A
- Status
R
ronin67
Guest
Good answer. Yes we are obligated to tell the truth of the Gospel according to the Holy Bible and the oral traditions that the church provides (which in most cases line up with scripture). The Book of Mormon is not devine scripture. The Holy Bible uses witnesses to reveal the truth (not just one, many which adds to the case of truth). Then to top it off, many of these witnesses gave their lives (without killing innocents like Islam) to testify of their unwaviering faith in Christ Jesus. I can tell you from experience as a Policeman when it comes to witnesses, no one (past, present, and future) in their right mind will give up his own life for something they know for a fact is not true. I hear it all the time from those not accepting Christ (Atheist mostly/they have a problem with authority in general); “The people in biblical times were uneducated and simplton’s” or “They didn’t known about science back then”. Science is basically mankind trying to explain things that God has known from the beginning and always will. It is sad, the more things we as humans figure out, the more we fall away from God. Why is that? Why can’t science and God coexist?
Take Care and May God Bless!
Ed
E
evanfaust
Guest
lax16,
The evidences are so vast that it is hard to decide where to start. But, I will post this link for your own reading, which addresses the apostasy from many angles.
Please read!
fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/chap02.html
fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
A
AtticusFinch
Guest
L
lax16
Guest
Holy cow evanfaust - it’s 36 pages! I will read it.
E
evanfaust
Guest
AtticusFinch,
How about the Story of Paul in the New Testament? Have you thought about that? Dr. John Tvedtness comments on the different versions of Paul’s story, responding to a criticism on the versions of Joseph Smith’s First Vision.
"Joseph Smith gave conflicting accounts of his first vision??
Code:
The natural response to this is that each account was emphasizing different aspects of what Joseph experienced. The authors have a footnote (“Possible Mormon comeback”) addressing this response, saying that “these accounts do not just present different ‘aspects,’ but set forth flatly contradictory assertions.” But when one looks at their chart comparing “First Vision Accounts,” one sees that they have clearly misrepresented them in order to make them appear contradictory.
Joseph Smith’s accounts of his first vision have less variants than the different accounts of the apostle Paul's first vision, the primary sources of which are chapters 9, 22, and 26 of Acts. According to Acts 9:1-2, Paul (then called Saul) received letters from “the high priest,” while in Acts 26:12 it says he had a commission from “the chief priests,” and Acts 22:5 it is “the elders” who gave him the letters. In two of the three accounts (Acts 9:3; 22:6), we learn that Paul was near Damascus when he experienced the vision; in two (but not the same two - Acts 26:13; 22:6), it happened at or about noon. In each case, one of the accounts omits the information. While Acts 9:3; 22:6 says the light from heaven surrounded Paul, in Acts 26:13, he said it also surrounded the men who accompanied him. Similarly, in Acts 26:14, all of them fell to the earth, while the other two accounts (Acts 9:4; 22:7), only Paul falls to the earth. In two of the accounts (Acts 9:4-5; 22:7-8), Paul interrupts Christ at a different point than Acts 26:14-15 to ask who he is. In two accounts (Acts 9:5; 26:15), Christ responds, “I am Jesus,” while in the third (Acts 22:8), he says, “I am Jesus of Nazareth.” In only two of the accounts (Acts 9:6; 22:10) does Paul again interrupt to ask what he should do; in both of these accounts, Christ tells him to go into either “the city” or “into Damascus” to learn what he should do. In the third version, Christ not only does not tell him this, but he gives him instructions not found in the other two accounts (Acts 26:16-18). This third account leaves off after verse 20, so there are no further comparisons to be made with it. But of the other two, it is interesting that the information given in Acts 9:8-18 about the Lord’s instructions to Ananias and about Paul’s recovery from his blindness differs greatly from the much shorter account in Acts 22:12-16, including the words addressed by Ananias to Paul. Acts 9:19-25 also gives information about Paul's sojourn at Damascus that are not included in the other two accounts.
