Either Catholics or Mormons have it right...

[ParkerD]

Jim makes a great point and I give no credence to anything given to or said by Nephi. The point is that the Mormon church, and everyone else, for that matter, who claims to be “Christian”, had better hope, with all they have, that the Catholic Church was led and guided by the Holy Spirit when it determined the canon of scripture; when it chose, from all the writings circulating at that time, those writings which were the inspired word of God, and those which weren’t.

If it is agreed that the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit in this endeavor, then the question must be asked. Why would the Holy Spirit guide an apostate church? I have heard watered down versions of the apostasy claim to where the only thing lost was “priestly authority”, otherwise the Church retained truth. Of course, then you hear that the Church corrupted the canonized writings which were once "plain and precious". Basically the story is all over the place and it would be nice to get a straight answer once and for all.

SteveVH,

The Holy Spirit guided the prophets who spoke or wrote the word of God. One can copy the words they wrote onto a page, but that doesn’t mean the person doing the copying “has the Holy Spirit”. One can select the writings that seem the most inspirational, but that may or may not mean the person doing the selecting has the Holy Spirit.

The translating would definitely be helped by having the Holy Spirit to do a translation that is consistent with the original intent of the prophet’s inspired words.

When I think of “plain and precious truths” lost, then I think of mis-translations and of such plain truths as that the Rock is and has always been Jesus Christ, and that baptism is for those making a knowledgeable covenant to follow Him for the rest of their lives.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

The Holy Spirit guided the prophets who spoke or wrote the word of God. One can copy the words they wrote onto a page, but that doesn’t mean the person doing the copying “has the Holy Spirit”. One can select the writings that seem the most inspirational, but that may or may not mean the person doing the selecting has the Holy Spirit.

Parker, many writings are inspirational. I like Walt Whitman. Inspirational has nothing to do with “inspired” writing. The books weren’t chosen because they were inspirational they were chosen because they were the inspired word of God and the only way to know that is to be guided by the Holy Spirit, plain and simple. The Didache is inspiring and if I had to choose as to whether or not the writings were inspired I would not have a clue. They certainly seem to be of the same character and quality as the Epistles. But I could not make that determination and neither could you. The Church did, and the only reason you know that the Bible is the inspired word of God is because the Catholic Church said so. That is the brutal truth.

Your statement: “but that may or may not mean the person doing the selecting has the Holy Spirit” means that you can have absolutely zero confidence in the validity of the Bible as the inspired word of God. Why then, do you call it “scripture”?

The translating would definitely be helped by having the Holy Spirit to do a translation that is consistent with the original intent of the prophet’s inspired words.

That would be interpretation, not translation. It can be translated perfectly, but if one does not have the correct interpretation, the perfect translation is worthless, or worse.

When I think of “plain and precious truths” lost, then I think of mis-translations and of such plain truths as that the Rock is and has always been Jesus Christ, and that baptism is for those making a knowledgeable covenant to follow Him for the rest of their lives.

I rest my case.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Catholic-RCIA,
I looked at it and read it. I agree with many of the concepts, to the extent they match Biblical teachings about love and forgiveness. I disagree with the idea of “self-condemnation” or “holding contempt” for self. Christ didn’t teach that. He taught to “lose oneself” (by being of service to others and loving them)–not to self-condemn.

Peace to you.

And also with you!

Service to others means bringing the true Christ to others. It is Christ’s works through us. Because you do not accept the Holy Trinity I believe this is why you would not understand this, not understand the meaning of Augustine’s words. I understand this Parker.

It is self condemning when we take any credit for the good works that come through us in Christ’s name. This is all about doing Gods will and not our own will. When we do our own will and accept credit due only to Christ we are condemning ourselves. We are accepting the fall of mankind as a good thing and allowing our sinful nature to rule our lives. Parker it is so much better to go about Gods work as a slave to Him. To give our service to Him for His glory alone.

Trust me I am tempted every day to take credit for my so called good works. I do fail in this often. But because I am a devout Catholic I find so much more peace and joy in winning these little daily battles each and every day because of my relationship with Jesus. As a devout Catholic you come to feel very uncomfortable with others praising you. You say, “no, all praise and glory to God.” Flattery is also a sin when one can recognize it as such.

