The other sheep...

[cyejbv]

Also and just for the record: Pellegrino identifies himself as an agnostic… he writes that “no good scientist can be an atheist, for in science we must question everything, even our own questions.”
I tell you this lest you think I’m foisting a a Catholic propagandist upon you!

 

[flyonthewall]

But Fly, faith by it’s nature isn’t always about proof, as you know. Also you say Jesus words are proof enough, yet the Mormon church discounts many of Jesus’ words, teaching that they believe the Bible insofar as it’s correctly translated, right? Mark 12:25 being a well known example of Jesus’ words discounted by the Mormons.

The whole point of my statement was that faith isn’t about proof. While our critics demand we prove anything and everything, there are things in the bible that there is just no proof of, and we rely on faith to accept it as truth.

We do not discount Mark 12:25, we believe it. That is why it is important to marry in this life if the opportunity arises.

I don’t mention this to create contention, but I challenge you to consider: what IF… the other sheep were Gentiles? Ask yourself questions, from Apostolic Succession to archaelogy, you may find more “proof” than you are aware exists. I don’t suggest these things to try and deceive or trick you, I know that the Mormon church warns about people like me leading people like you astray. But what IF the fact that there isn’t a shred of proof of a civilization like the one mentioned in the BOM leads you to truth?
As per your quote above I pray you consider information that perhaps you never have.I am reading a book right now that, though I think it would fall under the category of natural science more than religion, says this in its introduction:

“Return to Sodom and Gomorrah” by Charles Pellegrino

“I know of a sea whose waters stood up like a wall–stood up, in places, higher than the Pyramids…The stories of Exodus and Joshua, some will argue, are strictly “fairy tales”. But geology and archaelogy have begun to teach us that several major OT events that seem utterly fantastical today-among them the parting of the Egyptian waters… have some very real kernels of truth. The rocks and the ruins tell us so.”

Faith never fears reason, but God isn’t an author of confusion either. He left us with tangible foundations for our faith. Voltaire had it wrong about why fossils were in rocks. It wasn’t to “tempt the fidelity of geologists” but to take care of us: My young son’s thesis is that He knew we would need oil!

God Bless You.
I mean that.
Pax!

You need not present evidence for the reality of the Exodus, as I already believe it to be a real event.

As for civilizations in the Americas that are like those described in the BoM, there is evidence enough. Nothing that will prove definitively, but more than that of the Exodus.

My faith does not fear reason, as my faith is reasonable, logical and sound in the light of truth.

 

[cyejbv]

The whole point of my statement was that faith isn’t about proof… there are things in the bible that there is just no proof of, and we rely on faith to accept it as truth.

Fly,
Originally, you asked who we say are the other sheep. At this juncture, it sounds like you seek proof that the other sheep are in fact the Gentiles. Contextually and historically it makes sense, but beyond that, about ‘proof’, why do you say Jesus performed miracles? We believe that part of it was His desire to reveal His divine power.

Recall that Thomas wanted proof, and we know how Jesus responded. Yes- faith is evidence of things not seen, but the historicity, the ‘proofs’, of the Church will blow your mind.

Also, I know YOU believe in Exodus, but can you get me to believe, if I’m a pagan? (You call sharing your faith Gathering Israel, we call it Embracing Our Cross. Just kidding! …that was a little joke)

The challenge for your obviously serious attempts to have your question answered is that on a thread like this, you have opinions and opining from laity like myself. and bad jokes. You have a VERY good question, one that I would recommend you settle with yourself; use the Catechism, the writings of the Fathers of the Church, look through some of the very good blogs and websites from people like Madrid and Akin as well. I understand that you as a member of the LDS church would not hold them to necessarily be authoritative, but you may better understand why Catholics believe in contrast to what Mormons believe. And set us straight, you might be thinking!

I have read the BOM and have (had, I lost it in moving) a book by Hugh Nibley, some others by Paul Dunn (sp?) and a copy of the JS Translation of the Bible.

Reading some of these taught me about LDS history and doctrines; I don’t know for sure if what I suggest will help you? But I do know for sure that the Enemy loves it when we hate each other, so I leave you in Christ’s peace and love.

God Bless You!

 

[PJM]

=flyonthewall;7819200]The whole point of my statement was that faith isn’t about proof. While our critics demand we prove anything and everything, there are things in the bible that there is just no proof of, and we rely on faith to accept it as truth.

We do not discount Mark 12:25, we believe it. That is why it is important to marry in this life if the opportunity arises.

You need not present evidence for the reality of the Exodus, as I already believe it to be a real event.

As for civilizations in the Americas that are like those described in the BoM, there is evidence enough. Nothing that will prove definitively, but more than that of the Exodus.

My faith does not fear reason, as my faith is reasonable, logical and sound in the light of truth.

