Why Are We Such Brittle Christians?

[saemo]

No it makes them Muslim. Differing sects of the Muslim religion are still Muslim. All of which have added Scripture and/or differing understanding to the Koran. The Catholics add other books other Christian's Bibles plus they add in tradition and when the Pope speaks ex cathedra.

 

The Catholic church also took books out of the bible. It established a committee to decide which books to include and which to exclude from the Bible. Pot meet kettle.

 

Mormonism doesn't change the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It merely says that God is neither dead or silent. That he talks to men(women) today. Or as the Bible does say in Ephesians 4:13 "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ".

Of course God is neither dead or silent. Who teaches this, other than Mormons making stuff up about non Mormons?

[saemo]

I understand. My point is that when you consider how your cannon came to be, it was a process of including or rejecting certain writings.  This happened some centuries after Christ.  The Catholics claim the authority to include or reject certain writings as cannon, so we share that similarity in that we claim the same authority.

 

I would argue that our additional scripture does not "change" the gospel of Jesus Christ as you suggest, it clarifies it.  I would also suggest that removing scripture, which you seem ok with, is more dangerous to the gospel of Jesus Christ than adding scripture.

As I just said, we are not a religion of a book. The NT scriptures came out of Sacred Tradition that already existed and still exists today.

The Council of Trent specifically defines removing books from the established NT as a heresy. The Apocrypha were removed by Protestants. I don't know what argument it is you are trying to make other than, any old book can be added as long as you feel like it should. I prefer to stick to the Apostolic teachings, which is what is contained in the NT and in Christ's Church itself. But to each their own,

[mormonnewb]

I have always had this feeling that mormonnewb was extremely critical of the lds church. And his posts were that of a seasoned critic. I do not find it a surprise that he has left the fold. And his reasons do not seem valid. Let us hope that we were not played like a well tuned guitar.

 

The baptist church has done very little to address the 'black issue' in america. America is not the society of MLK. It is no longer a white black society but a multcultural society where the african americans represent a minority of 12 % of the population. And that hasn't changed much in decades. However, the asian and hispanic population and the population from africa has increased a great deal. To address the african american problem one must aslo address the relationship that they have with the rest of the multicultural community.

 

I just came back to the board to ask a follow-up question about how to leave this ... interesting ... church, when I saw this post from a week ago.  Do we really have to go through this again, Why Skeptical?

 

For one, you are not a well-tuned guitar.  You keep hitting the same off-key note that I'm an imposter because you are holding on to the iron delusion that ANYONE would spend a YEAR posting messages on this board under the pretext of being a Mormon convert.  For what purpose?  So that my critiques of the Church would be more readily accepted among the faithful members?  Did my "subterfuge" work on YOU?  How about other faithful members?  Did anyone lose their faith in the Church or the Brethren because of the questions of a "professed" newb?

 

If that was my plan, would it not have made MUCH more sense to pretend to be an ESTABLISHED Mormon -- someone whose opinions might matter?  That being said, I am sending YOU my personal information so that you may do your own research.  As I am not formally resigning from the Church, my membership records should be available for you to check until the year 2062 or so.  And upon doing your "due diligence," I hope that you will report to the board your findings so that I may clear the good name of "Mormonnewb."  Also, so that you can reduce that board paranoia that Gentiles are "assuming Mormon form."

 

Finally, as for your claim that "the baptist church has done very little to address the 'black issue' in America," it is easily the most laughable thing I've ever heard from a Mormon.  And that includes the Three Nephites sightings, miraculous garment protection, that my stake patriarch has been endowed with Ms. Cleo-like abilities (but still has hope for BYU football and basketball teams), and my all-time favorite, that Cain is Big Foot.  Just for edification, you do know that Dr. King was a BAPTIST preacher, don't you?  And that he was named the head of the Montgomery Improvement Association (the group that conducted the year-long bus boycott in 1956) while pastoring the Dexter Avenue BAPTIST Church, right?  And that the four little girls in Birmingham were killed while worshipping in the 16th Avenue BAPTIST Church, right?

 

Just to keep this going on all night (and it could), without the organization of Baptist preachers and the participation of their members, there wouldn't have been a civil rights movement.  Now, I know that Cliven Bundy has you convinced that black people were actually better off in the days when we couldn't vote, hold many jobs or live in the places of our choosing, but on that score, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

UPDATE: I just attempted to send you a message but it says that you can not receive new messages.  But when you get that all cleared up, "holla at ya boy," so I can finally validate my worth as a person by proving my identity to YOU.