For me this way of knowing God has changed my life dramatically. It is striking at the very core of our faith. This is why I gave you the page to read. There is a Pear of Great Price found in these understanding. It is where I was set free, yet still battle. This is why the Sacrament of Confession is so dear to me. I can go in and let God know I have lost a few of these battles in craving praise from others. It is where I am once again equipped to go out and try again because my God understands this battle.

To go out and truly help others in Christ, not looking for any transactions for myself other than getting the work done for Christ. The Church has a way of showing us how sin can appear to look good when you can not see nor understand how it can work on our vanity. By coming to an understanding of this kind of spin you can truly be set free from yourself. Catholic Saints come to master these important aspects of faith. All of them came to rely on the Sacrament of Confession using it frequently in order to stay small, close to the cross so to speak in order to do Gods will. Always out of love for others.

Someone once asked Mother Teresa “how can you do the work you do?”
She simply answered “I can’t”
All the Saints and Angels guide us to Jesus, point to Jesus. He is the only one that can!
We share in His Victory. What a special Gift
Once again I will be reminded today of these truths at Mass. As I write to you today I have a strong sense of the Easter Season, yet the snow has just started to fall here in Northern Utah.

 

[KathleenGee]

Catholic-RCIA,

Your post is also reflective of many Catholic priests who see the Lord work through them.

About the Jewish people in regards to Nephi, I was speaking to someone a few months ago from the Hebrew Catholic Association. He noted that Jesus brought many Jewish believers to Him, and they worshipped with the other Jews at the synagogues. However, their debates – as one Hebrew Catholic says, when you have two Jews, you have 3 arguments – led to their expulsion from the synagogue, and the Nazarene (Christian) Jews formed their own synagogues. St. Peter worked very much with the Hebrew Christians until the Holy Spirit led him to Rome. The Nazarenes out of protest rejected the 40 day fast and moved worship to Sunday’s. The Church returned the 40 day fast with Lent. My friend is conjecturing, however. And he said there were several million non-Nazarene Jews who were expelled by the ancient Romans. The Christians within Israel are the descendants of the Jewish and Arab Christians.

 

[ParkerD]

…
Your statement: “but that may or may not mean the person doing the selecting has the Holy Spirit” means that you can have absolutely zero confidence in the validity of the Bible as the inspired word of God. Why then, do you call it “scripture”?

I rest my case.

SteveVH,

I had thought I would let “your case” rest, but since the thread has continued, I suppose I should answer briefly.

First, I don’t consider any of these conversations “cases”. I am fine that your beliefs work for you, and that they satisfy you in every way. Mine do also for me–I don’t need a “case” approach to know they are right. I have not one iota of a question as to when I have felt the guidance of the Holy Spirit in my life, which happens often enough that I am comfortable with the whole idea of a difference between divine guidance and the mind getting its best (name removed by moderator)ut from within the thinking of the person.

I have complete confidence that the Bible (KJV) is the word of God through prophets and through Christ. I will always love the Bible, and will use it in my life with great gratitude for its words, and with gratitude for the Jews who made it possible through their prophets (whom I also consider “my prophets”) and through Christ and the apostles, as well as for those who compiled it and others who translated the compilations. God worked through all of them, no question about it. God gave the world the Bible, through the various means planned by Him. It is all a win-win situation we are talking about.

 

[zerinus]

Jim makes a great point and I give no credence to anything given to or said by Nephi. The point is that the Mormon church, and everyone else, for that matter, who claims to be “Christian”, had better hope, with all they have, that the Catholic Church was led and guided by the Holy Spirit when it determined the canon of scripture; when it chose, from all the writings circulating at that time, those writings which were the inspired word of God, and those which weren’t.

This of course is a very common claim that Catholics make, asserting that the Catholic Church “wrote” the Bible, or “compiled” the Bible, or “gave us” the Bible; when in fact it did no such thing. The Bible was written by the Jews! Both the Old and the New Testaments were written by the Jews. The canon of the Old Testament was well established among the Jews long before the Catholic Church came along. For the Catholic Church to lay exclusive claim to the Bible, would be like the Jews claiming the exclusive rights to the Old Testament!

The New Testament was also written by Jews. Jesus was a Jew. The Apostles were all Jews. That is why the Lord told the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s Well, “. . . salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22).