IF THIS FORUM HAS TAUGHT ONE LESSON IT IS THAT EVEN PROOF IS INSUFFICIENT TO THE UNDISPOSED TO ACCEPT TRUTH.

THE NT HAS 100 REFERENCES TO ONLY ONE CHURCH; ONE FAITH [SET OF BELIEFS] ON ONE NEW COVENANT IN CHRIST BLODD RADIFIED DAILY IN CATHOLIC EUCHARIST… AND HOW MANY christian faiths exist today

SEE WHAT I MEAN?

God bless,
Pat

 

[flyonthewall]

Fly,
Originally, you asked who we say are the other sheep. At this juncture, it sounds like you seek proof that the other sheep are in fact the Gentiles. Contextually and historically it makes sense, but beyond that, about ‘proof’, why do you say Jesus performed miracles? We believe that part of it was His desire to reveal His divine power.

Recall that Thomas wanted proof, and we know how Jesus responded. Yes- faith is evidence of things not seen, but the historicity, the ‘proofs’, of the Church will blow your mind.

Also, I know YOU believe in Exodus, but can you get me to believe, if I’m a pagan? (You call sharing your faith Gathering Israel, we call it Embracing Our Cross. Just kidding! …that was a little joke)

The challenge for your obviously serious attempts to have your question answered is that on a thread like this, you have opinions and opining from laity like myself. and bad jokes. You have a VERY good question, one that I would recommend you settle with yourself; use the Catechism, the writings of the Fathers of the Church, look through some of the very good blogs and websites from people like Madrid and Akin as well. I understand that you as a member of the LDS church would not hold them to necessarily be authoritative, but you may better understand why Catholics believe in contrast to what Mormons believe. And set us straight, you might be thinking!

I have read the BOM and have (had, I lost it in moving) a book by Hugh Nibley, some others by Paul Dunn (sp?) and a copy of the JS Translation of the Bible.

Reading some of these taught me about LDS history and doctrines; I don’t know for sure if what I suggest will help you? But I do know for sure that the Enemy loves it when we hate each other, so I leave you in Christ’s peace and love.

God Bless You!

Actually, my question has already been answered. Most people believe the other sheep are simply non-believers, or gentiles. I really was not trying to argue or ask for proof.
I accept that is what others believe.
As part of the thread I put forth my belief, as it is different than the majority. My beliefs were questioned so I attempted to clarify or explain the whys or wherefores. Sometimes I can come across differently than I intend.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Actually, my question has already been answered. Most people believe the other sheep are simply non-believers, or gentiles. I really was not trying to argue or ask for proof.
I accept that is what others believe.
As part of the thread I put forth my belief, as it is different than the majority. My beliefs were questioned so I attempted to clarify or explain the whys or wherefores. Sometimes I can come across differently than I intend.

Morning flyonthe wall

With all the scriptures given to you regarding the Gentiles and Salvation can you see how we as Catholics have come to the conclusion that salvation is for all who turn to Christ? That this was His message to mankind as a whole? Very Bibliocal?
Not to mention common sense.

That there is no select group? Only sinners like us in transition.

That because Christ is His Church that there is no other way to come to Him but through Him? In Him? For Him?

The way you tell a counterfeit is not by holding in your hands the fake. It is by holding the real thing in your hands. Once you do this then you can tell what is fake and what is not.

It is good that you are here.

In Christ’s love
Rich

 

[flyonthewall]

Morning flyonthe wall

With all the scriptures given to you regarding the Gentiles and Salvation can you see how we as Catholics have come to the conclusion that salvation is for all who turn to Christ? That this was His message to mankind as a whole? Very Bibliocal?
Not to mention common sense.
That there is no select group? Only sinners like us in transition.

If you think I have been saying that salvation only comes to the Jews, then I have not been clear.
Jesus’ MINISTRY was to the House of Israel only. His GOSPEL is for the whole world, Jew and Gentile alike. I hoped to make that clear when I stated that He sent the Apostles out to the whole world.

That because Christ is His Church that there is no other way to come to Him but through Him? In Him? For Him?
The way you tell a counterfeit is not by holding in your hands the fake. It is by holding the real thing in your hands. Once you do this then you can tell what is fake and what is not.

I agree with what you say here, though maybe not exactly as you intended.

It is good that you are here.

Thank you.

 

[campeador]

Just as easy as providing proof of the Exodus.
The words of Jesus Christ are proof enough for me.

But you see, there is actual proof of The Exodus. A google search and 1.2 seconds later…

bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

 

[flyonthewall]

But you see, there is actual proof of The Exodus. A google search and 1.2 seconds later…

bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

So there is no direct proof. Nothing from the time period that specifically identifies Moses, or the HUGE exodus of the Israelites. You accept this as proof because you are already predisposed to believe it.
The same type of evidence exists for the BoM peoples too.

