Benji Posted January 25, 2005 Author Posted January 25, 2005 Stormin' Mormon, then how would one deal with the issue of false prophets preaching a false Jesus and a false gospel that Jesus said would indeed occur?
urroner Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 Did God ever say He wasn't ever going to send prophets anymore?Did God ever say that the Bible was complete and infallible?Benji, can you show me scriptures in the Bible that answer very clearly in the positive any of the questions above? If you can't, then you are teaching non-Biblical doctrine and isn't that a no-no in your book?
Stormin' Mormon Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 Matthew 7:15-16By their fruits ye shall know them.John 14:26The Holy Spirit teaches us, not the BibleGalaltians 5:22The fruits of the spiritMore than anything else in this world, I want to live the religion which Jesus taught. Such is my greatest desire. While the Bible contains a description of that religion, and is important in that regard, it was never a part of that religion. If the Bible was never a part of that ancient religion, then why should we use it as a litmus test today?I'm not saying I don't love the Bible, because I do. I just don't want to make any claims for the Bible that it doesn't make for itself. I've gotta run to class (oddly enough a conflict resolution class), so don't expect any speedy replies from me on this issue.
Benji Posted January 25, 2005 Author Posted January 25, 2005 urroner and Stormin' Mormon, either God has revealed himself in the Bible or he has not. If He is not a God of confusion, then it seems he would give us a way to know Him that was consistent and unchanging. You have made it clear that you reject the Bible as the revealed word of God and instead choose to believe in other writings and other prophets as your primary source of revelation. it is very convenient that the only parts of the Bible you accept are those that are "translated correctly". I'm curious as to why you even read it at all since it is not the "most correct book on earth" like you believe the BOM to be (at least that's what JS claimed it to be).
Guest johnny_cat Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 it is very convenient that the only parts of the Bible you accept are those that are "translated correctly". I'm curious as to why you even read it at all since it is not the "most correct book on earth" like you believe the BOM to be (at least that's what JS claimed it to be).This is one of my favorite arguments from critics. No one can point to a verse in the Bible that we reject out of hand as not being translated correctly, but we are tarred with not believing the Bible at all. And to have this argument thrown back when Stormin' Mormon quotes the Bible is rather silly.
urroner Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 Benji said:urroner and Stormin' Mormon, either God has revealed himself in the Bible or he has not.Okay, Benji, can you provide any scripture in the Bible clearly stating that all that God wants revealed to mankind is in the Bible. So far you have flung rhetoric at me, but it's time to lay your cards on the table, where does it say so in the Bible? You should be able to answer this question very easily.Benji continued to say:You have made it clear that you reject the Bible as the revealed word of God and instead choose to believe in other writings and other prophets as your primary source of revelation.Hey, it seems that you are most excellent in creating strawmen Benji. Neither SM nor I reject the Bible as the revealed world of God. What we reject is your notion that it is the only scripture on the face of the Earth. Again, for our benefit, could you please provide scriptures that clearly state that it's the only scripture. I don't think you can, because if you could, you would have already done so, rather than creating flimsy strawmen and then expecting us to accept them as truth. Sorry it doesn't work like that in the real world.Benji then said:If He is not a God of confusion, then it seems he would give us a way to know Him that was consistent and unchanging.Okay Benji, if the Bible is the only scripture on Earth, then why is there so much confusion about it in the world? God might not be the author of confusion, but the men who interpret the Bible definitely are. Why are there so many different Christian churches in the world today and why are the doctrines they teach so different and so conflicting.Benji creates another strawman:it is very convenient that the only parts of the Bible you accept are those that are "translated correctly".Well Benji, I have thrown the gauntlet down and challenged you to provide good solid evidence from the Bible that it is translated correctly, that it is complete and infallible. Are you going to pick up that glove and accept the challenge or will you leave it on the ground and continue to challenge us sans scriptures?Benji concludes with:I'm curious as to why you even read it at all since it is not the "most correct book on earth" like you believe the BOM to be (at least that's what JS claimed it to be).I say humbly:Because the Bible is scripture, it just isn't the only scripture around as you believe.
Drewm777 Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 The truth of the matter is that we, as Latter-day Saints, are not a Bible based Church. Our church is based on what the Bible is based on--revelation, from God, to prophets. The Bible at no point says there will be no more prophets or that revelation will cease, or that the cannon is closed. Those are dogmas of false religion and men. Benji1) Where does the Bible say that there will be no more true prophets?2) Where does the Bible say the cannon is closed?3) Where does the Bible say that religious beliefs should be confined to it alone?Can you show any clear concise answers to those questions? I have never ever seen anyone do it before, after having talked to hundreds of people who asserted that it is that way. Can you do it?
