Reading through Luke with my Mormon Friends

[rIz0]

That’s a riot. Which “plain and precious truths“ have been left out? Substantiate that claim please. We have manuscripts from 30 years after the last book was written. No plain and precious truths are missing.

 

[gazelam]

That’s a riot. Which “plain and precious truths“ have been left out? Substantiate that claim please.

We don’t know because they’ve been… left out.

We have manuscripts from 30 years after the last book was written. No plain and precious truths are missing.

Which manuscripts are you referring to? Obviously, matters such as these need to be taken on faith. Some religious truths simply cannot be proven empirically.

 

[rIz0]

The John Rylands Papyri. We also have the Dead Sea scrolls and close to 30,000 manuscripts all of which corroborate with the translations we have today to a remarkable degree. Your assumption is baseless.

Yes, some truths cannot be know empirically but ones that claim there are plain and precious truths that have been left out are in fact verifiable via empirical methods. There ought to be some evidence of plain and precious truths missing if that were that case. And there isn’t. So again care to substantiate that claim… or is it something you just believe? In which case you ought to have to good reason for doing so. So could you explain that reasoning?

We have absolutely no reason to believe plain and precious truths have been left out. There is no evidence that suggests this is the case. No critical exegesis of the text suggest this is the case. Therefore the onus of proof is on you and isn’t a matter of faith.

 

[gazelam]

The John Rylands Papyri.

The John Rylands Papyri aka “P52” is the size of roughly a credit card. Everything is missing from that fragment except for three verses! And where is Paul’s epistle to the Laodiceans? (See Col. 4:16)

 

[rIz0]

Haha I was hoping you’d remark on its size. Do we really want to be inquiring about the existent fragments of a papyri rofl. Maybe that’s not such a good strategy for a Mormon.

The ancient manuscripts we have all corroborate with modern translations. Again, care to substantiate your claim.

What about Paul’s letter? That the fact that it may be missing substantiates you’re claim…puh-lease. If that’s the only evidence you can offer I’m afraid you’re losing credibility by the sentence. Also, absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence…right? Too easy. How’s that house of cards treating you?

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

But the King James Version is not the earliest version of the bible. In fact it is missing 7 books. The very first iteration of the canon of the Bible was first decided at the Council of Rome in 382 AD. It is the Catholic bible (77 books as opposed to the King James’ 66 books). So why wouldn’t the Mormon Church use that iteration of the bible?

In fact, the very first protestant bible had 77 books in it as well. It was called the “Bear Bible,” and it wasn’t until later that those 7 books were taken out.

Wouldn’t Joseph Smith known this if he was telling the truth?

 

[gazelam]

But the King James Version is not the earliest version of the bible. In fact it is missing 7 books. The very first iteration of the canon of the Bible was first decided at the Council of Rome in 382 AD. It is the Catholic bible (77 books as opposed to the King James’ 66 books). So why wouldn’t the Mormon Church use that iteration of the bible?

In fact, the very first protestant bible had 77 books in it as well. It was called the “Bear Bible,” and it wasn’t until later that those 7 books were taken out.

Wouldn’t Joseph Smith known this if he was telling the truth?

If the missing books you’re referring to are the Apocrypha, Joseph Smith inquired of the Lord on the matter and received this response:

D&C 91
Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;

2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.

3 Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be translated.

4 Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth;

5 And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom;

6 And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. Therefore it is not needful that it should be translated. Amen.

 

[rIz0]

Which things contained therein are translated incorrectly? Any examples?

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

Don’t you think that’s a little convenient? Since the Deuterocanonicals (“apochrypha”) would point to the fact that the Catholic Church had it right this whole time?

With the teachings on purgatory, etc.

 

[Apache78]

@gazelem You cannot try and quote what your prophets or leaders say from the book of Mormon. They have no standing and are not scripture. Smith took from the Bible and put it in the book of Mormon. How does a corrupt bible end up being in your book of Mormon?

 

[gazelam]

The very first iteration of the canon of the Bible was first decided at the Council of Rome in 382 AD. It is the Catholic bible (77 books as opposed to the King James’ 66 books). So why wouldn’t the Mormon Church use that iteration of the bible?

In fact, the very first protestant bible had 77 books in it as well. It was called the “Bear Bible,” and it wasn’t until later that those 7 books were taken out.

Wouldn’t Joseph Smith known this if he was telling the truth?

The problem with this assertion about the 328 council is that it is a council of bishops, not apostles. Only apostles have authority from Christ to direct the affairs of the entire Church. Bishops are meant to make local decisions. We believe that Joseph Smith was ordained to the apostleship and therefore was authorized to make such decisions.