 

[campeador]

So there is no direct proof. Nothing from the time period that specifically identifies Moses, or the HUGE exodus of the Israelites. You accept this as proof because you are already predisposed to believe it.
The same type of evidence exists for the BoM peoples too.

Did you read the link I provided? Here is just a small example:

Ramses II came to power in about 1279 BC And reigned for 67 years. A stele from his 9th year was discovered at Beth-shean that mentions the Shasu and the city of Per-Ra-messu which is the same name in Exodus 1:11 (Rowe 1929, 94-98). In the Nubian city of Amara-West the remains of a temple of Ramses was uncovered. A list of 104 Asiatic names were discovered which names places in the Negeb, Edom, the city of Dor, and some think Jericho (Horn 1953, 201-3). One interesting name that was found is yhw which is “Yahweh” in Hebrew (Horn 1953, 201; Giveon 1964, 244).

I’d love to see this type of independent corroboration of the BoM peoples.

 

[PJM]

=flyonthewall;7836421]So there is no direct proof. Nothing from the time period that specifically identifies Moses, or the HUGE exodus of the Israelites. You accept this as proof because you are already predisposed to believe it.
The same type of evidence exists for the BoM peoples too.

My friend: Back in the day’s of Moses about 4,000 years ago History was passed on by word of mouth. This history was then recorded OVER 2,000 years ago. Why would they lie?

God Bless,
Pat

 

[cyejbv]

Fly, there is absolutely no proof or evidence. That is a dishonest position, or one borne of lack of information. FARMS the BYU group, traveled to the Smithsonian Institute in protest of the letter sent by the Smithsonian to those who inquired.
Prior to 1998, the letter sent denied any evidence for pre-Columbian contact between Old and New Worlds: "Certainly there was no contact with the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews or other peoples of Western Asia or the Near East."

After FARMS pressure and lobbying, In 1998, the Smithsonian began issuing a shorter letter without the detailed response found in the first letter, and limited its comment to briefly deny any use of the Book of Mormon as an archaeological guide by the institution.
Smithsonian Institution Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon Some Latter-day Saints, in their zeal to give tangible authenticity to the Book of Mormon, have told prospective converts that the Smithsonian Institution has used the Book of Mormon to verify sites in the New World. In response to numerous requests on this subject, the Smithsonian has issued the following paper detailing their position on the matter.

Information from the National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560

Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon

1. The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archaeologists see no direct connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.
2. The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central, and northeastern Asia. Archaeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians came into the New World – probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Bering Strait region during the last Ice Age – in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.
3. Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America around A.D. 1000 and then settled in Greenland. There is nothing to show that they reached Mexico or Central America.
4. One of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific finding that contacts with Old World civilizations, if indeed they occurred at all, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations, is the fact that none of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre-Columbian times. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, but all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time the early big game (sic) hunters spread across the Americas.)
5. Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteoric iron). Native copper was worked used (sic) in various locations in pre-Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.
6. There is a possibility that the spread of cultural traits across the Pacific to Mesoamerica and the northwestern coast of South America began several hundred years before the Christian era. However, any such inter-hemispheric contacts appear to have been the results of accidental voyages originating in eastern and southern Asia. It is by means certain that even such contacts occurred; certainly there were no contacts with the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, or other peoples of Western Asia and the Near East.
7. No reputable Egyptologist or other specialist on Old World archaeology, and no expert on New World prehistory, has discovered or confirmed any relationship between archaeological remains in Mexico and archaeological remains in Egypt.
8. Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines, and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland.

Perhaps some independent research such as this will help you discover more about the Gentiles as well.
Pax!

 

[flyonthewall]

Did you read the link I provided? Here is just a small example:

Ramses II came to power in about 1279 BC And reigned for 67 years. A stele from his 9th year was discovered at Beth-shean that mentions the Shasu and the city of Per-Ra-messu which is the same name in Exodus 1:11 (Rowe 1929, 94-98). In the Nubian city of Amara-West the remains of a temple of Ramses was uncovered. A list of 104 Asiatic names were discovered which names places in the Negeb, Edom, the city of Dor, and some think Jericho (Horn 1953, 201-3). One interesting name that was found is yhw which is “Yahweh” in Hebrew (Horn 1953, 201; Giveon 1964, 244).

I’d love to see this type of independent corroboration of the BoM peoples.

I did read the link you provided. Even the paragraph you cite above does not prove anythine other than a word that could be “Yahweh” was mentioned in Egypt…but does not place the Israelites in Egypt nor does it support the story of the Exodus.

Again, the only things that the link provides are evidences that only those that are pre-disposed to believe it, would accept it as proof.

The same thing exists with the cutlures in the Americas. Evidences exist, that only those that are pre-disposed to believe it, would accept. We do not rely on scientific evidences for matters of faith.
We believe that true science and true religion go hand in hand, and sometimes true science has to catch up with true religion.