Benji Posted January 25, 2005 Author Posted January 25, 2005 urroner, I acknowledge that there is nothing in the Bible that states it is the sole source of revelation for mankind.Now you answer me this, if other books and people who claim to be prophets come along in addition to the Bible with claims of further revelation from God, how do we know if they are true? I can suggest a few ways to confirm their validity:1. Do research to find out if the people, places and things contained in these writings have any evidence to suggest they were real. (The Bible most certainly does).2. Do research to find out if there is any evidence to support that these writings were plagiarized, or made up. (The Bible holds up here too)3. Look at the character, life and statements of the person(s) who claim to be prophets of God and advocate these writings as true to see if they were legitimate, honest people, who cared about others and had their best interest in mind. (Jesus is the only one who totally fits this description and it is His gospel that is at issue).4. Study and see if the writings/statements are consistent with what God has already revealed in the Bible.Please add anything else you would suggest to verify the credibility of writings and/or prophets with claims of revelation in addition to the Bible.
Drewm777 Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 I can suggest a few ways to confirm their validity:1. Do research to find out if the people, places and things contained in these writings have any evidence to suggest they were real. (The Bible most certainly does).2. Do research to find out if there is any evidence to support that these writings were plagiarized, or made up. (The Bible holds up here too)3. Look at the character, life and statements of the person(s) who claim to be prophets of God and advocate these writings as true to see if they were legitimate, honest people, who cared about others and had their best interest in mind. (Jesus is the only one who totally fits this description and it is His gospel that is at issue).4. Study and see if the writings/statements are consistent with what God has already revealed in the Bible.Please add anything else you would suggest to verify the credibility of writings and/or prophets with claims of revelation in addition to the Bible.I should like to respond to your comments1. Is there any proof or physical, scientific evidence that Jesus really was resurrected? How about any proof that the whole earth was flooded in the times of Noah, or that man was created around 4000 BCE? These are claims of the bible that are not substantiated with evidence, but faith alone.2. Once again, this is similiar to number 1. Since there are no original manuscripts of any portion of the Bible, it is impossible to say even that what we have is the same as the original writtings of the authors. The story of the flood, creation, and other stories are very similiar to many myths from ancient Sumeria, Egypt, and elsewhere. Whose to say that the Bible hasn't been copied? I don't believe it has, but there is no way to substantiate it.3. This is not a valid point, because you would have to believe the book was true to do so. It has nothing to do with the validity of the book.4. I agree with this statement.So, there you have it. By your own claims, the Bible doesn't hold up on 3/4 of those things. 4 is even hard, because there are some inconsistancies in the Bible. I could get a list if you would like. Of course, such things do not bother me, because the Bible isn't the object of my faith, but one of the sources of my faith.
Guest johnny_cat Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 I can suggest a few ways to confirm their validity:1. Do research to find out if the people, places and things contained in these writings have any evidence to suggest they were real. (The Bible most certainly does).Yep. There's lots of verifiable evidence for Adam and Eve, the Flood, and the Resurrection. Of course, there is no mention of Moses and the Exodus in Egyptian records, but that's beside the point.2. Do research to find out if there is any evidence to support that these writings were plagiarized, or made up. (The Bible holds up here too)Hmmm. Some say that it was borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh and the later Babylonian Enuma Elish.3. Look at the character, life and statements of the person(s) who claim to be prophets of God and advocate these writings as true to see if they were legitimate, honest people, who cared about others and had their best interest in mind. (Jesus is the only one who totally fits this description and it is His gospel that is at issue).Of course, the only way to judge their character is to read the books extolling them. Presumably, then, you would judge Joseph Smith based solely on his own writings and those of his supporters.4. Study and see if the writings/statements are consistent with what God has already revealed in the Bible.For some reason, I thought that only writings and statements consistent with late Protestantism were valid.See what a silly game this is?
Drewm777 Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 Good response, Johnny_cat, we're on the same wave..Donde aprendiste el castellano?
Benji Posted January 25, 2005 Author Posted January 25, 2005 1. There may not be evidence to support everything in the Bible but there is quite a bit to verify much of it (i.e. Jerusalem, The Jews, etc.).2. Actually, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, and the Masoretic text are very relevant here. In fact, the Bible is the most reliable ancient text in existence.3. For this one I was assuming that people involved in confirming EXTRA-BIBLICAL revelation already believe the Bible to be true.4. Glad you agree with this one though.
Guest johnny_cat Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 Donde aprendiste el castellano? En Bolivia, p's.
