Tacenda Posted August 28, 2016 Author Posted August 28, 2016 12 minutes ago, CountryBoy said: fine...selective reading You are free to believe what you want. Now...please stop derailing. I know, I'm derailing my own thread, maybe it's a good thing.
UtahTexan Posted August 28, 2016 Posted August 28, 2016 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I know, I'm derailing my own thread, maybe it's a good thing. lol thank you for taking it to PMs.....better that way Edited August 28, 2016 by CountryBoy
Robert F. Smith Posted August 28, 2016 Posted August 28, 2016 19 hours ago, Tacenda said: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Alleged_false_prophecies Here's the FairMormon take on it, I'm sure you're aware of them. I think after talking to my friend, I feel there's more faith in his little finger about the word of God than many of you on here. Not sure why you would say that, Tacenda, although it is true that evangelicals do put all their faith on the written Scripture, and at the same time reject modern prophecy. Yet nowhere in the written word of God does it say that prophecy and revelation have ceased. Indeed, the very Scripture which evangelicals hold up as absolute says that the Holy Spirit determines the meaning of Scripture, not man's own interpretation. It is precisely because the evangelicals reject the Word of God and the Holy Spirit that they keep creating new denominations -- instead of obeying the Holy Spirit and presenting a unified body of Christ. Very simply, they are in apostasy. 19 hours ago, Tacenda said: I wonder why some of our latter day prophets and apostles haven't expressed loudly that they have seen Jesus Christ, if they have. I understand if they have not. But why only allude to the fact that they have. If they have they should shout it out to the roof tops. If they have the Priesthood Keys, that is taught in the church. With secularism on the rise, you would think someone would proclaim it, if they'd seen Him. That's what apostles are for. I know of no LDS doctrine which states that apostles must have seen Christ. Certainly St Paul did not, and modern apostles usually have not. It is the anti-Mormons who make this absolute declaration that apostles must see Christ and then declare it. That is a straw man. Being "a witness of Christ" on the other hand is a demand that one speak as a witness on His behalf and take His Gospel to the world. Seeing Him physically is not a requirement, any more than it is for you or me. 2
Jeanne Posted August 28, 2016 Posted August 28, 2016 13 hours ago, Tacenda said: Her? Doubt that. But if she said something not to your liking, maybe she had a reason. Sometimes you come off a little harsh. I'd think you would come from a place of understanding, since you were in a lot of their shoes at one time. I think now is the time to show that coming back to the church made you rise above that, and you should know that LDS teach love and that includes your enemies. But enough preaching on my part, we all have our various perspectives or viewpoints. Tacenda..thank you on my behalf. I am hardly on that board. They are my friends..like the people here. And it is untrue that I do a lot of bashing. O'well..all is okay. I just wanted Country Boy to be okay.
RevTestament Posted August 28, 2016 Posted August 28, 2016 23 hours ago, Tacenda said: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Alleged_false_prophecies Here's the FairMormon take on it, I'm sure you're aware of them. I think after talking to my friend, I feel there's more faith in his little finger about the word of God than many of you on here. I wonder why some of our latter day prophets and apostles haven't expressed loudly that they have seen Jesus Christ, if they have. I understand if they have not. But why only allude to the fact that they have. If they have they should shout it out to the roof tops. If they have the Priesthood Keys, that is taught in the church. With secularism on the rise, you would think someone would proclaim it, if they'd seen Him. That's what apostles are for. Joseph Smith proclaimed he saw Him in vision, as did Lorenzo Snow. Joseph Smith did proclaim it loudly. Nevertheless, blessed is he that has not seen Him and yet believed.... 1
Robert F. Smith Posted August 28, 2016 Posted August 28, 2016 20 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Please re-read the question. Do the Gospels (Matthew, Luke, and Mark) say that Jesus was a God? Did Paul say Jesus was a God? anything that dates before 90 AD? Please Why only Matthew, Mark, and Luke? because they probably date before 90 AD. I realize that the consensus says that John's is the latest Gospel, but you need to be aware that much of that is prejudice based on the very different nature of that Gospel. James Charlesworth and William F. Albright have made the case in the past for John being the earliest Gospel. Why? Because it has the most in common with Qumran (the Essenes) -- illustrated by the special Qumran terminology which is so common in John: light vs darkness, etc. See http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/evangel/25-1_matson.pdf . Cf. H. Braun, Qumran und das Neue Testament, I:201-204. Thus, you may want to take a look at Jesus' self-declaration as God in John 8:58. But, that does not obviate Mark 14:61-62 in which Jesus affirms the question asked by the High Priest, and that reply was considered direct blasphemy. As you know, Mark is considered the earliest Gospel by most scholars. 1
waveslider Posted August 28, 2016 Posted August 28, 2016 21 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Please re-read the question. Do the Gospels (Matthew, Luke, and Mark) say that Jesus was a God? Did Paul say Jesus was a God? anything that dates before 90 AD? Please Why only Matthew, Mark, and Luke? because they probably date before 90 AD. Sorry, I didn't read the question properly. I always thought of John as being a gospel too, but I can see why it is different since there is a belief that it wasn't written earlier. It was just what popped up into my mind when I saw your post, and I should have read it better. This scripture in John doesn't even say that Jesus is God, only that the Jews thought that He was saying He was God anyway. I personally don't know of anything that states such from Matthew, Luke and Mark.
