mass168 Posted January 17, 2015 Author Posted January 17, 2015 Of course your presumption is still that the Bible is the word of God, or else it would not be possible for.Your presumption is that God exists, that he can and will send us to hell and that your version of the bible is true. There is no reason to believe that, and you do not understand that. That's ok, don't worry about it. You do not understand revelation. Personal revelation is the key to everything including knowing what revelation is and what it is not. The only possible answer to the question is that you know the bible is true because of personal revelation. If you had said that, then I would know that you understand what revelation is, what prophets are and were, and what the word of God as revealed is. You apparently know none of thatWow, and I thought I was aggressive
mfbukowski Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 (edited) Wow, and I thought I was aggressiveDodge. The subject of this discussion is continuing revelation and you know nothing about it Edited January 17, 2015 by mfbukowski
mass168 Posted January 17, 2015 Author Posted January 17, 2015 Dodge. The subject of this discussion is continuing revelation and you know nothing about Is it not obvious that I believe the Bible was personally revealed to me as being true through my life experience? I really thought that should go without saying. Why does anyone believe anything.
mfbukowski Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 Is it not obvious that I believe the Bible was personally revealed to me as being true through my life experience? I really thought that should go without saying. Why does anyone believe anything. So how do you know that personal revelation which you say that you received about the bible doesn't apply to others who have received other revelations that other works of scripture are true? Are you the only one who has access to personal revelations from God? 1
mass168 Posted January 17, 2015 Author Posted January 17, 2015 (edited) If works were truly unnecessary why did baptisms continue with Jesus insisting they were necessary and undergoing the ordinance himself as an example.That idea is clear because all references to this understanding come from Paul castigating believers who still thought their works were sufficient to merit eternal life. He brought out the big guns to tell them they were dead wrong and I suspect we would both agree with him. Only through the Savior can anyone inherit eternal life. Where you err is in taking these statements and trying to divorce them from other letters in the New Testament and the words of the Savior himself demanding certain things be done by his followers including ordinances (baptism and bestowing the Holy Ghost) and certain attitudes and actions which he demanded.The most telling indictment of your interpretation is that none of the early Christians believed it. It showed up as a reactionary gospel opposed to Catholicism with no historical roots. If God wanted this taught he did a terrible job at preserving it. LDS can get around historical Christianity getting it wrong eventually with ease with the apostasy. How do you do it?I really don't think this is true. I wont repost the entire passage, but Romans 4? This seems to teach that salvation has always been by faith and not works to any degree. The OT is rife with ritual, pomp and circumstance. And yet, in the middle of all that, Abraham was saved by faith credited to him as righteousness. It's an idea as old as the Bible. It's all about the condition of the heart not the ordinances. You might be right that certain elements of Christendom lost a focus on parts of it over the years. I think it's way too general though to say that an idea this old was never taught or totally lost. Edited January 17, 2015 by mass168
mass168 Posted January 17, 2015 Author Posted January 17, 2015 So how do you know that personal revelation which you say that you received about the bible doesn't apply to others who have received other revelations that other works of scripture are true? Are you the only one who has access to personal revelations from God?No of course not. Because I have examined several prophecies of those revealing these new scriptures, and they don't seem to pass the tests given in what came before. It requires faith in the first place, but it is a comprehensive system.
