Mormons and the Bible

[Snow]

I think these are strong words, by Christ himself. How do you read them, Snow?

In order for me to believe Mormon claims, it requires I have faith in Joseph Smith. That would mean I believe him when he says he saw apparitions of Jesus, John, and Peter (is that right?) and the message given that the church Christ founded fell into a total apostasy.

It seems a little bold to question Christ’s own words in the face of this.

RAR
RAR

Tsk, tsk, tsk. I don’t question Christ’s words in the least. I question your personal interpretation of Christ’s words.

 

[AshleyBelle]

Tsk, tsk, tsk. I don’t question Christ’s words in the least. I question your personal interpretation of Christ’s words.

It is not our personal interpretaion It is the interpretation which has been understood, preached, and handed down from the apostles. It is the tradition which Paul urged us to hold fast to… It is when we view the written word of God outside of the context of tradition that we loose its meaning. “Personal interpretation” is for the believer who has only their own traditions and presuppostions to view the scriptures. Personal interpretation begets division and loss of truth.

 

[Snow]

Post 63

You wrote Biblical Authors it was reasonable to assume you meant Matthew, Peter, and John. Perhaps you wrote poorly but don’t accuse people of making it up. You may not be clear in what you meant but that is not their fault.

It may or may not be reasonable to assume such but what I said was that the Biblical author likely never met Christ. I never claims that Matthew Peter or John never met Christ. It is a common enough scholarly opinion that most Biblical authors are unknown. Tradition ascribes authorship to certain people but there is no consensus on who the real authors were.

I may (or may not) have overstated the scholarly opinion when I said “likely” but there certainly is no proof that any of the authors met Christ.

As to whether I incorrectly accused a poster of making stuff up… the poster is, in fact, making stuff up. This may not have been the very best example of it as it is possible he just misunderstood, but he is definitely making things up about what I said and what Mormons believe.

False the Catholic Church is who Saul was persecuting. Jesus is not silent.

Catholic with a capital C??? I should like to see anyone prove such a thing. It’s purely a matter of belief or speculation or which there is no significant evidence and certainly no consensus.

What Jesus said is known through scripture. They are direct quotes. Jesus taught His Apostles that teaching has been preserved in His Church.

That is purely a matter of faith. Christ is silent - you merely assume that the Bible has direct quotes. There is zero proof of it. I know first hand how hard it is to quote something perfectly 10 minutes after having heard it. The Gospels quote things decades later. The Gospel authors may not have even met Christ so how could they quote him? The assumed answer is that God supernaturally caused the authors to get it right. Maybe He did but that is simply a matter of faith, not proof, since God Himself says nothing about it publicly. Even if God did supernaturally guide the authors, they or the copyists let something human creep in as the Gospels do not line up perfectly… that is there are some differences and discrepancies so the supernatural control could not have been perfect.

 

[SimonArizona]

It is not our personal interpretaion It is the interpretation which has been understood, preached, and handed down from the apostles. It is the tradition which Paul urged us to hold fast to… It is when we view the written word of God outside of the context of tradition that we loose its meaning. “Personal interpretation” is for the believer who has only their own traditions and presuppostions to view the scriptures. Personal interpretation begets division and loss of truth.

 

[Snow]

It is not our personal interpretaion It is the interpretation which has been understood, preached, and handed down from the apostles. It is the tradition which Paul urged us to hold fast to… It is when we view the written word of God outside of the context of tradition that we loose its meaning. “Personal interpretation” is for the believer who has only their own traditions and presuppostions to view the scriptures. Personal interpretation begets division and loss of truth.

It is still your personal opinion that it was handed down by the apostles. There is not proof of that is what the apostles actually believed.

 

[RAR]

I have no need to prove any claim. Religion is not a matter of proof, it is a matter of faith. The Catholic Church or Baptist, Methodist Church or The Church of Jesus Christ, etc have no proof that God believes as they do, and the onus is no more on one of them than on one of the other. It is all taken on faith

If I remember correctly, we were talking of the so-called Great Apostasy and a “need” for restoration.

If you had a child and passed away suddenly and a woman showed up claiming to be the mother of the child… wouldn’t the onus be on her to prove she was truly the mother?

RAR

 

[AshleyBelle]

It is still your personal opinion that it was handed down by the apostles. There is not proof of that is what the apostles actually believed.

You have Sacred Tradtion… And you have historical records of the bishop of rome being the authority of the Roman Catholic church throughout the centuries. For the eastern churches, they also trace their succession back to the apostles. There is documented line of succession all the way back to the apostles!

None of the ECF writings contradict the church…

Joseph smith was not taught by or ordained by an apostle of the Catholic church. I will stick with the interpretation of the apostles and their succesors.

 

[RAR]

Tsk, tsk, tsk. I don’t question Christ’s words in the least. I question your personal interpretation of Christ’s words.