For the most part, the differences between the stories are not serious enough to cast doubt on the event, despite the fact that they are more marked than the differences in Joseph Smith’s accounts of his vision.Acts 9:23-25 tells us that the disciples let Paul down from the wall by night in a basket because the local Jews sought to kill him. But in 2 Corinthians 11:32-33, Paul wrote that his escape in the basket was necessitated by the fact that the governor, Aretas, was trying to apprehend him.
In all three of the Acts accounts, Paul goes from Damascus to Jerusalem (Acts 9:26-28; 22:17) or Judaea (Acts 26:20). But, after alluding to his vision in a letter to the Galatians (Galatians 1:11-16), he wrote, “Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus,” then later came to Jerusalem (Galatians 1:17-19). He then notes that he went to Syria and Cilicia (Galatians 1:21), which agrees with Acts 9:30, which has him going to Tarsus, which is a city in Cilicia.
According to Acts 9:29-30, when the brethren in Jerusalem learned that the Grecians sought to slay Paul, they sent him to Tarsus via Caesarea. But Paul attributed his departure from Jerusalem to a revelation from God, in which he was told to leave because “they will not receive thy testimony concerning me” (Acts 22:17-21)."
shields-research.org/Reviews/Reasoning__w_Mormons.htm
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
A
Arandur
Guest
Here’s one:
Hebrews 1:1-3: (BTW, keep reading to see one of the many passages speaking of angels as a species and creation apart from man, not man-turned-into-angel
)In times past, God spoke in** partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets; in these last days**, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe, who is the refulgence of his glory, the very imprint of his being, and who sustains all things by his mighty word.
There’s a nail for you. In the coffin of this idea of continuing prophets greater than Jesus.
You’ll note that prophets were for times past, thus replaced by Jesus in these last days. Prophets gave a partial message–as opposed to God’s definitive and final Word which itself became Flesh and dwelt among us (John 1). Hebrews 1 + John 1 = Christ as final and complete revelation, no more prophets like those of old.
Now, there is still gift of prophecy, and there are other forms of revelation (we have discussed in previous topics the many senses in which the term ‘revelation’ can be used and the vast Smithian confusion and jumbling of all these senses into one), but public revelation concerning who God is and what is necessary for salvation was complete in God’s becoming man, His Word, His Truth, becoming one of us and revealing himself to us fully. If Jesus is God and man, then this is a tautology, an absolute truth. The only way revelation could not be complete in him is if Jesus was not entirely divine or not entirely human.
There were heresies, of course. Each combated, documented, and vanquished in turn by Christ through the Spirit with which he endowed the Church, and by his headship of the Church. No record of many Smithian innovations exists, though many records exist of other false teachings in competition with the Catholic Church. If the devil could not squash the Bible and stamp out the Word, then he would not have been able to stamp out what should be a history replete with evidences of the “true” Smithian church.
As to Christ being with us…of course He has been. Everyone has been able to have a personal relationship with Him. As to the gates of Hell prevailing…well, they haven’t, have they? Whether you believe that the church never fell away, or that it was restored, it means that the gates of hell have not prevailed, for here we are. Either way, the situation has been covered.
If the Church died out on Earth, then Christ’s presence on Earth, his Body, his promise to be with us to the end of the age (see Hebrews 1 “These last days”) also died. And such death is exactly what is meant by the “gates of Hades/Hell” (gates of Hades/Hell = death).
P
ParkerD
Guest
Lax16,
There are different ways to look at that question, but I think God wants humankind to be happy and I think that living gospel principles does indeed bring happiness into the life of a person who lives those principles.
Repentance, forgiveness of others and self, love of others and of God, gratitude and prayer, kindness, selflessness, compassion, service to others, humility, and “an inward joy of all things heard and seen” bring happiness to many people of many different faiths, and God is involved in providing that happiness.
