Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Hebrew Idiom My Skin Is Black


Mars

Recommended Posts

The idea that humility can only be found in acknowledging that all churches and faiths are equal in terms of authority and doctrine, is truly misguided.  Christ's original apostles showed that is indeed possible to be on the one true path, hold authority from God, proclaim a higher and better doctrine, and be humble at the same time. 

 

By making such a conclusion, one is bound to accuse Christ of instigating "institutional superiority" thereby destroying "personal humility" by establishing his church and evangelizing his doctrines above other faiths.  

 

Correct.  The correct understanding is understanding Christ's words in Mark 9 & Luke 9 in which he makes clear that while other believers who follow him may not be with the Church and have the Apostles authority, they are also His in the spiritual sense because they seek to follow Christ or his light.  This doesn't mean they have authority of the true church, only that their desires and faith justify them as being of God, even if not of the Church.  Christ made clear that "his spirit" is not only subject to those in the Church, but all men have access to it.  It's not the same as the "Gift" of the spirit, because that is a form of Priesthood as the Saints at Corinth learned when some Apostles had to come and give them the Gift after they were already baptized, those baptizing having not the authority to give the Gift.

 

The Samaritan was not "the church" like the Pharisee was, yet Christ made clear who the actual "saint" was by ones heart and actions.

Link to comment

The idea that humility can only be found in acknowledging that all churches and faiths are equal in terms of authority and doctrine, is truly misguided.  Christ's original apostles showed that is indeed possible to be on the one true path, hold authority from God, proclaim a higher and better doctrine, and be humble at the same time. 

 

By making such a conclusion, one is bound to accuse Christ of instigating "institutional superiority" thereby destroying "personal humility" by establishing his church and evangelizing his doctrines above other faiths.  

 

Jesus didn't seem that concerned with authority or churches. That's really our thing. Of course it's impossible to know what Jesus really thought, but there is some indication at least in the gospels that Jesus was unconcerned with authority or organizations and very much concerned with how we treat others. 

Link to comment

Jesus didn't seem that concerned with authority or churches. That's really our thing. Of course it's impossible to know what Jesus really thought, but there is some indication at least in the gospels that Jesus was unconcerned with authority or organizations and very much concerned with how we treat others. 

 

Would that be, because while he was on earth He was the authority and many of the structures and belied that the current church held were false/corrupted? That stated, I think that could still be questionable considering he did organize the basic structure for His work and church (ie. the 12)  before he left them to continue the work. Plus he did the same in the BoM where specific ordinances were established, the people were taught the same/true gospel, and were organized according to his order.

 

There is definitely indications that he was concerned about how we treat others and that was a heavy focus. But I'm not seeing the idea that he was unconcerned with authority/organizations....more so, unconcerned with false systems trying to curtail his divine actions. And there are definitely indications that he had a specific organization/order placed for his followers, particularly seen in the actions of his apostles and his actions in the BoM.

 

With luv,

BD 

Link to comment

Would that be, because while he was on earth He was the authority and many of the structures and belied that the current church held were false/corrupted? That stated, I think that could still be questionable considering he did organize the basic structure for His work and church (ie. the 12)  before he left them to continue the work. Plus he did the same in the BoM where specific ordinances were established, the people were taught the same/true gospel, and were organized according to his order.

 

We tend to interpret that a certain way, I know. But Jesus was also unconcerned when outsiders were casting out demons in his name, saying, "those are are not against me are for me"

 

There is definitely indications that he was concerned about how we treat others and that was a heavy focus. But I'm not seeing the idea that he was unconcerned with authority/organizations....more so, unconcerned with false systems trying to curtail his divine actions. And there are definitely indications that he had a specific organization/order placed for his followers, particularly seen in the actions of his apostles and his actions in the BoM.

 

Much of that is seen in retrospect. We read that story and think "priesthood" but that's not actually what is said.  I don't think our modern interpretations of authority, priesthood and hierarchical church structure were extant in the first century CE. If you just read the text without any expectations it sounds like Jesus was giving the 12 a special mission. That doesn't mean their authority was unique. 

 

And from the very beginning there were different Christian communities with different ideas about what it meant to be a Christian, and different ways to interpret Torah and whatever stories about Jesus they'd inherited. 

Link to comment
We tend to interpret that a certain way, I know. But Jesus was also unconcerned when outsiders were casting out demons in his name, saying, "those are are not against me are for me"

 

There were also times those proclaiming him the son of God or his apostles as doing God’s will and were proclaimed as needing demons cast out of them or told to leave them….Even though it was technically true.