mfbukowski Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 (edited) No of course not. Because I have examined several prophecies of those revealing these new scriptures, and they don't seem to pass the tests given in what came before. It requires faith in the first place, but it is a comprehensive system.What came before what? What does that mean? If God gives continuing revelation- why would he do that if what his children need to learn does not change? YOUR VERY EXPERIENCE of admitting that God revealed to you that the bible is true contradicts that we will have NO MORE REVELATION. How does that fit with "what came before"? Your own experience contradicts what you think the bible says. Is it not obvious that I believe the Bible was personally revealed to me as being true through my life experience?If we cannot receive continuing revelation then neither can you. Edited January 17, 2015 by mfbukowski 1
mass168 Posted January 17, 2015 Author Posted January 17, 2015 What came before what? What does that mean? If God gives continuing revelation- why would he do that if what his children need to learn does not change? YOUR VERY EXPERIENCE of admitting that God revealed to you that the bible is true contradicts that we will have NO MORE REVELATION. How does that fit with "what came before"? Your own experience contradicts what you think the bible says.If we cannot receive continuing revelation then neither can you.The Bible came centuries before any of the LDS scriptures. It provided tests for any revelation that came along after it. If you believe the Bible is scripture, you must apply these tests. Extra LDS scripture fails these tests (IMO). I am not categorically denying the possibility of further revelation. I am just saying that it must follow the rules that preceded it. IF you believe in the Bible. Before the Bible, what rules were there? Only faith.
The Nehor Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 I really don't think this is true. I wont repost the entire passage, but Romans 4? This seems to teach that salvation has always been by faith and not works to any degree. The OT is rife with ritual, pomp and circumstance. And yet, in the middle of all that, Abraham was saved by faith credited to him as righteousness. It's an idea as old as the Bible. It's all about the condition of the heart not the ordinances. You might be right that certain elements of Christendom lost a focus on parts of it over the years. I think it's way too general though to say that an idea this old was never taught or totally lost.I disagree but that is still all about the Bible. What about the historical problem of your theology being relatively new?
mass168 Posted January 17, 2015 Author Posted January 17, 2015 I disagree but that is still all about the Bible. What about the historical problem of your theology being relatively new?That's what that answer was meant to say. I think you're misinformed saying it's new. I'm fairly certain my particular denomination has been teaching the same things for hundreds of years at least.
Coreyb Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 That's what that answer was meant to say. I think you're misinformed saying it's new. I'm fairly certain my particular denomination has been teaching the same things for hundreds of years at least.And relative to other world religions, it's new
mass168 Posted January 17, 2015 Author Posted January 17, 2015 And relative to other world religions, it's newUmm ok.. I'm sorry but the new card seems like a really strange one to play coming from LDS
Coreyb Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 (edited) The Bible came centuries before any of the LDS scriptures. It provided tests for any revelation that came along after it. If you believe the Bible is scripture, you must apply these tests. Extra LDS scripture fails these tests (IMO). I am not categorically denying the possibility of further revelation. I am just saying that it must follow the rules that preceded it. IF you believe in the Bible. Before the Bible, what rules were there? Only faith.The bible does not teach a systematic theology from genesis to revelation, so how can it test anything? In fact, once you read chapter one of genesis, chapter two contradicts it, theologically. Edited January 17, 2015 by Coreyb
mfbukowski Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 The Bible came centuries before any of the LDS scriptures. It provided tests for any revelation that came along after it. If you believe the Bible is scripture, you must apply these tests. Extra LDS scripture fails these tests (IMO). I am not categorically denying the possibility of further revelation. I am just saying that it must follow the rules that preceded it. IF you believe in the Bible. Before the Bible, what rules were there? Only faith.Lol You are still presuming the bible to have laid down the rules, and therefore presuming it to be true without any evidence that it IS true. Circular argument. The bible makes its own rules. Guess what? All there IS is faith. Period, End of story. Until a rocket ship brings God to earth and he shows his ID that's all we have. Why do you think that there are atheists in this world if it was reasonable to believe? It is not. It is pure faith, period. 1
mfbukowski Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 That's what that answer was meant to say. I think you're misinformed saying it's new. I'm fairly certain my particular denomination has been teaching the same things for hundreds of years at least.Hundreds of years of error does not count for much. How long did people think the earth was flat?
