.” However, Muffs continues, a “prophet has another function: He is also an independent advocate to the heavenly court,” but he is both “the messenger of the divine court to the defendant,” and also “the agent of the defendant, attempting to mitigate the severity of the divine decree.” In Genesis 18:17-25, for example, “God’s hands are tied until Abraham, a human being, makes a request–that is, until a prophet intercedes.” So too, Moses argues with God that, deserving or not, God is obligated to clear His own name and reputation by redeeming His people – “even though they do not deserve” it. Moreover, Heaven forbid that God might breach His own unconditional covenant!! (cf. Ex 32:7-13, Num 14:15-16; Deut 9:26-29) Prophets might actually carry out divinely ordered executions, as in the case of Samuel slaying Agag, King of the Amaleqites (I Sam 15:33), or of Nephi slaying Laban, a Captain of Fifty in Jerusalem (I Ne 3:29-4:3,7-18).

“The usual definition of a prophet–someone whose prophecies come true–is really quite superficial,” Muffs points out. “The first function of a prophet is to announce the Lord’s punishment and to call on the people to repent,” i.e., as “the messenger of the Lord.” The second “function of the prophet is . . . to go into the breach, to build a protective wall and to prepare for the battle against the Lord. The prophet is like a mighty warrior, but his only strength is his eloquence, the strength of his prayer, which may deflect the Lord from destroying his people.”

“The breach that the prophet must protect is the breach of sin. The enemy is not the army of the gentiles that is placing a siege around Jerusalem. The Lord himself is the enemy, the warrior who is setting his face against Jerusalem to destroy it,” and this was as true for Lehi as it was for Jeremiah. “Prophecy does not annihilate the personal independence of the prophet; it demands such autonomy as a prerequisite for the prophetic role. Only boundless spiritual bravery allows the prophet to suffer the great loneliness of one who stands in the breach, calling on people who do not listen and a God who just might.” Whatever one might conclude from this about a prophet like Spencer W. Kimball in 1978, all of this rests on a solid biblical foundation.

See Y. Muffs, “Agent of the Lord, Warrior for the People: The Prophet’s Paradox,” Bible Review, 18/6 (Dec 2002):21-27.

When a person claims to prophesy something, in what you are calling artificial, what they are claiming as prophecy can be objectively tested, and determined to be a true or false prophecy. If what they are claiming is false, then they are not prophesying. That is what I mean by, a prophet who does not prophesy, is not a prophet.

This does not negate what you have quoted here, and also supports the mainstream understanding of Jesus as the final and perfect Prophet of God. In relation to the One who is the only and perfect mediator between the Father and humans. As the One who reconciles us to the Father. As the One who taught definitively to all nations and peoples, through the Twelve and continued in His Church, to forsake sin. He fulfills the role, the law and the prophecies, of all prophets, as He is Prophecy itself.

So the Jews of Jesus day called themselves the disciples of Moses, as their leader and prophet. So mainstream Christians call themselves disciples of Jesus, as our leader and prophet, forever, as he is not dead but lives. He is not a prophet who is previous to later prophets after him, in the sense of the role an OT prophet had. That role is not needed as Christ fulfills it entirely.

In the Christian Era, those given the gift of prophecy are in harmony with Jesus, His teachings, and His prophetic role as our Prophet, forever. Further, all the baptized shard in the prophetic nature of Jesus. We are the spirit of prophecy, as we participate in Christ's prophecy to baptize all nations and people.

Anyway, that was a tangent, but you got me going in OT/NT connections.

Edited December 30, 2014 by saemo

[thesometimesaint]

Galatians 1:8

 

Prooftexting.

[ERayR]

This is very difficult. For dialogue to occur both people would need to have an empty blackboard so that they can begin to learn from the other. The socratic method is a good starting point for any dialogue. Usually, however, the internet is not a dialogue but two people playing the slam dunk game.

 

I much prefer to think of dialog as having a full blackboard and taking an item at a time and exploring it from both sides.

[why me]

Paul was not a prophet. Neither did he speak anything contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again. Believing he will come during Paul's lifetime, of the year 2000, or 2012, or next week, is not contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is an indication of the hope of the People of God, a straining towards what is to come. It is how Christians are in any age as we look for the return of Our Lord. You could say it is our condition. One of hopeful anticipation.

Some failed prophesies are in the link. I would disagree with you about Paul. The early saints expected christ to come in their lifetime and that was how they were led to believe would happen. It didn't. So, his prediction needed to be modified. 

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Failed_biblical_prophecies

[why me]

I much prefer to think of dialog as having a full blackboard and taking an item at a time and exploring it from both sides.

The best way to have a dialogue is have an empty blackboard in order to explore knowledge and to be open to modify knowledge. 

 

For example, a teacher may lecture a class based on knowledge that she has prepared. She then transmits this knowledge to the students who are seen to have an empty blackboard or people without knowledge. In order to create a more learning environment the teacher can have such knowledge but keep the blackboard empty so that she too can learn from the students by dialoging about the knowledge to be questioned. Thus, both teacher and student are subjects of the lesson.  The empty blackboard is just a metaphor, a way to show that one is open to new knowledge. 