 

Much of that is seen in retrospect. We read that story and think "priesthood" but that's not actually what is said.  I don't think our modern interpretations of authority, priesthood and hierarchical church structure were extant in the first century CE. If you just read the text without any expectations it sounds like Jesus was giving the 12 a special mission. That doesn't mean their authority was unique.

And from the very beginning there were different Christian communities with different ideas about what it meant to be a Christian, and different ways to interpret Torah and whatever stories about Jesus they'd inherited.

 

I don’t think it was exactly the same….but I still think it reads a little bit more than a “special mission.” Particularly since it seemed pertinent for them to be replaced when one died. And especially since it’s then reiterated in the BoM. This may be true when reading blind with just the Bible, but it seems less likely when one reads the BoM and then believe that the church was reestablished today through JS….it’s kinda pertinent to the entire restoration narrative.

 

And yes, there were different Christian communities with differing ideas about what it meant to be Christians and different ways to interpret the Torah. But it sounds, at least in the general basics of the Gospel, the Apostles and missionaries sent out were there to try and have at least some centrality to the Gospel and what it meant to be Christian. Of course that’s filtered through councils and such, but the BoM clearly reiterates that Christ is giving one way and the effect is the removal of all labels to become the people of God.

 

On a related note, this meant that the Nephites also changed in their customs. I mentioned earlier in this thread that they went through a “double whitening.” To me, they went through a temple experience that gave them a higher law than they had and higher customs….even though they were “right” in the sense of keeping the traditions of the Gospel, they were still going to go through a massive transformative process to bring them to a greater partaking in Christ’s gospel and his Church in it’s purity.

 

To say I believe that this is God’s church on the earth or that we have something that other church’s don’t (if you will, a “special call”) does not mean that when all is said and done that we won’t go through a similar process to that of those not of this church. Last time I checked very few (read: none) of us live the Gospel perfectly, we still hold false traditions, we still don’t live the law of consecration, we do not always treat our brothers/sisters as well should, and we’re still sinning and follow corrupt paths. Personally I view us as having a particular set of keys, ordinances, and gospel message that is necessary in preparing for His coming and opening these keys to all generations. But being “chosen” in this sense does not in anyway make us superior. It just gives us an added accountability to the Lord.

 

With luv,

BD

Link to comment

So you think your opinion is superior to the position of the Church.

Got it.

 

 

Sometimes that may be a good thing. While you may think the LDS Church ALWAYS has the superior position here is a news flash for you... it doesn't.

 

Accepting that fact though may be a hard thing for you and others here. Who knows where it may lead you?

Edited by Teancum
Link to comment

Sometimes that may be a good thing. While you may think the LDS Church ALWAYS has the superior position here is a news flash for you... it doesn't.

 

Accepting that fact though may be a hard thing for you and others here. Who knows where it may lead you?

 

Gray was criticising believing Latter-day Saints for daring to think that the restored Gospel is "superior" to something else.

 

I was simply pointing out that he thinks the same thing about his current world view.

 

You're welcome.

Link to comment

Gray was criticising believing Latter-day Saints for daring to think that the restored Gospel is "superior" to something else.

 

I was simply pointing out that he thinks the same thing about his current world view.

 

You're welcome.

 

 

Ok got it.

 

Thank you.

See, we can get along...   :rofl:

Link to comment

The Book of Mormon is very clear on this matter - skin refers to colour: its not metaphorical. The colour of skin is not a problem with God and is not synonymous (in His view) with a curse - the idea that dark skin is a curse is purely a human distinction. When Cain's skin colour was changed there seemed to be no racism at the time since his descendants still prospered and built buildings and cultivated, civilized and multiplied in the earth. In the Americas there are ruins of massive negroid heads which could either of been from Cains days (before the flood) or could have been from the days of the Jaredites (among whom I speculate were dark skin peoples) it matters not - the point of that is that in spite of their dark skins they were able to advance and were capable of great inventions. The worlds most ancient structures were built by dark skin people. Racial distinction and racism probably took root when the Israelites had to fight the Canaanites and drive them out of their lands and that attitude of condescension continued till the days of Lehi - my point: the Lord chose a dark skin as a curse on Laman and his entourage because he knew that that would be disgusting to the 'white-skinned' nephites because they already had that attitude toward the black people that they came into contact with in their own land or perhaps because they (Laman and his entourage) were already racist he cursed them with the very thing that they loathed and He knew that this will distinguish them from the Nephites and that the Nephites would consider that disgusting because that attitude toward black/dark skin was already the general attitude among them. It's like if you hate baldness and you hate on the bald then you (as a curse for your bad attitude) become bald; is baldness a curse? No, but it is a curse to you because you hate it. Likewise with the use of dark skin as a curse - it is a curse to man because of man's perception of it as such and that idea was put into the heart of man by Satan. When Adam and Eve were naked in the Eden they were happy and content but when they fell they were ashamed because of the influence of Satan it became unnatural. The church today is labelled 'racist' by many and its not because of the priesthood ban (so much) but because of the racist attitudes of the saints against black folk - people can understand the priesthood ban when explained if it were not that the world hated black folk and enslaved them and that the saints used the ban as an excuse for hate. In South Africa many white members left the church when the ban was lifted because they hated black folk - today the church is growing the most in the developing world and Africa will eventually have the largest membership - Temples will dot the continent. Brigham Young (the scapegoat for mormon racism) rightly said that the saints will be too trusting of their leaders and indeed we are and have been - twenty years ago Elder Packer advocated using violence to repel homosexual advances and twenty years later we are donating tithing money to assist homosexuals, we accept them into the church and keep associations with them. So his counsel has no bearing today - had we strictly followed his counsel we'd be in jail today.

Link to comment

Maedros,

 

You're all over the place on this one and it kinda feels like you've placed a number of folk justifications for such an interpretation together as one.....justifications that even a little prodding shows some flaws in. Here's a few of those:

 

The Book of Mormon is very clear on this matter - skin refers to colour: its not metaphorical. The colour of skin is not a problem with God and is not synonymous (in His view) with a curse - the idea that dark skin is a curse is purely a human distinction.

 

 

You can't have it both ways, the scriptures very clearly state that what ever it meant to have a dark skin was apart of a curse (it's mark). So if you read it literally in the context of modern day interpretations of race and skin color then....getting around scriptures that clearly iterate mark=curse makes it impossible not to state that dark skins = bad.

See

Alma 3:6 - And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.

 

When Cain's skin colour was changed there seemed to be no racism at the time since his descendants still prospered and built buildings and cultivated, civilized and multiplied in the earth.

 

First show me in the scriptures where it says Cain's skin color changed (Hint: it's not there unless you purposely read it as such). Second, Building civilization does not equal a divine value to God. In the matters of eternity Cain was at a severe disadvantage and his decsendants did not have access to the true gospel. 

 

Racial distinction and racism probably took root when the Israelites had to fight the Canaanites and drive them out

 

 

....except there isn't a massive physiological difference between the Canaanites and the Israelites. Go look it up. They're depicted about the same, just with different clothes. There wasn't a "racial distinction" as we would label it today. Also canaanites does not equal descendants of Cain (didn't explicitly state such, just covering my bases).

 

the Lord chose a dark skin as a curse on Laman and his entourage because he knew that that would be disgusting to the 'white-skinned' nephites because they already had that attitude toward the black people that they came into contact with in their own land or perhaps because they (Laman and his entourage) were already racist he cursed them with the very thing that they loathed and He knew that this will distinguish them from the Nephites and that the Nephites would consider that disgusting because that attitude toward black/dark skin was already the general attitude among them.

 

 

So the Lord not only enabled but actively reinforced satan influenced beliefs? Last time I checked that was not in God's MO

 

A lot of your other points are like your shooting from the hip (all over the place, unsubstantiated, and disconnected).

 

The church today is labelled 'racist' by many and its not because of the priesthood ban (so much) but because of the racist attitudes of the saints against black folk

 

Oh no, it's definitely in large part connected to the Priesthood ban and assumed beliefs connected to it that are purported as doctrinal (for example when I was in Texas 10 or so years ago, I heard a christian radio special on the mormons where it purported that we believed Black people were associated with spiritual demons or were such previously). That and it's viewed as a "white church" in the U.S. by more than a few minority populations. 

 

P.S. these justifications also just don't work. Viewing dark skin as indicative of cursed ancestors is racist. With Cain, it begs the question of how were different skin tones introduced (presumably as a mark of a curse....ie. human skin variation has a negative introduction). It also begs the question of how is it applied in scriptures (negatively, at best a further separation from god. At worse, a group attributed to satanic practices, fallen paths, idolatry, etc). It just makes it "soft" racism as opposed to overt.

