R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Have you noticed that every post you have ever typed to me, and others, that you never miss a chance to tell people how they are somehow defective?
Things that make you go hmmmmm.
- Status
Things that make you go hmmmmm.
A
adrift
Guest
Fine. I’ll answer the question: “Who would really know?”
No one and that’s the whole point. The question was rhetorical and didn’t call for an answer. Regardless, I thought it was so screamingly obvious that no answer was required/
Than why answer it with such hate. Since the answer was the people who were in the position to know it wasn’t so obvious was it?
That’s funny. You don’t even know my opinion. Since you are in the dark, let me say again what it was. Evidence, historical evidence is lacking and instead we have tradition. So tell me, how were those closer to the event in possession of a superior opinion? What did they think about the lack of historical evidence?
You don’t want to see the historical evidence. There are many history books that document it. Try The Founding of Christendom by Warren H. Carroll.
Really? I challenge you to find one thing about what my religion has taught that I do not understand.
I am thinking of another poster who denied that it was taught that according to LDS you could become a god.
Okay, please describe the proven historicity of the book of Job. Be specific. Include details and facts.
Shame on you. I followed it with not everything was historical but the Gospels were.
Seriously dude. Seriously. Do a little research, take a college course. Get back to me.
Nasty again
In the meantime, can you prove who wrote Matthew, Mark and Luke and whether or not they were eyewitnesses to the events they describe?
Can you prove to me who wrote the Book of Mormon? Can you prove to me who wrote Shaskespeare? Can you prove they didn’t write it? They claim to be eyewitnesses.
Ah hah. If I said that “it doesn’t” you should be able to prove that - right? RIGHT?
All you have to do is quote the post where I said that it doesn’t. Go ahead. Post it.
Note: no such post exists. You just made it up.
Being nasty again. I don’t think you have a clue about this because what you say make no sense:whacky: I guess you made it up.
Another assertion. I challenge you to prove it. I challenge you to prove that I apply a different standard to my faith. This should be easy for you. Go ahead.
Note: you can’t and won’t because I have not applied any different standard to my own faith - you just made that up.
If you didn’t. you wouldn’t be LSD.
A
adrift
Guest
These are the post that you accused another of making up.
I don’t need to answer them. Obviously they contain the truth.
I have noticed
A
adrift
Guest
To take a step backwards you are correct it wasn’t a vision but a convenient revelation. Not every LDS agreed with it. If you had been more charitable it could have been settled much earlier. This has nothing to do with the Bible. Lets get back on topic.
S
Snow
Guest
You are a very offensive person. From the moment I’ve come on the board you’ve denigrated my Church and my faith. I treat honest and fair posters fairly and respectfully.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Oh that’s funny. I believe we started out with your post about how the catholic Church is in apostasy because of Greek philosophy…your very first post. Let’s be clear about who is attacking and denigrating.
I suppose you must be used to people putting up with your boorish behavior.
S
Snow
Guest
It could have been settled immediately if the poster who made it up had simply admitted that he made it up. As I recall, you took up the battle. It has nothing do with my charity or lack thereof.
That it is outside the scope of the topic is obviously true, This happens time and time again in Mormon threads. People make claims, get challenged, don’t support their claims and then try and attack the Church of Jesus Christ on anything else that come to mind.
To the posts on the first page of this thread you referenced. My position as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ is this:
I cherish the Bible. Of all the Standard Works (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price) it is probably my favorite. I find reading it and praying about it most rewarding. I believe that the Bible contains the word/Word of God. I also believe that those that wrote it were inspired but I do not believe that an author being inspired makes that person infallible. The Bible is the account of man’s dealings with God, from the man’s point of view. I accept the canon as generally accepted through most of Christianity. Of the Apocrypha, I have no opinion - whether it be completely true or simply informative. While I think that the canon is correct, as far as it goes - it was, after all canonized by men, I would not be surprised if God had other thoughts about what belongs - for example Canticles. I also think that God has other truths that He, at various and sundry times, has revealed to man, but did not make it into the canon for one reason or another.
I do not think that the transmission (editing, redacting, copying, translating, etc) is necessarily perfect. I think there is ample scholarly understanding to demonstrate some of the difficulties in the process.
I take great offense when someone claims that I or that Mormons believe the Bible is hopelessly corrupt. That does not reflect my views. It may not be perfect in it’s present form but it contains the Word of God and teaches us the way to salvation.
Does that address your inquiry?
S
Snow
Guest
That would be incorrect. I started out with a post about the Trinity.
There’s that name calling you employ so very often. I posted an opinion - one that I can and did back up with facts and you simply name call. I challenged you to disprove a single thing about the Trinity that I posted and instead, like now, you only name call.
