Mormons and the Bible

[PaulDupre]

{crickets…crickets…crickets…}

 

[PaulDupre]

Paul

If the Bible was still in its original state would we be having these differences of opinions ?

In your opinion has the bible been interpreted and passed down with all the necessary doctrine and saving ordanances for one to return to God should they read it on its own ?

Sorry I didn’t see this until just now. My new job has me very busy.

You forget that I am Catholic, not Protestant. Catholics are not Sola Scriptura. We believe what St. Paul taught - that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. Scripture must be read through the lens of the Church and its sacred tradition. Without the Church and its 2000 years of tradition handed down from the apostles, people are left to their own interpretations of scripture and inevitably fall into error.

A knowledgable Catholic would say the Deposit of Faith (the Church, scripture and sacred tradition - all guided by the Holy spirit) contains everything we need for salvation.

Thanks for asking,
Paul

 

[Snow]

You have to acknowledge, though that the apostles were accustomed to “handing on tradition” orally…If someone had an account of Christ’s words, it was very likely to be an ACCURATE account… Not to mention that while not all of the writers of the gospels personally KNEW Christ…part of the requirement for scripture to be accepted into the cannon by the council was that it had to be proven as coming through the apostles…

I agree… generally, though scripture was not “proven” to have come from the apostles. It was thought to, maybe with good reason, but hardly proven. There is no proof of it.

And though many of the original apostles did not write the texts themselves, the ones actually putting the words on parchment would have been TAUGHT BY the apostles

I agree.

We do have very accurate gospels from Mathew, John, and Luke… and thanks to the council we know that Mark’s account is also straight from Mark, even though an author was not cited.

We “assume” that Mark was composed by Mark because Papisa, Irenaeus, Clement and Origen say so. However, there is no proof.

The Holy Spirit very much DID guide the council in determining which books were inspired, and which where not. If the Holy Spirit can sort out the cannon, then I’d wager making sure the words of our Lord were accurate came easily as well

That’s a belief (one I share) but there is zero proof of it.

 

[Snow]

Matthew, Peter, John, James and Jude never met Christ? You don’t believe that Paul met Jesus in a personal visit as recorded in Acts? Are you sure you want to stick with that position?

Untrue. I didn’t say that Matthew, Peter and John never met Christ. Read my posts. Stop fabricating things about what I posted.

You stated that they attributed to Jesus things that he didn’t say.

That’s false. Stop making stuff up. I challenge you to go to my post and quote me directly.

Do you really believe that? I guess as a Mormon you are obligated to see the bible as being full of error.

That’s false. I am under no such obligation. Please be honest in your posts with me.

After all, bible error is an important part of your religion, as we’ve quoted above.

That’s false. I don’t think you can find a single thing from the Bible that I believe is in error.

I didn’t misstate what you said. Maybe you said something you didn’t mean to say. I hope that is the case.

In the above quote post alone you said numerous untrue things. It is reprehensible… besides being a Catholic sin. Stop doing it.

I’ll give but one example of your dishonesty.

I posted: “What Christ actually said or didn’t say is unknown. All we know is what the biblical author claimed was said. Christ Himself is silent on the matter.”

Of it, you said: “You stated that they attributed to Jesus things that he didn’t say.”

You didn’t just twist my words. You flat out made something up.

From now on, please be honest in your posts with me.

 

[Snow]

Apparently Jesus lived in a vacuum, where no one ever met, spoke, or were taught by Him. Same for the Apostles. The Jesus they never met or spoke to never gave them instructions to teach what they had been taught. And they were so unimpressed with their not knowing Jesus that they just sat around and died with the great secret of what they never knew or Who they never met.

Then some guy came around 1800 years and rewrote what they never knew about Who they never met because he was actually there and did meet Jesus and was taught by Him and walked for days on end in His ministry and ate countless meals with Him, and so this guy restored what the Apostles never knew, about Who they never met, and were so disinterested that they failed their Lord and Master, their God, miserably.

good thing ol’ joe set it all to rights

Ah, now you are trying belittlement.

Do you find it as effective as the blatant insults?

 

[Snow]

duplicate

 

[rinnie]

snow, how can anyone prove anything, Do you believe in the Trinity?

 

[adrift]

Untrue. I didn’t say that Matthew, Peter and John never met Christ. Read my posts. Stop fabricating things about what I posted.

That’s false. Stop making stuff up. I challenge you to go to my post and quote me directly.
.

Post 63

We have the word of Biblical authors, none of whom likely ever met Christ.

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.

There was no Catholic Church in the days of Saul. What Christ actually said or didn’t say is unknown. All we know is what the biblical author claimed was said. Christ Himself is silent on the matter.

False the Catholic Church is who Saul was persecuting. Jesus is not silent. What Jesus said is known through scripture. They are direct quotes. Jesus taught His Apostles that teaching has been preserved in His Church.

 

[mfbukowski]

I agree… generally, though scripture was not “proven” to have come from the apostles. It was thought to, maybe with good reason, but hardly proven. There is no proof of it.

We “assume” that Mark was composed by Mark because Papisa, Irenaeus, Clement and Origen say so. However, there is no proof.