Edited January 4, 2015 by mormonnewb

[Bobbieaware]

I just came back to the board to ask a follow-up question about how to leave this ... interesting ... church, when I saw this post from a week ago.  Do we really have to go through this again, Why Skeptical?

 

For one, you are not a well-tuned guitar.  You keep hitting the same off-key note that I'm an imposter because you are holding on to the iron delusion that ANYONE would spend a YEAR posting messages on this board under the pretext of being a Mormon convert.  For what purpose?  So that my critiques of the Church would be more readily accepted among the faithful members?  Did my "subterfuge" work on YOU?  How about other faithful members?  Did anyone lose their faith in the Church or the Brethren because of the questions of a "professed" newb?

 

If that was my plan, would it not have made MUCH more sense to pretend to be an ESTABLISHED Mormon -- someone whose opinions might matter?  That being said, I am sending YOU my personal information so that you may do your own research.  As I am not formally resigning from the Church, my membership records should be available for you to check until the year 2062 or so.  And upon doing your "due diligence," I hope that you will report to the board your findings so that I may clear the good name of "Mormonnewb."  Also, so that you can reduce that board paranoia that Gentiles are "assuming Mormon form."

 

Finally, as for your claim that "the baptist church has done very little to address the 'black issue' in America," it is easily the most laughable thing I've ever heard from a Mormon.  And that includes the Three Nephites sightings, miraculous garment protection, that my stake patriarch has been endowed with Ms. Cleo-like abilities (but still has hope for BYU football and basketball teams), and my all-time favorite, that Cain is Big Foot.  Just for edification, you do know that Dr. King was a BAPTIST preacher, don't you?  And that he was named the head of the Montgomery Improvement Association (the group that conducted the year-long bus boycott in 1956) while pastoring the Dexter Avenue BAPTIST Church, right?  And that the four little girls in Birmingham were killed while worshipping in the 16th Avenue BAPTIST Church, right?

 

Just to keep this going on all night (and it could), without the organization of Baptist preachers and the participation of their members, there wouldn't have been a civil rights movement.  Now, I know that Cliven Bundy has you convinced that black people were actually better off in the days when we couldn't vote, hold many jobs or live in the places of our choosing, but on that score, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

UPDATE: I just attempted to send you a message but it says that you can not receive new messages.  But when you get that all cleared up, "holla at ya boy," so I can finally validate my worth as a person by proving my identity to YOU.

It is only natural that Why Me would think you are an impostor (personally, I don't believe you are an impostor), and that's because you've presented yourself on this board as someone with a thousand passionate complaints against the Church and as someone who was half in and half out of the Church anyway. I'm sure it surprises no one that you're leaving because, based on the content and tenor of your posts, you never really seemed to truly be 'in the Church' in the first place.

All the best to you and hope to see you back in the Church someday.

[mormonnewb]

It is only natural that Why Me would think you are an impostor (personally, I don't believe you are an impostor), and that's because you've presented yourself on this board as someone with a thousand passionate complaints against the Church and as someone who was half in and half out of the Church anyway. I'm sure it surprises no one that you're leaving because, based on the content and tenor of your posts, you never really seemed to truly be 'in the Church' in the first place.

All the best to you and hope to see you back in the Church someday.

I still don't understand. I have been openly skeptical and even downright dismissive of many aspects of Mormonism. I have labeled myself an "apostate" more often than any of you would ever dare. If I'm a wolf in sheep's clothing, my sheep costume is made of WOLF hair.

So why is it not possible that I could HONESTLY think that much of institutional Mormonism is bull[clothing]?

Edited January 4, 2015 by mormonnewb

[saemo]

I recently was reading about someone who was explaining their belied that the OT and NT are corrupt. That God gave to their prophet angelic visions and delivered to this prophet a new book of scripture that fixes, or clarifies if you like, the corruptions.

 

 

Do you think that they were Christian, Moslem or Mormon? Do you really think a Christian goes.around telling anyone who will listen that Christian scripture can't be trusted? By their fruits you shall know them?

Edited January 4, 2015 by saemo

[JLHPROF]

I recently was reading about someone who was explaining their belied that the OT and NT are corrupt. That God gave to their prophet angelic visions and delivered to this prophet a new book of scripture that fixes, or clarifies if you like, the corruptions.

 

 

Do you think that they were Christian, Moslem or Mormon? Do you really think a Christian goes.around telling anyone who will listen that Christian scripture can't be trusted? By their fruits you shall know them?

 

Do you really think a true Christian believes that:

1. God has stopped talking to man and creating new scripture as if he was finished with us.

2. Other scripture that testifies of Christ's divinity and atoning sacrifice should be dismissed.

3. Only the interpretation of scripture by a group of medieval men has any validity to doctrine.

 

Based on his actions and teachings in the Bible I think Christ would completely reject any such notions.