In the early days of the Christian church, it was pretty well established what was true NT scripture and what was not. When we read the writings of the earliest of the Church Fathers, we find that they quote quite a bit from New Testament scripture; and there is general consensus among them as to what is true scripture and what is not. The text of the NT that they quote is pretty close to the canon of the NT that we have today. I find the following quote instructive:

Compared to the New Testament, there was very little controversy over the canon of the Old Testament. Hebrew believers recognized God’s messengers, and accepted their writings as inspired of God. There was undeniably some debate in regards to the Old Testament canon. However, by A.D. 250 there was nearly universal agreement on the canon of Hebrew Scripture. The only issue that remained was the Apocrypha…with some debate and discussion continuing today. The vast majority of Hebrew scholars considered the Apocrypha to be good historical and religious documents, but not on the same level as the Hebrew Scriptures.

For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the Apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in A.D. 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative. Source.

The fact that disagreements arose among various disparate and fragmented groups in the Christian world later on as to what were true NT scripture; and the Christians eventually converged on what historically had been recognized as true NT scripture; is neither here nor there. The Catholic Church’s neither “wrote” the Bible, nor “compiled,” nor “gave us” the Bible. God gave us the Bible through His inspired prophets and Apostles, who were exclusively Jews! The Catholic Church had nothing to do with it at all.

 

[KathleenGee]

I will just share this article, written by the Redemptorists and used as a guide for people inquiring about Catholicism in RCIA.

‘In the middle of the first century AD, the early Christians had already accepted the list of Old Testament books in the Greek translation of the Old Testament. The New Testament list came in 393, when bishops gathered in the African city of Hippo and drew up a list of books considered to be inspired. Finally the Council of Trent in 1546 declared this list to be the authentic collection or “canon”, of sacred Scripture.’

‘The Protestant Old Testament contains thirty-nine books, whereas the Catholic Old Testament has forty-six. In the early days of the Church, two versions of the Old Testament were used by the Jewish people. Greek-speaking Jews outside Palestine used a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, which contained the seven books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. Hebrew-speaking Jews in Palestine used a Hebrew Old Testament that did not contain these seven books.’

‘In the fourth century, Saint Jerome translated the Hebrew version of the Old Testament into Latin and translated seven additional Greek Old Testament books into Latin. Jerome combined these books to make the Vulgate, the first complete Latin Bible.’

‘In the sixteen century, the Protestant reformers made their own translation of the Bible into German from the Hebrew, not the Greek, version. So the Protestant Old Testament, like the Hebrew version, lacks the seven books contained in the Greek and Catholic Old Testaments.’

‘In recent times, new translations of the Bible have been the result of cooperation between Protestants and Catholics’.

What the Council of Trent was doing was reaffirming the 7 books used by Greek Jews as inspired, after being withdrawn by the Protestant reformers.

It took many people many years to assemble and reflect on the many books attributed to the bible. A number of them were essentially Gnostic. The Gospel of St. Thomas was not used because it was not supportive of the universal spirit and vision of the universal church and did not carry substantial weight to be considered as such for universal use.

 

[SteveVH]

This of course is a very common claim that Catholics make, asserting that the Catholic Church “wrote” the Bible, or “compiled” the Bible, or “gave us” the Bible; when in fact it did no such thing. The Bible was written by the Jews! Both the Old and the New Testaments were written by the Jews. The canon of the Old Testament was well established among the Jews long before the Catholic Church came along. For the Catholic Church to lay exclusive claim to the Bible, would be like the Jews claiming the exclusive rights to the Old Testament!

The New Testament was also written by Jews. Jesus was a Jew. The Apostles were all Jews. That is why the Lord told the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s Well, “. . . salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22).

Yes I know, zerinus, my first Pope was a Jew. His name was Peter. He was also a Christian, wouldn’t you say? Christianity, especially Catholicism, is the fulfillment of Judaism. It is the promise for which the Jews have been waiting their entire existence. Yes, the first Christians, the first Catholics, were Jews. And those first Jewish Catholics, and their companions, wrote the New Testament.
zerinus;7291908:

In the early days of the Christian church, it was pretty well established what was true NT scripture and what was not. When we read the writings of the earliest of the Church Fathers, we find that they quote quite a bit from New Testament scripture; and there is general consensus among them as to what is true scripture and what is not. The text of the NT that they quote is pretty close to the canon of the NT that we have today. I find the following quote instructive:

Have you read the Didache? Yes, many of the saying of Jesus and accounts of His life are found in there as well as the New Testament. It makes perfect sense. But there were also many other writings circulating at that time. Sacred Scripture is nothing more than Sacred Tradition written down. The deposit of faith given to the Apostles was embedded into the very life of the Church and this Sacred Tradition was the measure against which all writings were compared when compiling the canon of Scripture.