If I am mistaken about what I posted, above. it ought to be a very simple thing to disprove. Instead, name-calling. Stating facts does not make one boorish.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
You are not stating facts, your are stating the corruption that is Mormonism.
This corruption has been refuted over and over again. Believe it or not, you are not the first Momorn to arrive at CAF.
So yes, boorish.
A
adrift
Guest
Yes. Though it does leave questions. The poster didn’t entirely make it up. He used a wrong word but his point was the same. I believe you are to free with the word made it up.
To say that the Bible is hopelessly corrupt may not reflect your views but the quotes given does seem to support that view point.
To say that the Bible is hopelessly corrupt may not reflect your views but the quotes given does seem to support that view point.
Are these quotes inaccurate? Oh and put yourself in my place. Why shouldn’t I be offended by these versus that says my Church corrupted the Bible? Or is it another Church being called abominable?
S
Snow
Guest
True to form. You avoid the issue/question and name call.
This is what I said:
“The Trinity - the modern concept of the Trinity as decided upon by the Creeds and Councils of the 4th and 5th century is not found in the New Testament and can only be arrived at through philosophical reasoning or assumption. Indeed, the issue of homoousios cannot, to my knowledge even be inferred from anything in the NT and was, in fact, put into the creedal doctrine of the Trinity by a non-Christian at Nicea.”
You keep saying it is false but refuse to provide evidence for your counter assertion.
Why? Because you can’t so, like always, you’ll avoid the issue and name call.
A
adrift
Guest
Define what you mean by homoousios.
Who is the non-Christian you are referring to?
I have an idea what you are referring to but I don’t want to assume
S
Snow
Guest
I specified right up front, on my very first post what my concern with his claim was. He could have simply corrected his error. The point is that he had made it up and didn’t know what to correct because he just pulled it out of the air.
Saying “hopelessly corrupt” not only doesn’t reflect MY views, it doesn’t reflect Church views. The Bible, as is, in part of our official canon. We accept it as the word of God. It is the source or a source of our official Church doctrine. We study it (more than any other set of scriptures) be teach it. We cherish it.
The quote in question talks of plain and precious things being left out. That doesn’t make what’s left hopelessly corrupt. Don’t get me wrong - I already mentioned problems with transmission but I doubt you could find any doctrinal thing from the Bible that I disagree with. I may disagree with your interpretation but I don’
t disagree with the Bible. Or course, a scriptorian could probably trip me up but I hope you get the point.
You shouldn’t be offended because when you Church, you mean The RCC. We do not believe, at least those of us who are knowledgeable on the matter, do not believe that it refers to the RCC. Yes - I know that some have thought that but I believe that they are mistaken. The world is and was filled with lots of anti-Catholicism. Many Mormons were not immune from it.
Here’s a better understanding:
“Well,” said I, in answer, “I would not like to take that position, because it would leave me with a lot of churches on my hands that I might not then be able to classify.” So far as the Catholic church is concerned, I believe that there is just as much truth, nay, personally I believe it has retained even more truth than other divisions of so-called Christendom; and there is just as much virtue, and I am sure there is more strength in the Roman Catholic church than there is in Protestant Christendom.
I would not like, therefore, to designate the Catholic church as the church of the devil. Neither would I like to designate any one or all of the various divisions and subdivisions of Protestant Christendom combined as such church; nor the Greek Catholic church; nor the Buddhist sects; nor the followers of Confucius; nor the followers of Mohammed; nor would I like to designate even the societies formed by deists and atheists as constituting the church of the devil. The Book of Mormon text ought to be read in connection with its context – with the chapter that precedes it and the remaining portions of the chapter in which it is found – then, I think, those who study it in that manner will be forced to the conclusion that the Prophet here has in mind no particular church, no particular division of Christendom, but he has in mind, as just stated, the whole empire of Satan; and perhaps the thought of the passage would be more nearly expressed if we use the term “the kingdom of evil” as constituting the church of the devil. (B. H. Roberts, Conference Report, April 1906, p.14, 15)
More recently other LDS scholars have taken the same perspective on this issue. Among these we include Daniel Ludow (Ludlow, 123), Kent P. Jackson (Jackson, 21), Robert J. Matthews (Matthews, 29), Hugh Nibley, and others. The “great and abominable church,” Nibley once wrote, are “any who fight against Israel. It doesn’t p(name removed by moderator)oint any particular church here.” (Nibley [1986b], 4.)
S
Snow
Guest
It is a Greek word that means of the same essence - the same ontological substance.Define what you mean by homoousios.