Drewm777 Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 Benji, really, all of that is beside the point. Did someone who lived in the times of Paul or Peter also have to determine the truthfulness of the writings of the apostles in the same way? There were no ancient sources then or anything like that. So, how did they know it was true? How did the people in the days of Moses know that Moses was a prophet? How about Isaiah? How about Peter, James, John, Paul or anyone else? There is only one answer! They knew it by revelation from God to their own souls. Each individual had to receive that witness. It is that same witness that is necessary today, to each soul, to know that the Bible, Book of Mormon, or any other writing or teaching is true.
Guest johnny_cat Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 1. There may not be evidence to support everything in the Bible but there is quite a bit to verify much of it (i.e. Jerusalem, The Jews, etc.).Again, not relevant as evidence of supernatural events.2. Actually, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, and the Masoretic text are very relevant here. In fact, the Bible is the most reliable ancient text in existence.Actually, they are only relevant to the document's being ancient, not to its source.3. For this one I was assuming that people involved in confirming EXTRA-BIBLICAL revelation already believe the Bible to be true.Well, you've already told us we don't, right? Either way, you are giving the Bible the benefit of the doubt, but not LDS scripture. Why the inconsistency in applying standards?4. Glad you agree with this one though.I believe this as well. Unfortunately, we don't agree on what is consistent with the Bible.
Benji Posted January 25, 2005 Author Posted January 25, 2005 1. johnny_cat, I'm not trying to prove supernatural events but merely establish the credibility of the Bible with regard to the claims that can be verified.2. While the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, and the Masoretic text may not be original copies, they are independent verifiers that these are ancient writings and there's something to be said for that. True, their source can be questioned but again, we know many things that can be verified which gives the Bible credibility.3. well the Bible has been around for thouands of years unlike Mormon scripture which has conveniently come after the fact. This is one of the reasons I consider it much more reliable, hence giving it the benefit of the doubt. Other reasons I have mentioned several times, hence points 1-4. I'm sure you caught on to the fact that the extra-biblical mormon scriptures/prophets woefully fail in points 1-4. Not only is their no non-lds verification of the people, places and things that happened in the BOM, facsimile 1 of the BOA has been verified by non-lds scholars to be something completely other than what JS claimed it to be.4. We'll have to agree to disagree
Big Dogger Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 This is one of my favorite arguments from critics. No one can point to a verse in the Bible that we reject out of hand as not being translated correctly, but we are tarred with not believing the Bible at all. Just for fun, I will take a crack at your challenge. For the record, I don't think you dismiss the entire Bible.This is just for fun...Matthew 16:18,19 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." And...Matthew 28:20 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." And...John 14:16-18 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.Finally...Ephesians 3:8-12 To me, the very least of all the holy ones, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the inscrutable riches of Christ, and to bring to light [for all] what is the plan of the mystery hidden from ages past in God who created all things, so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the principalities and authorities in the heavens. This was according to the eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness of speech and confidence of access through faith in him. Above I have quoted verses that pertain to Christ instituting his Church here on earth. In doing so, he made promises to us such as:1. The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church2. Christ being with the Church always3. Sending the Holy Spirit so we would not be left "orphans"4. The Church being a visible sign of Christ's triumphThe LDS claim of a total apostasy refutes each of these promises made by Christ.If you claim these verses are translated correctly...then you must assert that Christ either lied or he was wrong.Otherwise, you must believe that these verses are not translated correctly and you do not believe in them.
Guest johnny_cat Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 The LDS claim of a total apostasy refutes each of these promises made by Christ.Could you explain how? I'm genuinely puzzled as to this conclusion.
Big Dogger Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 The LDS claim of a total apostasy refutes each of these promises made by Christ.Could you explain how? I'm genuinely puzzled as to this conclusion. Sure. I will try.1. If Christ claimed that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His church, then how could evil and corruption completely wipe out His entire church a few decades after His ascension?2. Christ asked his disciples to go and baptize people into His church. He followed it up with saying "I am with you always". We, as Catholics, believe that Christ embodies His church and that is why He is with us always. If His church goes away from the earth...so does Christ.3. The Holy Spirit/Ghost was sent as the Spirit of Truth. That way we would never be left "orphans". My understanding of the "Total Apostasy" is that all powers and priesthood authority was taken from the earth. That includes the gift of the Holy Spirit/Ghost. Even though we were told that we would never be left orphans.4. When Christ freely gave Himself up for us on the cross, He triumphed over evil. Ephesians tells us that Christ's accomplishment of triumphing over evil will be manifest through the church which he instituted. But if the church failed...Christ's triumph is no longer manifest through His church.Does that help clarify my belief?Peace be with you.