No doubt that these writing had reached great acclaim prior to their canonization. So what? There were other writings which had reached wide acclaim that were not chosen. This wasn’t just a compilation of nice stories about Jesus. The determination was made as to whether or not these writing were truly “inspired”; i.e. the very word of God. It was the Catholic Church, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that made that determination. There simply was no other church in existence and certainly no other church in attendance at the Councils in which such determination was made. This is a matter of historical fact, zerinus, and it is really futile to try and twist it into something else.

The fact that disagreements arose among various disparate and fragmented groups in the Christian world later on as to what were true NT scripture; and the Christians eventually converged on what historically had been recognized as true NT scripture; is neither here nor there. The Catholic Church’s neither “wrote” the Bible, nor “compiled,” nor “gave us” the Bible. God

gave us the Bible through His inspired prophets and Apostles, who were exclusively Jews! The Catholic Church had nothing to do with it at all.

Please.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

I had thought I would let “your case” rest, but since the thread has continued, I suppose I should answer briefly.

I haven’t gone away, Parker. It is just a turn of phrase in the context in which you found it.

First, I don’t consider any of these conversations “cases”. I am fine that your beliefs work for you, and that they satisfy you in every way. Mine do also for me–I don’t need a “case” approach to know they are right. I have not one iota of a question as to when I have felt the guidance of the Holy Spirit in my life, which happens often enough that I am comfortable with the whole idea of a difference between divine guidance and the mind getting its best (name removed by moderator)ut from within the thinking of the person.

Ok.

I have complete confidence that the Bible (KJV) is the word of God through prophets and through Christ. I will always love the Bible, and will use it in my life with great gratitude for its words, and with gratitude for the Jews who made it possible through their prophets (whom I also consider “my prophets”) and through Christ and the apostles, as well as for those who compiled it and others who translated the compilations. God worked through all of them, no question about it. God gave the world the Bible, through the various means planned by Him. It is all a win-win situation we are talking about.

You can say it if you really try, Parker. “Those who compiled it” were those rascally Catholics. Is it so hard for you to say?

I have always found it amazing that the Old Testament used by Jesus and the Apostles was the Septuagint, yet some decided that they knew better and tossed out the deuterocanonical books and apparently you agree with them. You have complete confidence, not just in the Bible, but in the King James Version, which is missing seven books and various parts of others. You are following the lead of Luther and the other early Protestants.

 

[bluelake]

The main problem with Mormonism for me isn’t their story; it is that Joseph Smith is not a trustworthy man. You couldn’t trust him alone with your wife for more than five minutes so how are you going to trust him to deliver a divine revelation?

yes, Smith was a womanizer. I can’t remember how many wives he had, but, He most likely wore himself out.
He also died in a bar-room brawl.

bluelake

 

[bluelake]

The problem with your conclusion is that the Bible came out of the Catholic Church; the Church did not come out of the Bible. The New Testament is a collection of 27 of the Church’s own writings. She formed the Bible at the close of the fourth century. Those writings that did not conform to Catholic teaching were excluded from the NT. Ipso facto, if your (or your organization’s) interpretation does not agree with the Catholic Church, it’s the wrong interpretation.

You and your Baptist pastor apparently don’t believe Christ when He said He would be with His Apostles ALWAYS (Mt 28:20). And you both apparently believe the Holy Spirit failed to do His assigned job of guiding the Church ALWAYS (Jn 14:16-18, 14-26, 15-26, 16:7-15, Acts 1:1, 15:28 et al.).

Mormonism and Protestantism both make Christ a prevaricator who was unable to preserve His Church. They both claim that the gates of hell (KJV) or the powers of death (RSV) did, in fact, prevail against Christ’s Church, in spite of Christ’s promise that it would not fail (Mt 16:18-19).

Christianity stands or falls on the words of Christ.

Jim Dandy
ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

Jim,
which Lutheran Church are you referring to?
May I suggest that you read up on Martin Luther.

God bless you,
bluelake

 

[zerinus]

Yes I know, zerinus, my first Pope was a Jew. His name was Peter. He was also a Christian, wouldn’t you say? Christianity, especially Catholicism, is the fulfillment of Judaism. It is the promise for which the Jews have been waiting their entire existence. Yes, the first Christians, the first Catholics, were Jews. And those first Jewish Catholics, and their companions, wrote the New Testament.