That’s a belief (one I share) but there is zero proof of it.

In a recent encounter with a famous anti-mormon evangelical who posts here, I challenged him on how he knows the bible is true. After evading me for several posts, he admitted that his knowledge of its truth was based on historical factors, common sense, and finally on REVELATION, which of course as we Mormons know, is the only way you can really know the bible is true.

Funny how all those same factors fit for knowing the Book of Mormon is true also! It’s too bad other Christians don’t acknowledge that the only proof available is through revelation.

 

[rinnie]

In a recent encounter with a famous anti-mormon evangelical who posts here, I challenged him on how he knows the bible is true. After evading me for several posts, he admitted that his knowledge of its truth was based on historical factors, common sense, and finally on REVELATION, which of course as we Mormons know, is the only way you can really know the bible is true.

Funny how all those same factors fit for knowing the Book of Mormon is true also! It’s too bad other Christians don’t acknowledge that the only proof available is through revelation.

The reason we know that the bible is true is through the teachings of the Catholic Church. If there was no Catholic Church there would be no scripture or no bible to even read. It is through the Catholic Church that that the bible even got scripture. In the days of Christ he sent out his Apostles to teach the word of Christ. If you took every bible in the world and threw it away you would still never stop the Catholic Church. It has more than the words of the bible it has the promise from Jesus Christ himself to send the advocate and the advocate is still here today through divine revelation. But how can you prove that your church has divine revelation?

 

[mfbukowski]

The reason we know that the bible is true is through the teachings of the Catholic Church. If there was no Catholic Church there would be no scripture or no bible to even read. It is through the Catholic Church that that the bible even got scripture. In the days of Christ he sent out his Apostles to teach the word of Christ. If you took every bible in the world and threw it away you would still never stop the Catholic Church. It has more than the words of the bible it has the promise from Jesus Christ himself to send the advocate and the advocate is still here today through divine revelation. But how can you prove that your church has divine revelation?

Before you can know ANYBODY has revelation you need to know that SOMEBODY can have revelation.

How can you believe in revelation at all unless you have experienced it? I submit to you that you HAVE felt revelation.

How do you know, in your heart, that the Catholic church is true?

If you had lived on a desert island and never heard of Jesus, never heard of religious doctrine, and then heard all these stories of Jesus and the Catholic church, how would you know they were true? How would you even know God exists?

Why are you personally not an atheist? And then why a Catholic?

Because in your heart, you have felt the stirrings of the Spirit.

 

[rinnie]

Before you can know ANYBODY has revelation you need to know that SOMEBODY can have revelation.

How can you believe in revelation at all unless you have experienced it? I submit to you that you HAVE felt revelation.

How do you know, in your heart, that the Catholic church is true?

If you had lived on a desert island and never heard of Jesus, never heard of religious doctrine, and then heard all these stories of Jesus and the Catholic church, how would you know they were true? How would you even know God exists?

Why are you personally not an atheist? And then why a Catholic?

Because in your heart, you have felt the stirrings of the Spirit.

The reason I know that the Catholic Church is true is because Jesus apointed Peter to start the first Church. The First Church that Peter started was the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was founded and started by the apostles. That is how I know Apostolic succession.

And the reason I would know that God exists if I was stranded on a desert island is because it would be revealed to me through the advocate. Like Jesus promised. Do you even know who the advocate is?

 

[RAR]

Ah, another insult. I’m sensing a pattern.

The onus on The Church of Jesus Christ, LDS proving that authority was lost is not greater than that of the RCC proving that authority resides therein - which, for that matter, no one has proved either… though I won’t call you ignorant because of it.

The onus is very much more on the LDS to prove their claim… Christ established His Church and said He would be with it until the end of time and even sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth.

You need a strong argument to prove that the Church fell apart after such strong beginnings.

RAR

 

[crazycow]

If the bible has all the books then why do we need the book of mormon,doctrine covenants and the pearl of great price?

 

[RAR]

Yeah - that’s an opinion. great.

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.

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

 

[RAR]

Not so from me. I totally agree with snow and my posts will prove it. As far as I know, we are the only two mormons here. The bible is what the compliers decided to put into it. I have cited many possible books left out and that is that. Ther is no disagreement whatsoever.

But mfbukowski, don’t you believe the Holy Spirit guides your church and the selection of your Prophet? We believe similarly that the Holy Spirit guided the selection of the Canon of Scripture? That isn’t so unlikely, is it? We don’t believe it to be a compilation of man.

RAR

 

[RAR]

For example, show me a single apostle who demonstrates a full understanding of the Trinity. You can’t do it. It isn’t in the NT - it didn’t reach it’s final form for another 300 plus years.

The Holy Spirit guides His Church into all truth.

RAR

 

[crazycow]

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.

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

They thought the Bible will be incomplete without Joseph Smith’s books, like the Book of Mormons.

I won’t lie to you. The Book of Mormon is either the worst Nonfiction piece I’ve ever encountered or the best Science Fiction story I’ve ever been introduced to.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[Snow]

The onus is very much more on the LDS to prove their claim… Christ established His Church and said He would be with it until the end of time and even sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth.

You need a strong argument to prove that the Church fell apart after such strong beginnings.

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