A
Arandur
Guest
Parker, Scripture must be read in context. The context of the tent nail/peg is the more immediate context of the times. It fits well both in that passage and in reference to Peter. Eliakim was given the keys of the Davidic kingdom, a determination of God, who is always the effective holder of the keys. For a king does not give up his authority when he appoints a minister to act with his authority. In the same way, Peter is given the keys of the Davidic kingom by Christ, who is clearly invoking this passage. And since the tent is most “surely” secured by nailing it in rock, the “nail in a sure place” actually reinforces the Petrine foreshadowing of Isaiah 22 pretty well.
However, we must also remember the “both/and” nature of the Scriptures, their many-faceted depth. Just as we are only good insofar as Christ as good (that is, our goodness is not by our own merit, but by Christ’s working through us, for without him we can do no good), so, too, is Simon only Peter (Rock) by virtue of his reflection of Christ’s “rock-ship.” For anything that we have comes only from God’s perfect manifestation; we are just images and likenesses, not and never gods in our own right independent from Him.
A
Arandur
Guest
That’s a really funny interpretation of the proclamations of the Church against heresies. The Church was defending hard truths against easy outs, not trying to “please men.” It did not take the easy way out. It fought for Christ’s truth, because it could not do otherwise. Do you think people preferred mysteries to simple ideas like modalism or the Arianist view of a non-divine Jesus? Or a monophysitical view, or Jesus just being Divine with a phantom physical image (Manicheism or other gnostic variations)? Do you think people wanted to preferred the hard truth of the Real Presence, for which Jesus himself experienced people leaving him (as recorded in John 6)? Do you think people preferred not to be allowed to divorce or use contraceptives or abortifacients (yes, this was an issue even in ancient times)?
Name an ancient or modern teaching the Church declares as false and then tell me how what the Church teaches instead to be true is some sort of easy way out, some sort of attempt to make things more appealing to men.
But you would say that the same Jesus who said HE would BUILD his Church built like the foolish man, not preparing for the storms the Church would whether, and thus have what HE (Christ) HIMSELF built be washed away (in apostasy). Can you not see that’s what you’re saying? You’re calling Christ the fool in his own parable!
“I will build MY Church”
And by God’s grace through the Body of Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit, they did. For this is a “new and everlasting covenant” (not, btw, some covenant that existed before Christ, as the JST asserts, claiming that Christ was fully known to many well before he Incarnated).
Does your church teach your interpretation of that passage as an absolute and revealed truth? 'Cause it sounds like you’re setting up your own interpretation as an absolute, which means you’re making yourself God.
Anyway, I discussed that passage in the previous post
P
ParkerD
Guest
Arandur,…
Does your church teach your interpretation of that passage as an absolute and revealed truth? 'Cause it sounds like you’re setting up your own interpretation as an absolute, which means you’re making yourself God.
Anyway, I discussed that passage in the previous post
I don’t have time to answer all your questions in the post above, right now. I assume I can get to it this weekend.
For now, I disagree that it would be “making yourself God” to take a very basic scripture and figure out the meaning, particularly when it is quoted by another prophet (the apostle John) and thus the meaning is amplified.
I would say that that passage in Isaiah does indeed contain revealed truth. It is also there for the reading and the getting at that revealed truth, in the way I noted by relating the two passages with each other from Isaiah and Revelation. There is no evidence that Peter believed he was holding the key of David, nor of course could he possibly be appointed by Christ to suffer the atonement which is what the Isaiah passage is primarily about when it declares about “a nail in a sure place”. Nor does John infer at all that Peter is the holder of the key of David, nor that Peter opens and shuts the gates of hell.
R
ronin67
Guest
Yes, but inward happiness has to be from full understanding of the true gospel compiled in the Holy Bible. The Book of Mormon is not the true gospel. You can’t become a god, there aren’t levels of heaven, and Jesus was not a brother to lucifer per the Holy Bible. You can’t take away from the truth of the Holy Bible, create another reality outside the truth of the Holy Bible, and call yourselves Christian. The core fundamentals aren’t present in the Book of Mormon or in Joseph Smith’s teachings. Christian is a title Mormons can’t and shouldn’t use. “Mormonites” is better, not Christian. Truth is truth. As far as
“bringing happiness to many people of many different faiths, and God is involved in providing that happiness”. That statement is flawed when it comes to the truth of the gospel of the Holy Bible. Jesus (God in the flesh, yet a distinct personality of the Holy Trinity), is the only way to heaven. He was all God and all man, why because this is how the Holy Bible states it.