[Spammer]

Delete

Edited January 4, 2015 by Spammer

[Robert F. Smith]

.................................................................. The OT Apocrypha which the Protestants removed were in use by the universal Church from the beginning, as they were included in the Greek translation of Hebrew scripture that was in use during the time of Jesus and the Apostles.

.......................................................................  

In other words, If the Greek translation that included the Apocrypha was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for Catholics.

You have several times stated something about "the Protestants removing the Apocrypha," even though all Protestant Bibles included the Apocrypha until they began to be excluded in the early 19th century.  Joseph Smith's Bible included the Apocrypha.  Today, Protestants typically purchase Bibles with the Apocrypha.  So you should actually be focusing on the belief by Protestants and Mormons that the Apocrypha are not canonical or authoritative, just as they are not authoritative for the Jews.  For you Roman Catholics they constitute a second Canon (Deuterocanonicals), which is fine with me.

 

At the same time, you say that the LXX Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible was good enough for Jesus (we have no evidence that Jesus ever used Greek) and the Apostles, and therefore good enough for Catholics.  Does that include the Book of Enoch, which was indeed part of the Holy Scriptural Canon (and quoted by Jude), until it was excluded?  Do you really understand the implications of your claims?

[saemo]

Do you really think a true Christian believes that:

1. God has stopped talking to man and creating new scripture as if he was finished with us.

2. Other scripture that testifies of Christ's divinity and atoning sacrifice should be dismissed.

3. Only the interpretation of scripture by a group of medieval men has any validity to doctrine.

Based on his actions and teachings in the Bible I think Christ would completely reject any such notions.

1. Jesus is the Word of God. He is scripture. The revelation of Jesus Christ is unending and never ceases. Your assertion is a Mormon idea about non Mormons which has nothing to do with Christian doctrines.

2. Sure, I can easily dismiss so-called scripture.

3. Another assertion you cannot back up with evidence, and which has nothing to do with Christian doctrine. So please provide evidence of your claim.

And also, please answer the questions I asked rather than dodging them.

Edited January 6, 2015 by saemo

[saemo]

You have several times stated something about "the Protestants removing the Apocrypha," even though all Protestant Bibles included the Apocrypha until they began to be excluded in the early 19th century. Joseph Smith's Bible included the Apocrypha. Today, Protestants typically purchase Bibles with the Apocrypha. So you should actually be focusing on the belief by Protestants and Mormons that the Apocrypha are not canonical or authoritative, just as they are not authoritative for the Jews. For you Roman Catholics they constitute a second Canon (Deuterocanonicals), which is fine with me.

At the same time, you say that the LXX Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible was good enough for Jesus (we have no evidence that Jesus ever used Greek) and the Apostles, and therefore good enough for Catholics. Does that include the Book of Enoch, which was indeed part of the Holy Scriptural Canon (and quoted by Jude), until it was excluded? Do you really understand the implications of your claims?

Protestants have removed the apocrypha from the canon of scripture, and view them as containing no authority on faith or morals, but as having some historical significance to the NT. I was using the word "Bible" as synonymous with the word canon. The Apocrypha are not a part of the Protestant canon. Even when included in a Protestant Bible, they are considered by Protestants to be uninspired, and not part of the inspired canon.

Regarding the LXX and its usage in the NT, see here http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/in-which-passages-does-jesus-quote-the-septuagint-and-where-does-the-new-testament-al.

Regarding the 1 Enoch, you've made a leap. The NT authors site non scriptural writings and popular stories, this does not mean they viewed every writing and story as scripture. My understanding is that 1Enoch was typically left out of koine Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures, and was only included in some rare instances of modern finds.

Of course the canon developed, and was largely based on what the churches used, in other words, what was considered Sacred Tradition. As I said already, the Catholic Biblical canon comes from Sacred Tradition. Catholic doctrine is, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are both divinely inspired. Two sources of the same wellspring.

Sacred Tradition means to us, what the Apostles taught, did, used, conveyed, when preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Sacred Tradition indicates, the Aposltes used koine Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures and considers them to be inspired.

Edited January 6, 2015 by saemo

[Robert F. Smith]

Protestants have removed the apocrypha from the canon of scripture, and view them as containing no authority on faith or morals, but as having some historical significance to the NT. I was using the word "Bible" as synonymous with the word canon. The Apocrypha are not a part of the Protestant canon. Even when included in a Protestant Bible, they are considered by Protestants to be uninspired, and not part of the inspired canon.