Have you read the Didache? Yes, many of the saying of Jesus and accounts of His life are found in there as well as the New Testament. It makes perfect sense. But there were also many other writings circulating at that time. Sacred Scripture is nothing more than Sacred Tradition written down. The deposit of faith given to the Apostles was embedded into the very life of the Church and this Sacred Tradition was the measure against which all writings were compared when compiling the canon of Scripture.

No doubt that these writing had reached great acclaim prior to their canonization. So what? There were other writings which had reached wide acclaim that were not chosen. This wasn’t just a compilation of nice stories about Jesus. The determination was made as to whether or not these writing were truly “inspired”; i.e. the very word of God. It was the Catholic Church, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that made that determination. There simply was no other church in existence and certainly no other church in attendance at the Councils in which such determination was made. This is a matter of historical fact, zerinus, and it is really futile to try and twist it into something else.

Please.

The problem with that is that if anybody, or a group of people, deserve credit for “giving us the Bible,” that credit rightly goes to the Jews, because they were the ones who over many centuries of prophetic tradition, starting from Moses all the way down to Jesus and His Apostles, actually wrote, composed, and “gave us” the Bible. Jesus came in the same prophetic tradition as the Old Testament prophets. Oddly enough, when that prophetic tradition ends with the Jews and reaches the Gentiles, it stops! It comes to an end. I think there is something amiss when this upstart, the Gentile church, which fails to perpetuate that prophetic tradition and is only the beneficiary of it, suddenly claims to have “written” or “given us” or even “compiled” the Bible. The text of the Bible was well established before the Catholic Church (if there was even such a thing as a “Catholic Church” in those days), decided to do anything about it, if it can be said that it did anything about it at all.

 

[BartBurk]

The reason I leaned toward becoming Catholic after discovering that Mormonism was false was this very statement you have quoted. I attended Protestant churches and looked into the Eastern Orthodox, but could never find an ultimate authority I could trust in any of those churches. I found that within Catholicism. The Catholic Church is the safe harbor that doesn’t change with the winds of opinion.

 

[SteveVH]

The problem with that is that if anybody, or a group of people, deserve credit for “giving us the Bible,” that credit rightly goes to the Jews, because they were the ones who over many centuries of prophetic tradition, starting from Moses all the way down to Jesus and His Apostles, actually wrote, composed, and “gave us” the Bible. Jesus came in the same prophetic tradition as the Old Testament prophets. Oddly enough, when that prophetic tradition ends with the Jews and reaches the Gentiles, it stops! It comes to an end. I think there is something amiss when this upstart, the Gentile church, which fails to perpetuate that prophetic tradition and is only the beneficiary of it, suddenly claims to have “written” or “given us” or even “compiled” the Bible. The text of the Bible was well established before the Catholic Church (if there was even such a thing as a “Catholic Church” in those days), decided to do anything about it, if it can be said that it did anything about it at all.

Zerinus, Jesus was not just another prophet. He is the fulfillment of all prophecy. His is God’s only Word and once that Word was spoken, there was nothing left to be said concerning the drama that is salvation history. He is the promised one, the Messiah, which was promised as far back as Adam and Eve and for which the Jews (and the rest of the world) had been waiting. That is why that prophetic tradition ceased. All prophecy prior to Jesus pointed to Him. Once God had fully revealed Himself in the the Person of Jesus there was nothing left to reveal as far as God’s plan to save His people. We know how the story ends because it has been revealed to us.

By the way, the “upstart Gentile Church” was started by Christ Himself. God slowly revealed himself, first to a couple, then to a family, then to a tribe, then to a nation, then to the world, which included the gentiles. He gave us the “new and everlasting covenant”. There will be no other covenant. It is final, it is finished.

Your refusal to acknowledge the Catholic Church’s role in canonizing Sacred Scripture is really, well… just childish. You can deny and wish and hope, but you do not have the power to change historical fact.

 

[KathleenGee]

The beginning church was in Jerusalem. Tradition holds the Mary was there attending the synagogue. The beginning church was Jewish.