Which things contained therein are translated incorrectly? Any examples?

I have no clue. I think it’s safe to say I’ll probably never dive deep into the Apochrypha/Deuterocanicals in my lifetime.

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

Gazelam,

When Judas died, the apostles appointed Matthias who then became an apostle. Similar to Paul. So it is pretty well known that Jesus himself didn’t need to appear in person and appoint someone an apostle…the apostles could appoint others to replace them. That being said, there is a succession, because when an apostle dies he is replaced and it seems that there didn’t just have to be 12. The reason we distinguish the apostles is so we know who were the very first. Yet, there were people who replaced them in their office and continued the traditions all the way to the council of Rome in 382 AD and beyond. This is what the Catholic Church calls Apostolic succession. Bishops ARE the ones who replace the Apostles.

So in my opinion you put yourself in a difficult position:

1. if the church became corrupt after the last apostles died then that was WAY before the bible was even written, so using the bible would be corrupt. In this case why use the bible at all?
2. If you need to be appointed by the Apostles or their successors…then who was Joseph Smith appointed by?
3. Jesus established His Church and specifically said, “the gates of Hell will not prevail against it” so saying there was a great apostasy or that the Church was lost for several hundred years either makes Jesus a Liar OR makes those who say otherwise false prophets, which Jesus specifically warned about.

I’m going to trust Jesus the God Man on this one, not an ordinary man.

 

[rIz0]

Got it. In other words you’ll only use FAIRS search bar and read literature that corroborates with your narrative. Good ole’ testimony. Which by the way I’m still curious about: How exactly did the Holy Spirit confirm in you that Joseph’s message was truth?

 

[RebeccaJ]

This is a false analogy. My word is not a person distinct from me, but solely an expression of my thoughts.

Hello g, you’ve actually touched on theology regarding the word “logos”, which is the word in the original Greek that is translated to “Word”. Logos indicates much more than “word”, going into the concept that Jesus is the expression of God’s thoughts. Logos indicating thoughts, reason, judgement…so you’re on the right path here.

You must remember that you are not God. So God expressing his Logos, in a Person, is unique to God. We can use our human experiences and understanding to seek to understand what God has revealed about himself, but we are not God, and truly cannot understand God.

On a related topic, how do you reconcile Matthew 3: 16, 17 with John 1:1?

After Jesus was baptized, he came up from the water and behold, the heavens were opened [for him], and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove [and] coming upon him. And a voice came from the heavens, saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."

Here you have Jesus “the Word” being baptized, and God the Father literally speaking words of divine approval. Here we have the Father’s word of approval, which is clearly separate and distinct from Jesus (the Word).

This goes back to related questions you’ve had about the Trinity, where the answer is that Jesus is fully human and fully divine. He is our mediator, and has His relationship with us and His relationship with Father and Holy Spirit. So at His baptism, what the Word has to say to us, is His baptism. What does Jesus’ baptism say to you? (You don’t have to answer that, but just a good thing to think on.)

The Persons of the Trinity are in a relationship with each other, so at times the Father is speaking to us, and about us,and our salvation. At other times, the Father is speaking about the relationship with the Person(s) of the Holy Trinity. This is one example where God reveals to us the relationship within the Trinity.

So this is a very unique occasion, where God is revealing at one point in human history, the Word in His baptism (speaks about our Salvation) and Jesus in His relationship to the Holy Trinity (this human being baptized is the Son of God). What an amazing point in human history.

 

[CourtingTex]

What you are speaking is not myself relative to how I have read the scriptures in general, including the Book of Luke.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

“Sons of God” was technically a term for angels in early Old Testament… so that does not actually show much.

KJV included translation errors which Joseph Smith also included in his translation, so KJV is basically only used because that was what Joseph Smith used for translations, and that seems to be primary reason from objective perspective.

What I have also learned is that there is a passage in Book of Mormon indicating that there were bees in America before Spanish came… but that is not true. What is your position on this? Was Joseph Smith simply describing what he saw by english word “bee” for lack of a better word or not?

I believe that proselytizing is forbidden, but this is a debate forum and debating is allowed.

I am very glad you are debating with us. I don’t think what you are doing is wrong whatsoever. Debates bring consensus, consensus brings us closer to Truth and God did say “I am Truth”.

 

[gazelam]

Gazelam,…

The reason we distinguish the apostles is so we know who were the very first.

Do you have a reference? I don’t recall hearing that the label of apostle was given for this reason.

Yet, there were people who replaced them in their office and continued the traditions all the way to the council of Rome in 382 AD and beyond. This is what the Catholic Church calls Apostolic succession. Bishops ARE the ones who replace the Apostles.

