How do you know the Bible is the word of God

[po18guy]

You mean to imply that the will of the crowd was to get Jesus on the cross? Which crowd? The crowd of the secular Jews or the crowd of Jesus’ own disciples? Before you answer, take a look at Luke 19:38-40. That day when Jesus was entering Jerusalem on a
donkey, his disciples were acclaiming him king of the Jews. That acclamation was the prescription for his arresting and condemnation to the cross. So much so that Pilate nailed his verdict on the top of his cross: INRI. Contrary to Christian opinion, the Pharisees
were the ones who tried to prevent Jesus from being arrested by asking him to rebuke his disciples to stop acclaiming him king of the Jews because he could end up on the cross.
Jesus denied the warning by the Pharisees and said that if his disciples stopped, the stones would cry. Well, he sealed his own fate, and now we should stop accusing the Jewish authorities and start accusing his disciples. How about that?

Well, this could and should be a thread all its own.

Yours is an interesting twist on scripture and history, and decidedly ironic. As Jesus entered Jerusalem, His disciples were shouting with joy - in an undignified way - almost Davidic in nature; see (2 Samuel 6:11-16). There, we see that David, for his exuberant joy in the presence of the Lord, earned only hatred from the daughter of Saul. The noise and lack of dignity that resulted form the singing and joyful praises undoubtedly upset the Pharisees, who were known for their orderly worship. I know of nothing in scripture to indicate that the Pharisees or Sadducees were ever joy-filled or exuberant. Scripture seems to portray both groups as rather pious.

We see very early in His ministry, while John son of Zechariah was still alive, that Jesus fled from Judea because the Pharisees (who rejected John’s baptism) knew that He was becoming more popular than John (John 4:1). Clearly, the Pharisees were jealous from early on. As well, the Pharisees were not a monolith - fractures appeared within their ranks during Jesus’ ministry (John 3, Acts 5:34-39). Some of the Pharisees did indeed go to Jesus - many instances exist - all were not opposed to Him.

To my way of thinking, it would be nonsensical for those who were singing His praises “Hosanna to the Son of David” (Matthew 21:15) - the rightful and awaited heir to David’s throne - to suddenly turn and demand His death. See also from this verse that the scribes and chief priests were moved to indignation - jealousy - by the public clamor over Jesus. Such a momentous, dramatic and tragic turn of events would surely have been recorded for its cause - yet it was not. Remember that the High Priest Caiphas said that it was better that one man die than for the entire nation to perish (John 11:47-51, 18:14).

As to the crowd, look back a few verses to the end of Luke 22. There, we see that the crowd consisted of “the elders of the people, chief priests and scribes” - certainly not a secular crowd, to my way of thinking. It was that same crowd that took Jesus before Pilate, and then at Pilate’s insistence, before Herod.

Look elsewhere in scripture, and we see that the Pharisees and Sadducees had been searching for ways to kill Him (Mark 14:1, John 5:18, 7:1) Look at the makeup of the group who sought to killl him - it matches almost exactly with the group that took Him before Pilate and Herod:

Matthew 27:1
And when morning was come, all the chief priests and ancients of the people took counsel against Jesus, that they might put him to death.

I would not try to interpret the scriptures so as to absolve the scribes, Pharisees and elders of guilt. Neither should we attempt to absolve the Gentiles of guilt - it took both, working in concert, and equally culpable, for Christ to be killed. After all, Christ came to save all men. He was sent to the Jews, being a Jew of the House of David. Even the blind men recognized Him as “Son of David” (Matthew 9:27). The “crowds” did as well (Matthew 21:15). But, upon His rejection - which Isaiah foretold - His salvation would be offered to the Nations as well. Hints of this come from His interaction with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well (John 4). And since Jesus was announced by Gabriel to “rule over the house of Jacob forever” (Luke 1:32) take another look at where Jesus spoke salvation to the Samaritan: Jacob’s well.

 

[SteveVH]

I would not try to interpret the scriptures so as to absolve the scribes, Pharisees and elders of guilt. Neither should we attempt to absolve the Gentiles of guilt - it took both, working in concert, and equally culpable, for Christ to be killed.