Correct.  I am glad that you have clarified that, saemo.

 

......................................................

Regarding the 1 Enoch, you've made a leap. The NT authors site non scriptural writings and popular stories, this does not mean they viewed every writing and story as scripture. My understanding is that 1Enoch was typically left out of koine Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures, and was only included in some rare instances of modern finds.

In his Forword to James Charlesworth's two-volume Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Doubleday, 1983), ix, Father George MacRae of the Society of Jesus states unequivocally that "the Epistle of Jude, in its strong antiheretical polemic, refers at least twice to the language of the book we call 1 Enoch and in a third instance quotes it in an authoritative manner as prophetic. . . .

"The problem to which this situation points is that of the canonical status of the Pseudepigrapha in early Christianity-- . . . .  This problem persisted for centuries in the Church and can further be seen in the reluctance of some churches to accept Jude into the New Testament because of its controversial sources."

 

The editor of these volumes, James Charlesworth (Princeton Theological Seminary), in his "Introduction for the General Reader," xxi, not only lists the many books which we know were lost to the canon, but also how that canon was formed. including the Deuterocanonicals at the Council of Trent in 1546.  You need to read this in order to understand what really happened.  He goes on to explain how 1 Enoch and other books remained in the canon of both the Ethiopian Christian church, and among Ethiopian Jews.  Major parts of 1 Enoch have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and it was clearly available to Jews in Aramaic.

 

................................................   

Sacred Tradition means to us, what the Apostles taught, did, used, conveyed, when preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Sacred Tradition indicates, the Aposltes used koine Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures and considers them to be inspired.

Koine Greek is NT Greek, which is not the same as OT Septuagint Greek (LXX).  The Apostles frequently used the LXX Bible and it is quoted regularly in the NT.  Many early Christians were also Aramaic speakers and so they used Syraic versions of the OT and NT, continuing that tradition down to modern times  Jesus is known to have often quoted from Aramaic translations of the OT (targums), and a few Aramaic words and phrases are still available in Greek transliteration in the NT.  The Bible best known to Jesus and his immediate associates was the Hebrew Bible and some Aramaic targums, the OT.  There was as yet no NT.  Not until long after the death of Jesus.

[why me]

I recently was reading about someone who was explaining their belied that the OT and NT are corrupt. That God gave to their prophet angelic visions and delivered to this prophet a new book of scripture that fixes, or clarifies if you like, the corruptions.

 

 

Do you think that they were Christian, Moslem or Mormon? Do you really think a Christian goes.around telling anyone who will listen that Christian scripture can't be trusted? By their fruits you shall know them?

One reason christians can be so brittle is because of the fighting they see on internet boards as various christian faiths harangue other christian faiths. The battles on the other forums between the faiths seems non-sensicle. Nothing ever comes from it. Likewise on this forum. No one really cares that you are catholic who has a negative picture of the mormon church or of mormons.But you are welcome to post here. My motto is simple: let mormons be mormons and let catholics be catholics. If both groups would follow their respective faiths, the world would be a better place and christianity would be all the stronger as would christians.

[saemo]

Correct.  I am glad that you have clarified that, saemo.

 

In his Forword to James Charlesworth's two-volume Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Doubleday, 1983), ix, Father George MacRae of the Society of Jesus states unequivocally that "the Epistle of Jude, in its strong antiheretical polemic, refers at least twice to the language of the book we call 1 Enoch and in a third instance quotes it in an authoritative manner as prophetic. . . .

"The problem to which this situation points is that of the canonical status of the Pseudepigrapha in early Christianity-- . . . .  This problem persisted for centuries in the Church and can further be seen in the reluctance of some churches to accept Jude into the New Testament because of its controversial sources."

 

The editor of these volumes, James Charlesworth (Princeton Theological Seminary), in his "Introduction for the General Reader," xxi, not only lists the many books which we know were lost to the canon, but also how that canon was formed. including the Deuterocanonicals at the Council of Trent in 1546.  You need to read this in order to understand what really happened.  He goes on to explain how 1 Enoch and other books remained in the canon of both the Ethiopian Christian church, and among Ethiopian Jews.  Major parts of 1 Enoch have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and it was clearly available to Jews in Aramaic.

 

Koine Greek is NT Greek, which is not the same as OT Septuagint Greek (LXX).  The Apostles frequently used the LXX Bible and it is quoted regularly in the NT.  Many early Christians were also Aramaic speakers and so they used Syraic versions of the OT and NT, continuing that tradition down to modern times  Jesus is known to have often quoted from Aramaic translations of the OT (targums), and a few Aramaic words and phrases are still available in Greek transliteration in the NT.  The Bible best known to Jesus and his immediate associates was the Hebrew Bible and some Aramaic targums, the OT.  There was as yet no NT.  Not until long after the death of Jesus.