And if I can add to what AshleyBelle has already said… you could also look to the Greek Septuagint and I’m sure you’d find the same.

RAR

 

[SimonArizona]

It is still your personal opinion that it was handed down by the apostles. There is not proof of that is what the apostles actually believed.

Whoa. there is overwhelming proof of what the Apostles and their students believed. “The Faith of Our Fathers” vol. 1,2+3

What there is not however, is any evidence that they believed like the contemporary LDS. Not to be mean.

 

[SimonArizona]

This isn’t fair, its like 4 vs 1, let us love our Mormon friend

 

[AshleyBelle]

I’m going to sleep so it will at least be 3 on one!

We love you Snow…and personally I enjoy these conversations

Goodnight and God bless! :grouphug:

 

[RAR]

This isn’t fair, its like 4 vs 1, let us love our Mormon friend

You’re right, SimonArizona. I hope none of us have any ill will toward her… but, we are to instruct the ignorant. And I’m not saying that sarcastically. I live in Utah County and have come to believe that many here don’t really know the Catholic Church or the reasoning of her claims. So I instruct whenever possible.

Snow, the LDS hold prayer in high regard as do Catholics. Continue praying and the Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth.

RAR

 

[adrift]

It may or may not be reasonable to assume such but what I said was that the Biblical author likely never met Christ. I never claims that Matthew Peter or John never met Christ. It is a common enough scholarly opinion that most Biblical authors are unknown. Tradition ascribes authorship to certain people but there is no consensus on who the real authors were.

Tradition cannot be so easily dismissed. This Tradition is from people that lived at the time. The scholarly opinion is 2000 years later. Who would really know? I will take Tradition.

I may (or may not) have overstated the scholarly opinion when I said “likely” but there certainly is no proof that any of the authors met Christ.

Your opinion only 2000 years later.

As to whether I incorrectly accused a poster of making stuff up… the poster is, in fact, making stuff up. This may not have been the very best example of it as it is possible he just misunderstood, but he is definitely making things up about what I said and what Mormons believe.

I have gone back through the post and cannot find anything he made up concerning your posts as for what Mormons believe he quoted from LDS sources so your complaint should be against that.
I have seen LDS on this forum dispute teachings that have been told to me by missionaries and LDS friends. I had one LDS friend tell me that teachings are sometimes not taught until one attends temple. She told me something about only giving milk to the young. I understood it to mean that teachings were only given when they were able to be understood.

Catholic with a capital C??? I should like to see anyone prove such a thing. It’s purely a matter of belief or speculation or which there is no significant evidence and certainly no consensus.

Any unbiased history will tell you this. Since you like to appeal to consensus, you will find that historians do not dispute this.

That is purely a matter of faith. Christ is silent - you merely assume that the Bible has direct quotes. There is zero proof of it. I know first hand how hard it is to quote something perfectly 10 minutes after having heard it. The Gospels quote things decades later. The Gospel authors may not have even met Christ so how could they quote him? The assumed answer is that God supernaturally caused the authors to get it right. Maybe He did but that is simply a matter of faith, not proof, since God Himself says nothing about it publicly. Even if God did supernaturally guide the authors, they or the copyists let something human creep in as the Gospels do not line up perfectly… that is there are some differences and discrepancies so the supernatural control could not have been perfect.

What you have written is merely your biased opinion. No historian would apply the standards you try to apply here. It is well known that oral history is reliable. Passed from generation to generation carefully preserved something that is a lost art today. Do you really think that these Christians didn’t memorize carefully that which they knew was from God. You make statements of there is not proof but that comes back on you. Your religion has no proof.
Incidentally, the dead sea scrolls show how well that Scriptures have been preserved.

I guess you have proven that what PaulDupre says about the opinions of LDS and the bible are true. You have just made those same claims in your post.

 

[Snow]

Tradition cannot be so easily dismissed. This Tradition is from people that lived at the time. The scholarly opinion is 2000 years later. Who would really know? I will take Tradition.

Imagine me chuckling. Now you think about what you just said. Are you chuckling yet?

Your opinion only 2000 years later.

And your’s 2000 years later. So.

I have gone back through the post and cannot find anything he made up concerning your posts as for what Mormons believe he quoted from LDS sources so your complaint should be against that.

Your point, I guess, is that unless you validate it, it isn’t so? I know exactly what he made up as does he. I pointed out several already.

I have seen LDS on this forum dispute teachings that have been told to me by missionaries and LDS friends. I had one LDS friend tell me that teachings are sometimes not taught until one attends temple. She told me something about only giving milk to the young. I understood it to mean that teachings were only given when they were able to be understood.

And? Your point is?