 

[pablope]

The problem with that is that if anybody, or a group of people, deserve credit for “giving us the Bible,” that credit rightly goes to the Jews, because they were the ones who over many centuries of prophetic tradition, starting from Moses all the way down to Jesus and His Apostles, actually wrote, composed, and “gave us” the Bible. Jesus came in the same prophetic tradition as the Old Testament prophets. Oddly enough, when that prophetic tradition ends with the Jews and reaches the Gentiles, it stops! It comes to an end. I think there is something amiss when this upstart, the Gentile church, which fails to perpetuate that prophetic tradition and is only the beneficiary of it, suddenly claims to have “written” or “given us” or even “compiled” the Bible. The text of the Bible was well established before the Catholic Church (if there was even such a thing as a “Catholic Church” in those days), decided to do anything about it, if it can be said that it did anything about it at all.

Sorry to tell you but you have a distored reading of history.

As for the OT, it is the Septuagint that was in wide use among the Jews even before Christ’s birth. With the spread of Christianity, particularly Catholicsm as you know it today, the Jews decided to adopt their own canon with a different set of requirements to be used for the Jewish Canon, if I am not mistaken, this was around AD 90 or so.

Here is a video of how the Bible came about:

alabamacatholicresources.com/Bible.html

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus, Jesus was not just another prophet. He is the fulfillment of all prophecy. His is God’s only Word and once that Word was spoken, there was nothing left to be said concerning the drama that is salvation history. He is the promised one, the Messiah, which was promised as far back as Adam and Eve and for which the Jews (and the rest of the world) had been waiting. That is why that prophetic tradition ceased. All prophecy prior to Jesus pointed to Him. Once God had fully revealed Himself in the the Person of Jesus there was nothing left to reveal as far as God’s plan to save His people. We know how the story ends because it has been revealed to us.

Jesus did not come to do away with prophecy. He was Himself a prophet (Luke 13:33; Acts 3:22); and the scriptures inform us that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (Revelation 19:10). There were prophets in the New Testament times (Acts 11:27; 13:1; 15:32; 21:10); and Paul tells us that the greatest of the spiritual gifts that we can acquire is the gift of prophecy (1 Corinthians 14:1), and he tells us that “greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues” (1 Corinthians 14:1). He even instructs us on how prophets in their congregations should conduct themselves and prophecy:

1 Corinthians 14:

29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

It is even prophesied that in the last days God will raise up prophets in Israel before the Lord returns (Revelation 11:10). So your argument that Jesus came to do away with prophets and prophesying was very ill judged indeed. The prophetic institution ceased to function in the church as a result of the Apostasy, not because Jesus had done away with prophecy.

By the way, the “upstart Gentile Church” was started by Christ Himself. God slowly revealed himself, first to a couple, then to a family, then to a tribe, then to a nation, then to the world, which included the gentiles. He gave us the “new and everlasting covenant”. There will be no other covenant. It is final, it is finished.

Your refusal to acknowledge the Catholic Church’s role in canonizing Sacred Scripture is really, well… just childish. You can deny and wish and hope, but you do not have the power to change historical fact.

I think it is your refusal to give the credit to the Jews for giving us the Bible, where the credit really belongs, that is childish, and even churlish.

 

[SteveVH]

Jesus did not come to do away with prophecy. He was Himself a prophet (Luke 13:33; Acts 3:22); and the scriptures inform us that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (Revelation 19:10). There were prophets in the New Testament times (Acts 11:27; 13:1; 15:32; 21:10); and Paul tells us that the greatest of the spiritual gifts that we can acquire is the gift of prophecy (1 Corinthians 14:1), and he tells us that “greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues” (1 Corinthians 14:1). He even instructs us on how prophets in their congregations should conduct themselves and prophecy:

We have been over, and over, and over this. You know very well I am speaking of Public Revelation, not private, and I am not about to jump on this merry-go-round again. Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of all Revelation. The fact that Mormonism doesn’t recognize this is a huge problem for Mormons. It is why, at one time polygamy is the order of the day and then over night it is prohibited. It is why blacks are considered not worthy of priesthood and then… all of a sudden they are. Your doctrines and beliefs blow with the wind because you have no foundation in the only thing that really matters, Jesus Christ, who embodies the revelation of the living God. You are like the Jews, still waiting for something else.

As far as private revelation or prophecy, I have had several Catholic laymen and one priest who have prophesied to me concerning my private life and the direction I should take. There have even been prophesies concerning our local parish. This is not a foreign concept to Catholics, although many may not have experienced it. We have private revelations going on almost constantly through various people in our Church and this has been the case since the beginning. God has never stopped communicating with His Church. The difference is that no private revelation can change Public Revelation (i.e. effect doctrinal changes) within the Church. If it purported to do so we would know it is a false prophecy.