Robert, I think we are in agreement regarding various apocrypha being sited in the NT.

Being a Roman Catholic, I accept the canon as defined by the RCC many centuries ago. There are other writings of spiritual and/or historical significance, that are also not included in the RC canon. As I said, and you have agreed, there was no NT until it was officially canonized. I see canonization as occurring within the authority of Christ's Church.

Neither Mormons or Protestants recognize the authority from which the OT or NT canon were selected and used for centuries in the West, which I view as intellectually incoherent, but, I suppose you've got it worked out.

[Spammer]

Neither Mormons or Protestants recognize the authority from which the OT or NT canon were selected and used for centuries in the West, which I view as intellectually incoherent, but, I suppose you've got it worked out.

 

This is an issue I have yet to hear a satisfactory response to.  On what basis do groups that reject the authority that canonized the New Testament still accept the authority of that canon?

Edited January 7, 2015 by Spammer

[The Nehor]

This is an issue I have yet to hear a satisfactory response to.  On what basis do groups that reject the authority that canonized the New Testament still accept the authority of that canon?

It is too late to go back and pick different books now.

[Spammer]

It is too late to go back and pick different books now.

 

Why not?  People do it all the time. Now that God himself tells people individually what's true, they can drop or add books, cut a little here, expand a little there, even write new books and promote them as additional witnesses.  It's all good.

[bluebell]

This is an issue I have yet to hear a satisfactory response to.  On what basis do groups that reject the authority that canonized the New Testament still accept the authority of that canon?

 

People can reject that someone does something with authority but still believe they do it with inspiration and good intentions, if that makes any sense.

Edited January 7, 2015 by bluebell

[3DOP]

This is an issue I have yet to hear a satisfactory response to.  On what basis do groups that reject the authority that canonized the New Testament still accept the authority of that canon?

Spammer, what amazes me is that a post-Nicene church far advanced on the road to corruption by hellenizing philosophers "likes" the same writings as the Mormons. From an LDS perspective, I wonder what explanation there is for why a church that was wholly against the materialistic Godhead and Cosmos of the Mormons, chooses to canonize 27 New Testament books, all of which teach doctrines and practices which were contrary to their own beliefs?

Edited January 7, 2015 by 3DOP

[LittleNipper]

God is in control?

[thesometimesaint]

We're not against the Godhead as described the Bible. The Bible is part of our Standard Works. What we reject are many of the assumptions put on concepts like a God without a body, parts, or passions, and the Trinity that aren't found in the Bible. Also we're not against the Catholic Bible, the Ethiopian Bible, or the Chocolate Bible. We simply reserve the right to interpret Scripture according to dictates of our own conscience, and promptings from God.

[saemo]

This is an issue I have yet to hear a satisfactory response to.  On what basis do groups that reject the authority that canonized the New Testament still accept the authority of that canon?

I think some view the Bible as a happy accident, and some view it as falling directly from heaven. Both of those approaches have to ignore history.

[bluebell]

Spammer, what amazes me is that a post-Nicene church far advanced on the road to corruption by hellenizing philosophers "likes" the same writings as the Mormons. From an LDS perspective, I wonder what explanation there is for why a church that was wholly against the materialistic Godhead and Cosmos of the Mormons, chooses to canonize 27 New Testament books, all of which teach doctrines and practices which were contrary to their own beliefs?

 

Can you clarify what you are saying here?  I'm not sure i'm understanding you correctly.

[Spammer]

People can reject that someone does something with authority but still believe they do it with inspiration and good intentions, if that makes any sense.

 

Ok, just trying to understand.  So you accept the New Testament based on a belief that the ancient Catholic Church was inspired and had good intentions when it established the NT canon, but not that it had the authority to do so?

[Spammer]

Spammer, what amazes me is that a post-Nicene church far advanced on the road to corruption by hellenizing philosophers "likes" the same writings as the Mormons. From an LDS perspective, I wonder what explanation there is for why a church that was wholly against the materialistic Godhead and Cosmos of the Mormons, chooses to canonize 27 New Testament books, all of which teach doctrines and practices which were contrary to their own beliefs?

 

Yes, that's the same thing I'm trying to understand.  LDS church members reject the authority of the hellenized, post-Nicene church but accept that the NT canon that church established is nevertheless authoritative and binding.  On what grounds do they base that acceptance?

Edited January 8, 2015 by Spammer