 

With luv, 

BD

Edited by BlueDreams
Link to comment

There were also times those proclaiming him the son of God or his apostles as doing God’s will and were proclaimed as needing demons cast out of them or told to leave them….Even though it was technically true.

I don’t think it was exactly the same….but I still think it reads a little bit more than a “special mission.” Particularly since it seemed pertinent for them to be replaced when one died. And especially since it’s then reiterated in the BoM. This may be true when reading blind with just the Bible, but it seems less likely when one reads the BoM and then believe that the church was reestablished today through JS….it’s kinda pertinent to the entire restoration narrative.

 

And yes, there were different Christian communities with differing ideas about what it meant to be Christians and different ways to interpret the Torah. But it sounds, at least in the general basics of the Gospel, the Apostles and missionaries sent out were there to try and have at least some centrality to the Gospel and what it meant to be Christian. Of course that’s filtered through councils and such, but the BoM clearly reiterates that Christ is giving one way and the effect is the removal of all labels to become the people of God.

 

On a related note, this meant that the Nephites also changed in their customs. I mentioned earlier in this thread that they went through a “double whitening.” To me, they went through a temple experience that gave them a higher law than they had and higher customs….even though they were “right” in the sense of keeping the traditions of the Gospel, they were still going to go through a massive transformative process to bring them to a greater partaking in Christ’s gospel and his Church in it’s purity.

 

To say I believe that this is God’s church on the earth or that we have something that other church’s don’t (if you will, a “special call”) does not mean that when all is said and done that we won’t go through a similar process to that of those not of this church. Last time I checked very few (read: none) of us live the Gospel perfectly, we still hold false traditions, we still don’t live the law of consecration, we do not always treat our brothers/sisters as well should, and we’re still sinning and follow corrupt paths. Personally I view us as having a particular set of keys, ordinances, and gospel message that is necessary in preparing for His coming and opening these keys to all generations. But being “chosen” in this sense does not in anyway make us superior. It just gives us an added accountability to the Lord.

 

With luv,

BD

 

 

Well, I think there is a difference between what was going on before and after Jesus' death. I don't believe Jesus was trying to start a new religion - that evolved later. Jesus was a Jewish teacher with a more liberal interpretation of the law. "Christianity" didn't exist until after His death. Jesus seemed to be concerned with showing people a better way to live their lives and interpret the law, and preparing people for the end. It seems to me that the concerns about churches and authority came later. And the ideas we have about the different priesthoods seem to be unique to us. 

Link to comment

If Christ was not concerned with these things, why did he claim all authority, establish a church, then send out missionaries to make disciples of all nations?  

 

Is that what Jesus did? Are you sure?

 

Why bother contaminating the cultures and doctrines of the Jews and gentiles with Christianity if all ways are equal?  Clearly Christ believed in, and preached, a "better way".  In fact, he taught the only entrance to THE path is through the gate of baptism.  

 

Did Jesus teach those things? Are you sure? 

 

Again I ask, did Christ instigate institutional superiority by establishing his church and doctrines (in contrast to all other faiths)?  Did he cripple humility in his followers by causing them to chose the better path of baptism? 

 

Are you sure Jesus established a church? 

 

Matt 28

 

…18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,…

 

Clearly, Christ taught that Christianity, at least, is the better way.  Does that make Christians superior?  Non-humble?

 

On the other hand: “Master,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.”

50 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”

Link to comment

 Are you sure?

 

It is either I believe that Christ claimed all authority, taught his gospel of repentance and baptism as the only way to God, established a church, established the necessity of belief in him for salvation, and sent missionaries to convert the gentiles and Jews, or I don't believe in the Bible and Book of Mormon.  

 

It is true that Christ did say that "for whoever is not against you is for you", and I don't disagree with that.  He never, claimed that they have proper authority to do those things, he was saying, "don't intervene and try to stop them".  He never said they are "with" us, he said they are "for" us, as if they were a separate entity from the body (church) of Christ.  As if he was acknowledging what I have been saying all along - the humble seeker of truth, no matter his faith and belief, will eventually find their way that leads to baptism by proper authority.  Intervening would only cause contention and create enemies.  We don't want that, rather Christ taught us to use gentle persuasion with love unfeigned.   

Edited by pogi
Link to comment

It is either I believe that Christ claimed all authority, taught his gospel of repentance and baptism as the only way to God, established a church, established the necessity of belief in him for salvation, and sent missionaries to convert the gentiles and Jews, or I don't believe in the Bible and Book of Mormon.  