The Mormonator Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 There is something wrong with believing in the gospel of a Jesus Christ other than the one revealed in the Bible:Since the Bible is so ambiguous and some parts very difficult to inderstand, it is quite simple for one to read the Bible and come to a completely different conclusion about the gospel of Jesus Christ than somebody else. As I said before. This is why there are so many Christian sects in existence. Would this be so if the Bible were so clear and unequivocal as many assert?? Matthew 24:11 - And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. Mark 13:6 - For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. Not sure what point you are trying to get accross by quoting these verse. I have a hunch, but since I'm not sure I don't want to put words in your mouth.So how is one to know when someone is preaching a false gospel and a false Jesus? They are to compare the gospel found in the Bible with whatever this person says and see if it matches. If it doesn't, then you have a false Jesus, a false gospel and a false prohpet.Uuuum. They are to compare with the gospel found in the Bible with whatever the person says??? Where are you getting this from??? Did Jesus say, "compare it to what you find in the Bible", or did Paul say that? I'm pretty sure they didn't since the Bible did not exist for them to even make reference to it. This sounds like it is your own doctrine. What Jesus actually DID say was that you would know them by their fruits. Now that is actually in the Bible, not that other philospy of yours. Here is another issue I have with that theory:When Paul and the other Apostles went around the Mediteranean area preaching the gospel to Jew and Gentile, how were the Jews and Gentiles to know whether they were preaching a false gospel??? Oh right. They're supposed to compare what they said to the gospel found in the Bible. OOPS!!! THE BIBLE DIDN'T EXIST YET!!! That is a nice sweet little theory, but had the early Christians implemented that test on the Apostles, there would likely be no Christianiy in existence today because the test would have failed. None of those people had a Bible.All the Jews had were their Jewish Scriptures and then the words of the Apostles. Of course, gentile converts, which eventually way outnumbered Jewish converts didn't even have scriptures. What were they supposed to do?? Pray to Zeus to see if the Apostles were true prophets? Come on man. It's the Holy Spirit my friend, not the Bible. Prphesy Fulfilled:2Nephi 293 And because my words shall hiss forth
Guest johnny_cat Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 Does that help clarify my belief?Peace be with you. Well, certainly, LDS belief contradicts your belief. That goes without saying. Here's a quick response:1. The gates of hell have not prevailed against God's church.2. I'm not sure this extends entirely beyond the apostles.3. Considering that LDS believe that 4 apostles remained, the authority was not entirely lost. What was lost was the structure by which to conduct the Lord's work. Does that preclude the Holy Ghost? I don't know.4. Interesting take on that scripture. I read that one as saying what the mission of the Church is.Either way, it's a question of differing interpretations, not calling Christ a liar.
urroner Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 What are the "gates of Hell" referring to?Hint, it refers to death. Imagine that!
Brackite Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 Hello There,I can assure you that we Mormons are very aware of what it means to add to scripture and so forth. We testify that man is not authorized to do so and God said that "if any man" does add to the word he will be in big trouble for doing so.But, let me assure you that prophets moved by the Holy Ghost are not what the Lord considered "any man" to be. The Lord calls prophets to declare his word! Line upon line and precept upon precept and bless are they who receive more of the word of the Lord.How hardly does man know the mind of God! But God is willing to help us understand his will through revelation and modern day prophets. Paul OI do agree with the Mormon interpretation of Revelation 22:18-19. I do really agree with you. Did you read my Post carefully? I did indeed state Revelation 22:18-19 does just only deals with not adding until the Book of Revelation and Not the Bible.
Big Dogger Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 Well, certainly, LDS belief contradicts your belief. That goes without saying. Here's a quick response:1. The gates of hell have not prevailed against God's church.2. I'm not sure this extends entirely beyond the apostles.3. Considering that LDS believe that 4 apostles remained, the authority was not entirely lost. What was lost was the structure by which to conduct the Lord's work. Does that preclude the Holy Ghost? I don't know.4. Interesting take on that scripture. I read that one as saying what the mission of the Church is.Either way, it's a question of differing interpretations, not calling Christ a liar. 1. Didn't the gates of hell prevail against the Church when the "Great Apostasy" was complete?2. Which part doesn't extend past the Apostles? The baptizing or being with you always?3. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that 4 Apostles remained. As if to say there are still 4 of the 12 Apostles alive today???4. Either way, if it was the mission of the church to manifest the triumph of Christ...according to the "Great Apostasy" it failed.Thanks
Guest johnny_cat Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 1. Didn't the gates of hell prevail against the Church when the "Great Apostasy" was complete?2. Which part doesn't extend past the Apostles? The baptizing or being with you always?3. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that 4 Apostles remained. As if to say there are still 4 of the 12 Apostles alive today???4. Either way, if it was the mission of the church to manifest the triumph of Christ...according to the "Great Apostasy" it failed.In short:1. No.2. Both.3. John + 3 Nephites=4 4. Still is, and it hasn't failed yet.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.