 

http://web.stanford.edu/dept/CTL/Newsletter/socratic_method.pdf

Edited December 30, 2014 by why me

[why me]

Yes, and I you, and I find most of the posts that you address towards me hypocritical in the extreme. You should not pretend to be so above everything that you criticize.

I keep silent here most often than not, sometimes in the face of extreme misinformation about Roman Catholicism. (As do you.) Why? Because I am not the little fixer of Internet forums, that goes around righting every person's post. That seems to be the job you want to fill, as it suits your idea of yourself as qualified above all, in an entire Internet forum. I'll let you keep that job. I have no interest in it.

I think that you know what I meant. You are here as are other catholics and certainly although there may be misinformation about catholicism, you are not attacked for being catholic. Nor is the catholic church degraded. I see no hostility here toward catholics. In fact, people do try to have a dialogue with you and with the other catholics here. I cannot say the same for the poor mormons who attempt to defend their church from misinformation and from the mudslinging on your other forum. Such was my point. 

 

I can only hope and pray that mormons can receive such treatment on the other forum that you receive here. 

[saemo]

Prooftexting.

I think it is straightforward. The community in Galatia was being bothered by people preaching as though they had authority, and confusing the Christians there. It is historically accurate, that at the time many people were rising up claiming prophecy, and using Jesus as their platform. Paul in his letter just let them know, that if someone is preaching a different Gospel than they have been taught, to ignore those teachers. Where did the teaching of the Gospel come from that they should adhere to, but from the Apostles?

 

Your charge of prooftexting is a dodge around what is taught here. Do you not agree with what it says?

 

A further historical example, outside of the New Testament is the Didache. Which is very clear about what the Apostolic teachings are in chapters 1-10, and then in chapte 11, teaches:

 

"Whosoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these things that have been said before, receive him. But if the teacher himself turns and teaches another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not. But if he teaches so as to increase righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord. But concerning the apostles and prophets, act according to the decree of the Gospel. Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there's a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet. And when the apostle goes away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodges. If he asks for money, he is a false prophet. And every prophet who speaks in the Spirit you shall neither try nor judge; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven. But not every one who speaks in the Spirit is a prophet; but only if he holds the ways of the Lord. Therefore from their ways shall the false prophet and the prophet be known. And every prophet who orders a meal in the Spirit does not eat it, unless he is indeed a false prophet. And every prophet who teaches the truth, but does not do what he teaches, is a false prophet. And every prophet, proved true, working unto the mystery of the Church in the world, yet not teaching others to do what he himself does, shall not be judged among you, for with God he has his judgment; for so did also the ancient prophets. But whoever says in the Spirit, Give me money, or something else, you shall not listen to him. But if he tells you to give for others' sake who are in need, let no one judge him."

 

Emphasis mine.

 

 

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

Edited December 30, 2014 by saemo

[saemo]

Some failed prophesies are in the link. I would disagree with you about Paul. The early saints expected christ to come in their lifetime and that was how they were led to believe would happen. It didn't. So, his prediction needed to be modified. 

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Failed_biblical_prophecies

Well, you can study the failed prophecies to determine the apologetics behind them. I doubt you will, but would rather bash the Bible in order to maintain support of the man you follow. 

[saemo]

I think that you know what I meant. You are here as are other catholics and certainly although there may be misinformation about catholicism, you are not attacked for being catholic. Nor is the catholic church degraded. I see no hostility here toward catholics. In fact, people do try to have a dialogue with you and with the other catholics here. I cannot say the same for the poor mormons who attempt to defend their church from misinformation and from the mudslinging on your other forum. Such was my point. 

 

I can only hope and pray that mormons can receive such treatment on the other forum that you receive here. 

Different forums, different moderators, different rules, different intent. What you mean is you want all places to be the way you want them. That isn't how it is.

[ERayR]

I think it is straightforward. The community in Galatia was being bothered by people preaching as though they had authority, and confusing the Christians there. It is historically accurate, that at the time many people were rising up claiming prophecy, and using Jesus as their platform. Paul in his letter just let them know, that if someone is preaching a different Gospel than they have been taught, to ignore those teachers. Where did the teaching of the Gospel come from that they should adhere to, but from the Apostles?

 

Your charge of prooftexting is a dodge around what is taught here. Do you not agree with what it says?

 

Protestant heresy even then.  Tenacious huh.  

[saemo]

Protestant heresy even then.  Tenacious huh.

I don't know what you mean.

[ERayR]

I don't know what you mean.

 

Chalk it up as a failure of my weird sense of humor.

[Calm]

I got it.

[why me]

Well, you can study the failed prophecies to determine the apologetics behind them. I doubt you will, but would rather bash the Bible in order to maintain support of the man you follow. 

This was a passive aggressive statement. But true to form. Instead of addressing the failed prophesies in the bible, you come back with some aggression. Joseph Smith achieved much in his short life. From farm boy, being part of a family business in 'treasure seeking' when he was more or less a teenager to founding a church that is still alive and flourishing today. Not to mention creating a church with strong moral values that has been a source of good in the world. Not bad really. 