 

Well, what passages specifically are you referring to? Some passages talking about sending out missionaries are spurious. Anything from John is so late as to be unlikely to be based on the historical Jesus. Etc.

 

It is true that Christ did say that "for whoever is not against you is for you", and I don't disagree with that.  He never, claimed that they have proper authority to do those things, he was saying, "don't intervene and try to stop them".  He never said they are "with" us, he said they are "for" us, as if they were a separate entity from the body (church) of Christ.  As if he was acknowledging what I have been saying all along - the humble seeker of truth, no matter his faith and belief, will eventually find their way that leads to baptism by proper authority.  Intervening would only cause contention and create enemies.  We don't want that, rather Christ taught us to use gentle persuasion with love unfeigned.   

 

That's one way to interpret it. But none of that must follow from the simple statement of Jesus (if indeed we're concerned about trying to understand what the author might have meant or what the historical Jesus might have said)

Link to comment

Well, I think there is a difference between what was going on before and after Jesus' death. I don't believe Jesus was trying to start a new religion - that evolved later. Jesus was a Jewish teacher with a more liberal interpretation of the law. "Christianity" didn't exist until after His death. Jesus seemed to be concerned with showing people a better way to live their lives and interpret the law, and preparing people for the end. It seems to me that the concerns about churches and authority came later. And the ideas we have about the different priesthoods seem to be unique to us. 

No, he wasn't there to make a new religion. He came to fulfill the law and bring about the commencement of a new order. What that could have looked like for the jews and gentiles can be seen in the reception of this order in the Lamanite/Nephite world. It was a new order to things that both Nephite and LAmanite and other-ites alike needed to accept and change their belief structures to. The nephites had carried the basic traditions and belief structures that pointed to Christ. Ergo their "church" was the true faith and branching/conflicting beliefs we false. Still Even they had to submit to Christ's way which entailed a greater degree of light/truth.

 

Jesus was more than just giving a liberal interpretation of the law and showing a better way to live one's life. To me the only way you get that is if you ignore his more harsh rhetoric, isolate his actions as a mortal in Israel, and minimize his apostles actions post Christ and his ministry in the BoM...plus assume that what JS was given is somehow not what God wanted entirely. And that's a lot of minimizing.  

 

Again I don't think this makes us somehow superior or welcome to climb up any rameumptom any time soon. I just agree with Pogi in the sense that you don't have create a completely new  narrative to get around this. Superiority isn't found in stating that you have something the majority of people do not. It comes from assuming we are better than them because of it. To me, we're certainly not. If anything it just means I have more accountability.

 

But we're probably going in circles at this point....

With luv,

BD  

Link to comment

Well, what passages specifically are you referring to? Some passages talking about sending out missionaries are spurious. Anything from John is so late as to be unlikely to be based on the historical Jesus. Etc.

 

Well I already gave you one in Matthew 28 where Christ talks about authority, baptism, and the call for missionary work.  I am sure there are countless passages on Christ's doctrines of baptism in the gospels.  There are plenty of passages about Christ establishing his church - calling it the body of Christ.   The good thing is, we don't have to rely on the Bible alone.  We have the BoM as another testament to corroborate any potentially "spurious" passages.  3 Nephi 11 is a good starting place for baptism and missionary work, 3 Nephi 18 and 21 speak of Christ establishing his church in the Americas like he did in Jerusalem.  We have plenty of other passages in the BoM and D&C about authority etc. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment

Well I already gave you one in Matthew 28 where Christ talks about authority, baptism, and the call for missionary work.  I am sure there are countless passages on Christ's doctrines of baptism in the gospels.  There are plenty of passages about Christ establishing his church - calling it the body of Christ.   The good thing is, we don't have to rely on the Bible alone.  We have the BoM as another testament to corroborate any potentially "spurious" passages.  3 Nephi 11 is a good starting place for baptism and missionary work, 3 Nephi 18 and 21 speak of Christ establishing his church in the Americas like he did in Jerusalem.  We have plenty of other passages in the BoM and D&C about authority etc. 

 

As far as I know, the Matthew passage about missionary work is dependent on the last half of Mark 16, which doesn't appear in any of the earliest manuscripts. 

 

 

As far as the Book of Mormon goes, you'd need to have it verified to be an authentic historical source before it could validate spurious passages in the Bible. 