And, most importantly, it is my own sin that nailed Jesus to the cross. Each and every person on the globe is responsible for Christ’s suffering, crucifixion and death.

 

[po18guy]

And, most importantly, it is my own sin that nailed Jesus to the cross. Each and every person on the globe is responsible for Christ’s suffering, crucifixion and death.

Indeed. I felt the need to address the Jewish concern about the entire blame being placed on their forefathers. There is not one human on earth, Jew or Gentile, whose sin is not responsible for the crucifixion.

 

[Fatboys]

I have read through most of the posts and it still does not make sense to me. Catholics believe that the canon is closed although there are no scriptures to back up this claim. So was the canon closed after the death of Christ, or after the death of the apostles? Why wouldn’t more of God’s word be important? We know that many of the ancient writtings that have been kept by the catholic church but are not included in the bible are not divine writtings?

 

[po18guy]

I have read through most of the posts and it still does not make sense to me. Catholics believe that the canon is closed although there are no scriptures to back up this claim. So was the canon closed after the death of Christ, or after the death of the apostles? Why wouldn’t more of God’s word be important? We know that many of the ancient writtings that have been kept by the catholic church but are not included in the bible are not divine writtings?

Christ is the Alpha and the Omega. He is the fulfillment of all prophecy. The truth that He revealed, and sent the Holy Spirit to reveal through His Apostles is the completion of God’s revelation until Christ returns.

 

[fbl9]

I have read through most of the posts and it still does not make sense to me. Catholics believe that the canon is closed although there are no scriptures to back up this claim. So was the canon closed after the death of Christ, or after the death of the apostles? Why wouldn’t more of God’s word be important? We know that many of the ancient writtings that have been kept by the catholic church but are not included in the bible are not divine writtings?

Catholics beleive the Church is Christ’s aurthority till His return and she says it is closed thus it is closed.
But these writings are not part of the cannon so what’s the problem with that?

 

[po18guy]

Catholics beleive the Church is Christ’s aurthority till His return and she says it is closed thus it is closed.
But these writings are not part of the cannon so what’s the problem with that?

Regarding the OP, to a Mormon raised on changing doctrines and on-going revelation, this may all seem surreal. I wonder why Joseph Smith did not include the gnostic gospels and other early writings in his treasury? As well, he seemed to trust Martin Luther, whose canon of scripture is reflected in the KJV.

 

[kimg901]

Here is a post from a different thread, makes sense though (maybe not for the lds folk)

What do you mean by prophet? Prophets bringing revelation have ceased, God sent His Son to bring the final revelation, spread by the apostles. Any “prophet” claiming God has sent a new message, a message contrary to Scripture, is a false prophet. A prophet in the sense of social critic, calling people to repentance and returning to God or pointing out an injustice, can bring a message from God. this message still must be in line with Scripture. Finally, a prophet in the prediction sense is proven false if His prediction doesn’t come true. Like Brigham Young, the second Prophet of the Mormon faith. He predicted that people would be discovered on the sun and moon. Ergo, false prophet.

 

[benjohnson]

As well, he seemed to trust Martin Luther, whose canon of scripture is reflected in the KJV.

Martin Luther’s Bible had the same books as the Roman Catholic Bible. Blame the Westminster Confession and the British Bible Societies for removing books - German Lutheran bibles are usually complete, and increasingly we see English Lutheran bibles being complete. Even the KJV was complete till the Westminster Confession.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I have read through most of the posts and it still does not make sense to me. Catholics believe that the canon is closed although there are no scriptures to back up this claim. So was the canon closed after the death of Christ, or after the death of the apostles? Why wouldn’t more of God’s word be important? We know that many of the ancient writtings that have been kept by the catholic church but are not included in the bible are not divine writtings?

Catholics are not sola scriptura.

Other than that, I can only surmise you don’t get it because you first refuse to believe that Christ’s Church never failed. Catholics believe the opposite, and so believe the successors to the Apostles, our Bishops, are guided by the Holy Spirit. Also, the councils, being comprised of Bishops, are guided by the Holy Spirit.