mfbukowski Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 Umm ok.. I'm sorry but the new card seems like a really strange one to play coming from LDSI predicted you would say this. It just shows you do not know LDS
Coreyb Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 Umm ok.. I'm sorry but the new card seems like a really strange one to play coming from LDSOnly because you don't understand. Mormonism is about restoring what once was known in ancient religions, but also, and IMO more importantly it's about revealing things that have never been know from before the foundation of the world. Don't you see, we aren't fettered down by proving that what we believe is "biblical", partly because there is no such thing as "biblical". 2
mass168 Posted January 17, 2015 Author Posted January 17, 2015 The bible does not teach a systematic theology from genesis to revelation, so how can it test anything? In fact, once you read chapter one of genesis, chapter two contradicts it, theologically.Goodness.. So I'm guessing you don't really accept it as scripture. I know that whenever I have gotten off my lazy bum enough to seriously study a "contradiction," it has turned out to be overblown. With two possible exceptions, still deciding. But regardless of that, it is a faith based position. I will do your work for you, I can't prove the Bible is the word of God. I still find comfort in it, and in the fact that I don't have to try and decipher the eternal web of prophecy that is the LDS.
mass168 Posted January 17, 2015 Author Posted January 17, 2015 LolYou are still presuming the bible to have laid down the rules, and therefore presuming it to be true without any evidence that it IS true. Circular argument. The bible makes its own rules.Guess what?All there IS is faith. Period, End of story. Until a rocket ship brings God to earth and he shows his ID that's all we have.Why do you think that there are atheists in this world if it was reasonable to believe?It is not. It is pure faith, period.I'm not disagreeing with you. I said it was a faith based position.
The Nehor Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 That's what that answer was meant to say. I think you're misinformed saying it's new. I'm fairly certain my particular denomination has been teaching the same things for hundreds of years at least.A few centuries out of two millenia that Christianity has been around? What took so long?
mass168 Posted January 17, 2015 Author Posted January 17, 2015 (edited) A few centuries out of two millenia that Christianity has been around? What took so long?I used that term liberally. I really am rejecting your assertion that the great apostasy was a thing. Edited January 17, 2015 by mass168
mfbukowski Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 Goodness.. So I'm guessing you don't really accept it as scripture. I know that whenever I have gotten off my lazy bum enough to seriously study a "contradiction," it has turned out to be overblown. With two possible exceptions, still deciding. But regardless of that, it is a faith based position. I will do your work for you, I can't prove the Bible is the word of God. I still find comfort in it, and in the fact that I don't have to try and decipher the eternal web of prophecy that is the LDS.All you need is Moroni 10:4 and Alma 32. It's all there
Coreyb Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 Goodness.. So I'm guessing you don't really accept it as scripture. I know that whenever I have gotten off my lazy bum enough to seriously study a "contradiction," it has turned out to be overblown. With two possible exceptions, still deciding. But regardless of that, it is a faith based position. I will do your work for you, I can't prove the Bible is the word of God. I still find comfort in it, and in the fact that I don't have to try and decipher the eternal web of prophecy that is the LDS.Actually I do accept it as scripture. I suppose that means something different to me than it does to you. I don't accept it as "God breathed" or infallible. I have studied contradictions as well, and they are just that, contradictions. In the same chapter of Exodus it says that Moses spoke to God face to face, and then says that man cannot see God. That's not just a little historical error, it is different ideas of God. 1
The Nehor Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 I used that term liberally. I really am rejecting your assertion that the great apostasy was a thing.Then provide an alternative explanation as to why what you see as the only saving theology is a recent discovery."To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant" -Cardinal Newman
carbon dioxide Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 (edited) It could be that, or it could be that Jacob was just giving a "for instance" and didn't mention the other examples. I still don't see how you get around the wording in 24, sounds so general. And the two examples he gives just so happen to be two examples where it is clear they went beyond what they were authorized. I doubt it. Jacob verse 24 is just part of Jacob train of thought. One can't interrupt his train of thought and then ignore everything he says afterwards. Verse 30 does exist and it exists for a reason. It clarifies the views of Jacob. After all he knew other prophets had more than one wife. The house of Israel is created from polygamy. Would Jacob suggest that the foundations of Israel was built on an abomination? Edited January 17, 2015 by carbon dioxide
Recommended Posts