 

In any case, as far as the historical Jesus goes, very little can be said about what He actually taught and did with any certainty. But our modern interpretations about priesthood/authority and the meaning of "church" are unlikely to be what was intended by the authors of the synopic gospels.

Edited by Gray
Link to comment

As far as I know, the Matthew passage about missionary work is dependent on the last half of Mark 16, which doesn't appear in any of the earliest manuscripts. 

 

 

John 3:16-18 ESV - For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.  

 

John 3:3 - Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

 

There are also many other passages that state that belief is required for salvation.  Not just belief, but repentance, baptism, and conversion to God.  Christ went from city to city preaching the gospel of repentance and baptism.  He said unceasingly "believe", and you want me to think that it doesn't matter?  You want me to think that he didn't want all people to believe?  Is that not part of his work of salvation as mentioned in John 3?  If not, then why did he teach it at all?  Why did it matter then, and not now?     

 

There are some more good missionary passages here that you might have some difficulty explaining away:

 

 
There is not a lot the different Christian sects can agree in the Bible, but missionary work is one of them.

 

 

As far as the Book of Mormon goes, you'd need to have it verified to be an authentic historical source before it could validate spurious passages in the Bible. 

 

I personally do not require proof of historicity to see and hear the divinely inspired message of missionary work.  I simply do not understand where you are coming from as a believing member.  You and I both know that scientific or scholarly validation is not required to hear the word of God. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment

John 3:16-18 ESV - For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.  

 

John 3:3 - Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

 

There are also many other passages that state that belief is required for salvation.  Not just belief, but repentance, baptism, and conversion to God.  Christ went from city to city preaching the gospel of repentance and baptism.  He said unceasingly "believe", and you want me to think that it doesn't matter?  You want me to think that he didn't want all people to believe?  Is that not part of his work of salvation as mentioned in John 3?  If not, then why did he teach it at all?  Why did it matter then, and not now?     

 

There are some more good missionary passages here that you might have some difficulty explaining away:

 

 
There is not a lot the different Christian sects can agree in the Bible, but missionary work is one of them.

 

 

 

I personally do not require proof of historicity to see and hear the divinely inspired message of missionary work.  I simply do not understand where you are coming from as a believing member.  You and I both know that scientific or scholarly validation is not required to hear the word of God. 

 

To be honest I've kind of lost the thread of of our conversation. But I guess I would just say, yes, you can support many different views by prooftexting the gospels. Everyone does that, including me. But the synoptic gospels will most closely represent early Christian views (John is late and quite different from the synoptics, unlikely to represent any of the actual teachings of Jesus).

 

As far as what the authentic sayings of Jesus might be, there is a great deal of uncertainty there. Those teachings must be extracted via various historical criteria, not just taken for granted that everything attributed to Jesus was taught by Jesus.

 

That does not mean, of course, that "inauthentic" teachings are invalid. A good spiritual teaching is a good spiritual teaching, regardless of the source. Even if Jesus never said, "love God and love your neighbor", that wouldn't make the teaching less true. 

 

The same goes for the Book of Mormon. If you're going to try to use it to validate the authenticity of controversial Bible passages, you're going to have to validate the BOM historically first. But the historicity of the BOM is irrelevant to the value of the BOM's teachings. As I said, good or inspired spiritual teachings stand on their own merit, regardless of the true date or author.

Link to comment

The same goes for the Book of Mormon. If you're going to try to use it to validate the authenticity of controversial Bible passages, you're going to have to validate the BOM historically first. But the historicity of the BOM is irrelevant to the value of the BOM's teachings. As I said, good or inspired spiritual teachings stand on their own merit, regardless of the true date or author.

 

Perhaps that is where we are not connecting.  I am speaking as one believing member to another - these things are not "controversial".  They "stand on their own merit", as you say.  Like I said, we do not require scholarly or scientific validation to "validate" Bible passages, or in other words to "hear the word of God".  That is not how God speaks to man.

Edited by pogi
Link to comment

Perhaps that is where we are not connecting.  I am speaking as one believing member to another - these things are not "controversial".  They "stand on their own merit", as you say.  Like I said, we do not require scholarly or scientific validation to "validate" Bible passages, or in other words to "hear the word of God".  That is not how God speaks to man.

 

Well, when we're talking about trying to get an accurate view of what the original source documents said, or an accurate view of what the historical Jesus might have preached, then historical validation is important. But on the other hand if we're talking about "hearing the word of God" then none of that matters. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...