It is the councils who addressed the various issues surrounding the canon, over many centuries. The canon was not pronounced closed until the Protestant reformation, at the council of Trent, in response to Protestant leaders removing books from the Bible. This council declared that no books can be added to or removed from the canon of scripture.

This does not imply “the heavens are closed” as that is a Mormon teaching about Christians, which no Christian believes or is taught.

You need to get over your idea that the Gospel is a compilation of books. It is not. The Gospel is Jesus Christ, who is the Word of God, fully Revealed.

 

[po18guy]

Martin Luther’s Bible had the same books as the Roman Catholic Bible. Blame the Westminster Confession and the British Bible Societies for removing books - German Lutheran bibles are usually complete, and increasingly we see English Lutheran bibles being complete. Even the KJV was complete till the Westminster Confession.

Correct. Yet, as a matter of full disclosure, the Deuterocanonical books were segregated to their own place.

 

[CopticChristian]

I have read through most of the posts and it still does not make sense to me. **Catholics believe that the canon is closed although there are no scriptures to back up this claim. **So was the canon closed after the death of Christ, or after the death of the apostles? Why wouldn’t more of God’s word be important? We know that many of the ancient writtings that have been kept by the catholic church but are not included in the bible are not divine writtings?

Fat,

Ma Man…you have imposed a thought process on a question that bears explanation.

There is no Scripture that backs up the claim that the Canon is closed.

or

There is no Scripture that says that there is a table of contents of the King James Bible that Mormons read…

There is no Scripture that says that there should be Chapter and verse and there is in the King James Bible that Mormons read…

There is no Scripture that says that Hebrews was written by Paul or that the Gospel of Mark was written by Mark…

So how do you handle that?

Your question defies logic.

 

[RebeccaJ]

There is no scripture that says there should be more scripture. Writing scripture is not the central reason for the existence of Christ’s Church. We proclaim the death, resurrection and coming return of Jesus Christ. THAT is the message called the Gospel. The Good News of Jesus Christ. We frankly don’t see or believe that Christ left anything out. I have yet to see a Mormon answer the question, “What do you believe Jesus left out?”

Most importantly, we believe that Jesus is an ongoing Revelation, that never ceases. He is the Word of God revealed through the Holy Spirit, until the end of time. Our faith is in Him. Catholics would never worry over needing more scriptural writings. We have Jesus Christ. More writings seems to be a unique Mormon obsession. Turn to Christ, He is the answer to your question. Truth is found in Him, as He is Truth.

 

[Porknpie]

I have read through most of the posts and it still does not make sense to me. Catholics believe that the canon is closed although there are no scriptures to back up this claim. So was the canon closed after the death of Christ, or after the death of the apostles? Why wouldn’t more of God’s word be important? We know that many of the ancient writtings that have been kept by the catholic church but are not included in the bible are not divine writtings?

Fat’s - scripture is clear on…Christ gave us a Church. A Church that he sent the Holy Spirit to …in order to guide in all Truth…a Church that he said he would be with always to the end of time…the light, the lamp stand for all for the world.

This is the same Catholic Church which decided on the 66 books in your bible (ok, less 7 removed by man) out of 300+ writings. If you don’t trust this Church…which you don’t…then you can not trust that the 66 books in the bible that you are using are the “correct” books/writings out of the 300+ that were available in ~400 AD.

So you believe in these 66 books are the correct ones…decided by a Church in a “Great Apostasy”…of which there is no proof…just the opposite…the Church numbers grew greatly, guided by the Holy Spirit

You really need to smell the :coffeeread:

 

[po18guy]

Fat’s - scripture is clear on…Christ gave us a Church. A Church that he sent the Holy Spirit to …in order to guide in all Truth…a Church that he said he would be with always to the end of time…the light, the lamp stand for all for the world.

This is the same Catholic Church which decided on the 66 books in your bible (ok, less 7 removed by man) out of 300+ writings. If you don’t trust this Church…which you don’t…then you can not trust that the 66 books in the bible that you are using are the “correct” books/writings out of the 300+ that were available in ~400 AD.