Today a Catholic priest and a nun with 2 Masters in theology told me that the idea that salvation is only to be found within the Catholic Church is false but they also said that such has been widely believed by Catholics. They also said that salvation could be found outside Christianity.

Any unbiased history will tell you this. Since you like to appeal to consensus, you will find that historians do not dispute this.

I notice that you merely assert it rather than demonstrate it.

What you have written is merely your biased opinion. No historian would apply the standards you try to apply here.

Here’s what I said: “That is purely a matter of faith. Christ is silent - you merely assume that the Bible has direct quotes. There is zero proof of it.”

Care to prove me wrong using unbiased, legitimate historians?

I think I’ll be waiting a long time for that.

It is well known that oral history is reliable. Passed from generation to generation carefully preserved something that is a lost art today. Do you really think that these Christians didn’t memorize carefully that which they knew was from God. You make statements of there is not proof but that comes back on you.

Fine - what’s the proof? Please prove that the oral tradition perfectly captured Christ’s precise quotes?

Your religion has no proof.

Feeling a little insecure tonight? That’s relevant… how exactly?

Incidentally, the dead sea scrolls show how well that Scriptures have been preserved.

Could you please demonstrate how well the DSS show that the first autograph text of Exodus compares to either the DSS or what we have today?

I guess you have proven that what PaulDupre says about the opinions of LDS and the bible are true. You have just made those same claims in your post.

Now you are making a false claim. It is hardly a way to win friends and impress God.

I simply stated facts and you falsely claim that I hold opinions about the Bible that the other poster also falsely accused me of holding.

PROVE that a single thing I said about the Bible is untrue. Go ahead. I’ll wait. Don’t just assert. Demonstrate it.

 

[Snow]

Whoa. there is overwhelming proof of what the Apostles and their students believed. “The Faith of Our Fathers” vol. 1,2+3

What there is not however, is any evidence that they believed like the contemporary LDS. Not to be mean.

Could you show me the evidence that John, Peter, Paul, etc believed the doctrine of the Trinity as promulgated in the 4th and 5th centuries?

(hint: not that God is one, rather HOW God is one)

 

[RAR]

Today a Catholic priest and a nun with 2 Masters in theology told me that the idea that salvation is only to be found within the Catholic Church is false but they also said that such has been widely believed by Catholics. They also said that salvation could be found outside Christianity.

That is true, those outside the Catholic Church and Christianity can be saved. It is possible because of Christ’s sacrifice. Any who believe in Christ (truly) may be saved. I say “may” because the position of the Catholic Church is that, by virtue of its being the church Christ founded and the faithful entrusted to, those who follow Her have the fullness of the Gospel. Those outside the Church may be saved through their belief in Christ, but it would be despite their chosen faith. It is up to God.

RAR

 

[RAR]

Could you show me the evidence that John, Peter, Paul, etc believed the doctrine of the Trinity as promulgated in the 4th and 5th centuries?

(hint: not that God is one, rather HOW God is one)

The same could be asked of you to support your “Godhead.”

The reality of the Trinity was unknown at that time. Christ had only just left them.

But the answer lies again with the authority Christ left to the Church he founded and the descent of the Holy Spirit which would guide the church (and still does) “into all truth.”

RAR

 

[why_me]

Could you show me the evidence that John, Peter, Paul, etc believed the doctrine of the Trinity as promulgated in the 4th and 5th centuries?

(hint: not that God is one, rather HOW God is one)

In my catholic prayer book (published in 1956) which I received when I made my holy communion (1964), it claimed that the holy ghost was god. No different from Mormon theology.

You have put up a good fight in support of the lds faith. It is good that you are here. You treat people with respect and perserve their dignity. You also represent the lds well.

 

[why_me]

Which was it total apostasy or hell prevailing against the church?You are contradicting yourself?What year was the supposed apostasy? What does the book of mormon have that makes so important?Go read Galatians 1:6-10.There have always been one gospel.Not many.

I think that there was an apostasy and I do not think that the Gates of Hell of prevailed against Christ’s Church.

When you say it goes against Christ’s words, what you mean is that it goes against YOUR interpretation of scripture.

So.

Going into apostacy does not necessarily mean that hell is prevailing. Rather, it does imply that human beings are weak and seek their own glorification and personal gain. Thus, they begin to speak the words of men and not of god.

 

[why_me]

The same could be asked of you to support your “Godhead.”

The reality of the Trinity was unknown at that time. Christ had only just left them.

But the answer lies again with the authority Christ left to the Church he founded and the descent of the Holy Spirit which would guide the church (and still does) “into all truth.”

RAR

The difference comes in the form of revelation. I don’t think that the pope claims revelatory powers. The lds prophet does. The holy ghost is involved in creating much good in this world. And he is responsible for creating much good in the catholic faith as he is in the mormon faith. But a mormon would claim that the lds church is God’s true church. And this would make all the difference for the lds.