So in my opinion you put yourself in a difficult position:

Perhaps it is you who are in a difficult position. The term “succession” means the “process of inheriting a title, office, property, etc.” In the case of Catholics, they claim that an apostle is succeeded by a bishop. Those two offices are distinct.

Here’s what Frances A. Sullivan, SJ, said on this matter:

" No doubt proving that bishops were the successors of the apostles by divine institution would be easier if the New Testament clearly stated that before they died the apostles had appointed a single bishop to lead each of the churches they had founded. Likewise, it would have been very helpful had Clement, in writing to the Corinthians, said that the apostles had put one bishop in charge of each church and had arranged for a regular succession in that office. We would also be grateful to Ignatius of Antioch if he had spoken of himself not only as bishop, but as a successor to the apostles, and had explained how he understood that succession. Unfortunately, the documents available to us do not provide such help. " (Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, pg 223)

I would also point put that the 3rd Bishop of Antioch Ignatius said he was not the equivalent of an Apostle.

I do not ordained these things as an apostle: for who am I or what is my fathers house that I should pretend to be equal in honor to them? But as your ‘fellow soldier’, I hold the position of one who [simply] admonishes you. (Ignatius, Epistle to the Philadelphians, in Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1:81; brackets in original)

 

[gazelam]

1. if the church became corrupt after the last apostles died then that was WAY before the bible was even written, so using the bible would be corrupt. In this case why use the bible at all?

The NewTestament was mostly written by Apostles (except for Luke) and was written while the Apostles were alive. It was compiled later.

1. If you need to be appointed by the Apostles or their successors…then who was Joseph Smith appointed by?

Jesus Christ - who sent Heavenly Messengers, including Peter, James, John, Moses, Elias, and Elijah to confer Priesthood authority and keys to Joseph Smith

1. Jesus established His Church and specifically said, “the gates of Hell will not prevail against it” so saying there was a great apostasy or that the Church was lost for several hundred years either makes Jesus a Liar OR makes those who say otherwise false prophets, which Jesus specifically warned about.

Gates are barriers that prevent an outsider from entering. Hell lost its battle when Christ preached to the wicked dead. The gates of Hell were breached long ago. See 1 Peter 3:19, 20:

In it he [Christ] also went to preach to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark…

I’m going to trust Jesus the God Man on this one, not an ordinary man.

I’ll trust in Jesus by receiving the Prophet He call in these Latter-days. John 13:20 Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.

Got it. In other words you’ll only use FAIRS search bar and read literature that corroborates with your narrative.

You have no clue what I read.

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

If we are going to take random church fathers and cite what they say here is another:

Pope Clement I:

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” ( Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

I’d say that’s pretty early to understand that bishops were being appointed and succeeding the Apostles. I have a lot more than that if you’d like. Also, taking the writings of a Modern theologian, who is writing about a single specific church father who wasn’t that clear on Apostolic Succession is far from “proof” that Apostolic Succession didn’t exist.

The NewTestament was mostly written by Apostles (except for Luke) and was written while the Apostles were alive. It was compiled later.

So who decided that the writings were inspired scripture? (Council of Rome in 382 AD by a bunch of Bishops, who were successors to the Apostles)

Jesus Christ - who sent Heavenly Messengers, including Peter, James, John, Moses, Elias, and Elijah to confer Priesthood authority and keys to Joseph Smith

Tell me, who else can “verify” this claim beside the account of Joseph Smith himself…pretty convenient

Gates are barriers that prevent an outsider from entering. Hell lost its battle when Christ preached to the wicked dead. The gates of Hell were breached long ago. See 1 Peter 3:19, 20:

According to your claim, it would appear that the Gates of Hell effectively stopped the spread of Christ’s church for a 1000+ years…

I’ll trust in Jesus by receiving the Prophet He call in these Latter-days.

Again…according to who? Joseph Smith…and who else?

 

[rIz0]

Your constant appeal to testimony and lack of scope concerning the scholarship and sources you cite is evidence enough to support the claim. Also, you quite frequently carbon copy answers from FAIR.

Example:

You frequently refer to Origen when evidencing the claim that The Father is embodied. When it has been demonstrably settled by HONEST scholarship that he held to the incorporeality of The Father.

So either incorporate accepted fact into your lexicon of thinking and continue to learn in pursuit of what is truth. Which deep sigh would mean you’d have to stop using the same tired body of works that have been intelligently refuted.

-or-

Tow the line and live in ignorance.

Also, would still love to know what that conversation between you and The Holy Spirit was like… why can I never get you to remark on what true confirmation from the spirit looks like?