Who is the non-Christian you are referring to?
I have an idea what you are referring to but I don’t want to assume
It was proposed at Nicea by the Emperor Constantine, who presided at the Council and who was either a pagan, a non-Christian or at least a non-baptized person depending on how you look at it. For that matter he was also a murderer.
A
adrift
Guest
Sadly he was indeed a murderer. His story I found fascinating especially his escape from death. He was eventually baptized. I am to tired to go into much more but I do find this concept in the Bible.
Goodnight
Blessings to you.
Edited by adrift Do you have evidence that Constantine proposed this?
S
Snow
Guest
Okay - good evening. It’s more pleasant to speak with you this way.
Yes - I have evidence:
During the deliberations, Constantine himself introduced or suggested (perhaps on the prompting of an advisor) the use of the term “homoousios” (of the same substance) to explain the relationship of the Son to the Father, even though the term had a dubious past, it’s use by the Sabellian bishops of Libya having been condemned in about 260AD as was it’s somewhat different use condemned by the Council of Antioch in 268 AD.
“When Eusebius initially objected to its (homoousios) endorsement, he did so because he was satisfied with a more traditional faith… But in Nicaea any hesitations were shouted down. The bishops took their cue from the emperor… When the decision had been taken he (Eusebius) wrote a long, nervous letter to the church of which he was a bishop. He assured it that the ‘most pious emperor’ has assured the council of the orthodoxy of Caesarea’s familiar creed but had explained convincingly why the new word was needed in addition. Confident that his theological opinions would be received with respect, dressed in purple and gold with scarlett boots, Constantine did not hesitate to hold forth although he was neither a theologian nor a baptized Christian.” David Edwards, Christianity, The First 2000 Years p. 96
“Our most pious emperor was the first to admit that they were probably correct… exhorting all present to give them their assent, and subscribe to them as they stood… with the insertion of the single word homoousios, and expression which the emperor himself explained did not related to corporeal parts or properties… However, our conception of such things can only be in divine and mysterious terms - such was the philosophical view of the subject taken by our most wise and pious ruler. ( Socrates Scholasticus H.E. 1. 9; Gelasius of Cyzica, H.E. w, 37)
I try not to assert anything as fact if I cannot in some way substantiate it,
A
alanjeddy
Guest
I just want to take a moment to say I am sorry for failing to show Christian charity to Snow and any other mormon that I might have offended. May God always gude you, love you and protect you.
Alan
Alan
R
rinnie
Guest
Again this is what you quoted me, Is it not your post. Please don’t tell me I do not quote you from a protestant bible and a Catholic bible. The front of the bible say’s Protestant edition. That is the exact words.
And what I quoted you was EXACT scripture. So please don’t turn my words around.
Now here is a fact. You claim that you go by the words of Jesus Christ do you not. hebrews 4 3:9 where your ancestors tested and tried me and saw my works for forty years. because of this I was provoked with that generation and I said they have always been of erring heart and do not know my ways. As I swore in my wrath They shall not enter into my rest. unquote
If you go by the words of Jesus Christ as you claim you go under the new covenant, it the old would have been perfect there would have been no need for a second.
Now if you go by the words of Jesus Christ, you will not commit adultery. According to the new law and new covenant if a women or man is married and is with another man or women while married that is adultery. I do not go by the Old Covenant or old law I go by the new. Since the time of Jesus that has been in effect. So you can go back to the OT all want. But do you or do you not claim that you go by the NT. Then if you do and go by the word of Jesus Christ you live in this world and got this this law. It cannot be disputed. Jesus made a new covenant and we must obey it. The old Covenant is not what Jesus Christ told us to go by. hebrews 9 11-28
R
ronald_g_w
Guest
I have ONE. In which direction is the celestial kingdom. ?
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Hate to break it to you, but you are the one who chooses to not address what I say, but how I say it.
Book of Abraham?
Kinderhook Plates?
A couple of proofs of the evidence of the bs of mormonism for you.
It is obvious that you are here for one reason. To attack the Catholic Church. And you think that if you do it by providing endless quotes from a Word doc you’ve prepared beforehand, that it makes it some sort of scholarly discussion.
I don’t go with your game, as it is bs. You want to USE CATHOLICS in your endeavor to attack the Catholic Church. So you can keep on attacking me for not pretending like you aren’t what you are. A poisonous snake in the grass. I don’t sit down and have discussions with poisonous rot. I go for lobbing its head off.
Yes, that was calling you a name. Are you going to address that alone, as you keep doing? You keep diverting off of what I am saying, to how I say it. An indication to me that you know I’ve got your number.
- Status