Ed
A
AtticusFinch
Guest
A
AtticusFinch
Guest
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Ah yes, one of our RCIA instructors is a local judge (state). When we were discussing the various accounts of the same events given in the four gospels, someone asked her, what would you think in court if four separate witnesses all gave the exact same account of an event that they were eye witness to? Perhaps that the witnesses colluded a story?
Joseph Smith telling nine different stories himself is not the same as nine people giving a different account of the same event. Different people will relate the same event with different details, different perspective, and differing memories.
If the person who experienced the event relates nine different versions of the same story, he is of course suspected of just making it up as he goes along.
Joseph Smith telling nine different stories himself is not the same as nine people giving a different account of the same event. Different people will relate the same event with different details, different perspective, and differing memories.
If the person who experienced the event relates nine different versions of the same story, he is of course suspected of just making it up as he goes along.
A
AtticusFinch
Guest
exactly.
L
lax16
Guest
from fairlds.org
Paul spoke of this apostasy (“falling away”) when he told the elders at Ephesus that “after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts 20:29-30) Thus the Church would be under attack both from without (persecution) and from within (heresy). Indeed, Paul had serious concerns about the Church’s stability when he wrote to Timothy that the saints would turn away from sound doctrine:
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. But watch thou in all things, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. (2 Timothy 4:3-5)
evanfaust - All this says is that some early Christians were having trouble “sticking with it” and were at risk of following false doctrine.
Because Paul had “serious concerns” that people (why does the article say “saints” by the way?) would not endure this “foretells” an apostasy? NO - this letter is to encourage Timothy to persevere despite opposition and apathy and to protect them from false teaching.
From the New American Bible commentary: The letter also suggests "that Timothy should prepare others to replace himself as Paul has prepared Timothy to replace him
(2:1-2) Why would Paul tell him to find a replacement if there was going to be an apostasy?
fairlds.org cont’d
Notice how Paul entreated Timothy to do his duty as an evangelist, but indicated that the Church in general would forsake the faith. In the same letter Paul intimated that “all they which are in Asia be turned away from me” (2 Timothy 1:15)–and Asia Minor was exactly where most of the Christian converts lived.3
Peter also warned the saints that “there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.” (2 Peter 2:1-2)
Wow - talk about taking things out of context!
Douay-Rheims - II Timothy 1:15
Thou knowest this, that all they who are in Asia, are turned away from me: of whom are Phigellus and Hermogenes.
DR commentary: All they who are in Asia, are turned away from me. **That is, all who are of Asia, or all the Asiatics now at Rome, where I am prisoner, have withdrawn themselves **from me, now when I am in danger; but he excepts Onesiphorus, who sought him out, assisted and relieved him…
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Distracted came on this am with a great thread, 'Fr Mass Readings/Commentary (Early Church deals with a problem…) sharing a passage from the New Testament regarding the work of the Apostles and the problems they were encountering with other interpretations…
It is very important that we share in the same beliefs because the first loss, if we don’t, is fraternal charity and oneness in Christ.
I have read other passages from early Church history that the Apostles chose certain persons to head local churches. Others wrote commentaries and taught, but they were not chosen to head churches…I will try to come back with the documentaries.
I cannot imagine the Apostles not following the Lord’s example in choosing their successors like He had chosen them.
It is very important that we share in the same beliefs because the first loss, if we don’t, is fraternal charity and oneness in Christ.
I have read other passages from early Church history that the Apostles chose certain persons to head local churches. Others wrote commentaries and taught, but they were not chosen to head churches…I will try to come back with the documentaries.
I cannot imagine the Apostles not following the Lord’s example in choosing their successors like He had chosen them.
- Status