So you believe in these 66 books are the correct ones…decided by a Church in a “Great Apostasy”…of which there is no proof…just the opposite…the Church numbers grew greatly, guided by the Holy Spirit

You really need to smell the :coffeeread:

He apparently does not question the very recent LDS allegation that God suddenly and completely changed His own nature. This comports with the claims of Islam. There is a devil mentioned in the “outdated” or “corrupted” Judeo/Christian scriptures. I wonder what he (or the LDS) think of that “concept”?

 

[CopticChristian]

He apparently does not question the very recent LDS allegation that God suddenly and completely changed His own nature. This comports with the claims of Islam. There is a devil mentioned in the “outdated” or “corrupted” Judeo/Christian scriptures. I wonder what he (or the LDS) think of that “concept”?

Po,

Can you share this new revelation so that I may learn?

 

[po18guy]

Po,

Can you share this new revelation so that I may learn?

With the Incarnation, the Lord revealed that He is one God in three divine persons. The spirits who appeared to both Muhammad and Joseph Smith reversed this and claimed that God was not three divine persons in one God, but a single God (the LDS hold that God is but one of a multitude of gods). The two religions diverge in that Islam teaches that it is not appropriate for God to have a son, whereas the LDS believe that there is a son of God. Few of their respective members seem to question this claimed fundamental change in the very nature of God. The teaching of these spirits follows the exact tactic of the serpent at Eden: “Did God really say that He is three divine persons? No! He is only one” (Islam) or “He fathered a child with a human mother” (LDS). Both deny the trinity and both strongly, and by various means, enforce capitulation to these teachings.

This is how I understand it, but I welcome correction.

 

[pablope]

I have read through most of the posts and it still does not make sense to me. Catholics believe that the canon is closed although there are no scriptures to back up this claim.

Fat…there is nothing written in Scripture either that there should be a Bible…do you have a biblical passage that there is supposed to be a Bible?

And there is nothing in Scripture either on what should be in the Bible…or that the KJV is the only translation to use. Is there something in the Bible also on which KJV edition to use-the 1611 Original or later revisions which removed 7 books from the original KJV?

So was the canon closed after the death of Christ, or after the death of the apostles?

 

[billt9]

I have started this thread so I can understand why people can not understand why mormons believe in more of God’s word than other mainstream Christians. And why others can not accept that there is more of God’s word. We are asked why we believe in these books. I ask how do you know that what you believe in is real or more correct than what I have. History is fine, but victors always write the histroy.

A valid question, I believe. Ultimately for me it comes down to faith. I look at Jesus Christ, I look at his deeds, I look at his words (as recorded in the bible, of course) and I believe him - I trust him. I can’t explain it any better than that.

As a hymn goes, “Because they promise, I believe.” I believe it because he said it.

That millions, billions, follow him is not proof. Billions follow Mohammed; they are wrong. Billions of Hindus worship idols; they are wrong. In Jesus’ day almost all (not the Jews) worshiped multiple gods. Paul told them they were wrong, that “Christ crucified” was the only way, and thank God for us he did.

PS. I believe that holy scriptures are closed with the death of the apostles. As others have pointed out, holy scriptures warn against taking away or adding. that is why I do not accept the book of Mormon or the Koran or anything else as God’s holy word.

God sent his son to teach and to die on the cross for our sins, the ultimate act of love as said by Paul. What could be more final than that; more complete than that? “Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous.” I don’t belief he “held anything back” for later revelation. I don’t believe in gnosticism (secret knowledge revealed only to a select – a few). Jesus revealed everything that is important for us to know now (of course, there is much we don’t know that will be revealed in heaven, Paul, chp 13) but everything essential was revealed by Christ 2000 years ago.

 

[po18guy]

Having never been in the LDS, it is quite difficult for me to ponder their thought processes. I would imagine that confronting Christian doctrine would seem rather confounding for them. Yet, they have likely not been encouraged to seek an understanding of true Christian doctrine, inasmuch as it appeals to both faith and reason equally.