 

Does the mormon church have some issues to address? Yes, but what church doesn't since all churches suffer from imperfect people? 

[saemo]

This was a passive aggressive statement. But true to form. Instead of addressing the failed prophesies in the bible, you come back with some aggression. Joseph Smith achieved much in his short life. From farm boy, being part of a family business in 'treasure seeking' when he was more or less a teenager to founding a church that is still alive and flourishing today. Not to mention creating a church with strong moral values that has been a source of good in the world. Not bad really. 

 

Does the mormon church have some issues to address? Yes, but what church doesn't since all churches suffer from imperfect people? 

It is your assertion, you should address them as someone who views the Bible as scripture. But you won't. You're arguments are always secular, and always anti-Christian. I don't know why you think that supports anything at all about Mormonism. It only makes Mormonism look more foolish, don't you think? Creating brittle Christians is your goal?

 

Isn't the Bible a part of Mormonism? Why don't you present Christian arguments to defend Mormonism? They don't need to be Catholic.

 

I'll help you get started.

 

http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1790

Edited December 31, 2014 by saemo

[JLHPROF]

Isn't the Bible a part of Mormonism? Why don't you present Christian arguments to defend Mormonism? They don't need to be Catholic.

 

Because so-called Christian Churches are unwilling to accept ANY Biblical interpretation other than their own.

We can both read John 1:1 and get completely different doctrines from it.  That's why it is impossible and always will be for "Christians" to accept Mormons as one of their own, and for Mormons to convince most Christians of their interpretation.

 

And frankly, it's not worth the effort to get into the "traditional Christianity only" club.  I'll stick to having the actual true interpretation of the Bible instead of the early creeds.

[thesometimesaint]

To paraphrase Gandhi; I have no problem with your Christ, it is the actions of your Christians that is the problem. 

[The Nehor]

To paraphrase Gandhi; I have no problem with your Christ, it is the actions of your Christians that is the problem.

To which I would respond that Gandhi was an extreme racist, a pervert, and his misguided actions caused a civil war costing the lives of thousands so he really is not in any position to judge the moral character of Christ, Christians, or pretty much anyone.

[why me]

It is your assertion, you should address them as someone who views the Bible as scripture. But you won't. You're arguments are always secular, and always anti-Christian. I don't know why you think that supports anything at all about Mormonism. It only makes Mormonism look more foolish, don't you think? Creating brittle Christians is your goal?

 

Isn't the Bible a part of Mormonism? Why don't you present Christian arguments to defend Mormonism? They don't need to be Catholic.

 

I'll help you get started.

 

http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1790

You claimed that joseph smith was not a prophet because of failed prophecies. I only wanted to show you that prophets have made false prophecies. It all comes with the package of being a prophet. It had nothing to do with attacking the bible but only in addressing your claim. The best christian argument to defend mormonism is to look at the lds members who tend to be very christ centered in their actions. I think that if we had more active lds in this world the world would be a better place. That would be my christian argument to defend mormonism. They are very christ centered. So, you do get a chance to be a catholic missionary here and people treat you with respect.

 

Thus, a person's beliefs do not make them a better person, but their behavior does. And this was my point on that other forum. For catholics their behavior was very unchristlike toward other faiths.

Edited December 31, 2014 by why me

[Tacenda]

You claimed that joseph smith was not a prophet because of failed prophecies. I only wanted to show you that prophets have made false prophecies. It all comes with the package of being a prophet. It had nothing to do with attacking the bible but only in addressing your claim. The best christian argument to defend mormonism is to look at the lds members who tend to be very christ centered in their actions. I think that if we had more active lds in this world the world would be a better place. That would be my christian argument to defend mormonism. They are very christ centered. So, you do get a chance to be a catholic missionary here and people treat you with respect.

Thus, a person's beliefs do not make them a better person, but their behavior does. And this was my point on that other forum. For catholics their behavior was very unchristlike toward other faiths.

I'll second this!

[thesometimesaint]

To which I would respond that Gandhi was an extreme racist, a pervert, and his misguided actions caused a civil war costing the lives of thousands so he really is not in any position to judge the moral character of Christ, Christians, or pretty much anyone.

 

Gandhi had good teachers.

[saemo]

Because so-called Christian Churches are unwilling to accept ANY Biblical interpretation other than their own.

We can both read John 1:1 and get completely different doctrines from it.  That's why it is impossible and always will be for "Christians" to accept Mormons as one of their own, and for Mormons to convince most Christians of their interpretation.

 

And frankly, it's not worth the effort to get into the "traditional Christianity only" club.  I'll stick to having the actual true interpretation of the Bible instead of the early creeds.

Well, you can be a Mormon and use Christian sources. Why wouldn't you? By your response here, I'd say brittle Christians is how you want LDS members to be.

[ERayR]

Well, you can be a Mormon and use Christian sources. Why wouldn't you? By your response here, I'd say brittle Christians is how you want LDS members to be.

 

It seems that the Christian denominations are the brittle ones.  They leave no room for those who differ from them.