I think it is your refusal to give the credit to the Jews for giving us the Bible, where the credit really belongs, that is childish, and even churlish.

I give the credit first of all to God, as He is the author. As far as humanity’s contribution, I will let history, of which you are apparently ignorant, speak for itself. When and where was the canon of scripture compiled? Who was it that held the Council of Rome, the Council of Hippo, the Council of Carthage and the Council of Trent? I believe they were Catholic, if I’m not mistaken. I don’t remember any scriptures being canonized in a synagogue.

 

[Senecus]

Consider the words of Christ and his actions of humility, chastity, healing, etc. against the words of the great founder and prophet of the LDS Church.

…

Joseph Smith boasted that he did more than Jesus to keep a church together:

"God is in the still small voice. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil–all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet . . . "

(History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 408-409).

ParkerD and Zerinus . . . is the above quote inaccurate or a misrepresentation?

Or this one from the Three Degrees of Glory

Pg 22 - Now, my brothers and sisters, I would like you to understand that long before we were born into this earth we were tested and tried in our pre-existence and the fact that of the thousands of children born today, a certain proportion of them went to the Hotten-tots of the south sees, thousands went tot the Chinese mothers, thousands to Negro mothers, thousands to beautiful white Latter day Saint mothers. Why this difference? You cannot tell me that the entire group was just designated, marked, to go where they did.

 

[zerinus]

We have been over, and over, and over this. You know very well I am speaking of Public Revelation, not private, and I am not about to jump on this merry-go-round again. Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of all Revelation. The fact that Mormonism doesn’t recognize this is a huge problem for Mormons. It is why, at one time polygamy is the order of the day and then over night it is prohibited. It is why blacks are considered not worthy of priesthood and then… all of a sudden they are. Your doctrines and beliefs blow with the wind because you have no foundation in the only thing that really matters, Jesus Christ, who embodies the revelation of the living God. You are like the Jews, still waiting for something else.

As far as private revelation or prophecy, I have had several Catholic laymen and one priest who have prophesied to me concerning my private life and the direction I should take. There have even been prophesies concerning our local parish. This is not a foreign concept to Catholics, although many may not have experienced it. We have private revelations going on almost constantly through various people in our Church and this has been the case since the beginning. God has never stopped communicating with His Church. The difference is that no private revelation can change Public Revelation (i.e. effect doctrinal changes) within the Church. If it purported to do so we would know it is a false prophecy.

This whole idea of private revelation vs. public revelation is moot. Did the prophets who came to Antioch from Jerusalem, and prophesied of a famine in the land (Acts 11:27-30), prophesy publicly or privately? Or when the prophet named Agabus prophesied that if Paul went to Jerusalem, he would be bound and imprisoned, did he prophesy publicly or privately? That is just a cop out. A church that cannot receive public revelations cannot receive private ones either. It is the sign of an apostate religion that declares the canon of scripture closed, and that there will be no more “public revelations”. Nobody has the right to deny God the right to speak to His people publicly or privately, through the proper channels whom He has appointed, if He so chooses. Only those who are not His authorized ministers, and therefore through whom God cannot speak, would have a vested interest in making such a declaration.

As far as Mormonism is concerned, “public revelation” does not change established doctrine. That is just your excuse. Mormonism has never disavowed polygamy as legitimate practice when approved by God. But our theology also tells us that we should obey the law of the land; and when the constitutional court declared the ruling constitutional, the Church obeyed the law of the land.

I give the credit first of all to God, as He is the author. As far as humanity’s contribution, I will let history, of which you are apparently ignorant, speak for itself. When and where was the canon of scripture compiled? Who was it that held the Council of Rome, the Council of Hippo, the Council of Carthage and the Council of Trent? I believe they were Catholic, if I’m not mistaken. I don’t remember any scriptures being canonized in a synagogue.

“History” tells us that the Jews have the greatest right to boast that they “gave is the Bible,” and it is to their credit that they don’t make that boast. If you really want to give God the credit for giving us the Bible, you should be willing to give due credit to the people through whom He chose to give it, which were the Jews. That is where the primary credit goes. If the Catholic Church deserves any credit for the Bible (and it does, for preserving it), it is to a much smaller degree than those through whom it came.