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 28, 2016 Posted August 28, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: But, that does not obviate Mark 14:61-62 in which Jesus affirms the question asked by the High Priest, and that reply was considered direct blasphemy. As you know, Mark is considered the earliest Gospel by most scholars. I don't see how Mark 14:61 is teaching that Jesus is a God. The early Gospels do teach Jesus is divine, but don't say that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament. "For Mark, Jesus was adopted to be God’s son at his baptism. Before that, he was a mere mortal. For Luke, Jesus was conceived by God and so was literally God’s son, from the point of his conception. (In Luke Jesus did not exist *prior* to that conception to the virgin – his conception is when he came into existence). For John, Jesus was a pre-existent divine being – the Word of God who was both with God and was God at the beginning of all things – who became a human. Here he is not born of a virgin and he is not adopted by God at the baptism (neither event is narrated in John – and could not be, given, John’s Christology). So yes, now I agree that Jesus is portrayed as a divine being, a God-man, in all the Gospels. But in very different ways, depending on which Gospel you read." http://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-as-god-in-the-synoptics-for-members/ 20 minutes ago, waveslider said: Sorry, I didn't read the question properly. I always thought of John as being a gospel too, but I can see why it is different since there is a belief that it wasn't written earlier. It was just what popped up into my mind when I saw your post, and I should have read it better. This scripture in John doesn't even say that Jesus is God, only that the Jews thought that He was saying He was God anyway. I personally don't know of anything that states such from Matthew, Luke and Mark. Edited August 28, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
waveslider Posted August 29, 2016 Posted August 29, 2016 (edited) 42 minutes ago, waveslider said: Sorry, I didn't read the question properly. I always thought of John as being a gospel too, but I can see why it is different since there is a belief that it wasn't written earlier. It was just what popped up into my mind when I saw your post, and I should have read it better. This scripture in John doesn't even say that Jesus is God, only that the Jews thought that He was saying He was God anyway. I personally don't know of anything that states such from Matthew, Luke and Mark. Thanks for the new things to search for in the scriptures. I just wasn't aware of anything stating that within those books because I never thought to question whether they actually thought Jesus wasn't God. With a quick search I came up with this: "21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." Matthew 1:21-23 Edited August 29, 2016 by waveslider mispell
Robert F. Smith Posted August 29, 2016 Posted August 29, 2016 1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said: I don't see how Mark 14:61 is teaching that Jesus is a God. The early Gospels do teach Jesus is divine, but don't say that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament. "For Mark, Jesus was adopted to be God’s son at his baptism. Before that, he was a mere mortal. For Luke, Jesus was conceived by God and so was literally God’s son, from the point of his conception. (In Luke Jesus did not exist *prior* to that conception to the virgin – his conception is when he came into existence). For John, Jesus was a pre-existent divine being – the Word of God who was both with God and was God at the beginning of all things – who became a human. Here he is not born of a virgin and he is not adopted by God at the baptism (neither event is narrated in John – and could not be, given, John’s Christology). So yes, now I agree that Jesus is portrayed as a divine being, a God-man, in all the Gospels. But in very different ways, depending on which Gospel you read." http://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-as-god-in-the-synoptics-for-members/ I guess that you just don't get it, Skeptic. Even Paul, who is the earliest Christian writer, says that Jesus is God (Col 2:9), and that he pre-existed creation itself (Col 1:15-20), which agrees with John 1, which may be the earliest Gospel anyhow. Besides that, Matthew 1:23 names Jesus as "God-with-us" (Emmanuel = Isa 7:14, 8:8). Most of Christianity interprets this to mean that Jesus is God incarnate, not that He is a separate person. 2
mfbukowski Posted August 29, 2016 Posted August 29, 2016 20 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: I guess that you just don't get it, Skeptic. Even Paul, who is the earliest Christian writer, says that Jesus is God (Col 2:9), and that he pre-existed creation itself (Col 1:15-20), which agrees with John 1, which may be the earliest Gospel anyhow. Besides that, Matthew 1:23 names Jesus as "God-with-us" (Emmanuel = Isa 7:14, 8:8). Most of Christianity interprets this to mean that Jesus is God incarnate, not that He is a separate person. He doesn't accept the evidence for scriptures and yet wants to take them literally. "Books don't come from angels" but then he argues about what they say. Go figure. I gave up long ago. He's too "smart" for me. 2
Tacenda Posted August 29, 2016 Author Posted August 29, 2016 http://www.mormonmatters.org/2016/08/23/343-an-exciting-approach-to-scripture/ How appropriate to this thread, in a way. Great podcast so far.
boblloyd91 Posted August 29, 2016 Posted August 29, 2016 3 hours ago, Tacenda said: http://www.mormonmatters.org/2016/08/23/343-an-exciting-approach-to-scripture/ How appropriate to this thread, in a way. Great podcast so far. That book's on my wish list!
Recommended Posts