It is currently Thu Apr 24, 2014 3:18 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 235 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 12  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Why Do LDS Dismiss the Greater Part of the New Testament
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:22 am 
God

Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 2:43 pm
Posts: 1390
Moksha, my immediate response is...huh? What has any of that got to do with the shady character of Joseph Smith. To my knowledge, Trump hasn't been convicted in a court of law for "glass looking" and makes no claim to prophetic ability.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why Do LDS Dismiss the Greater Part of the New Testament
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:25 am 
God

Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 2:43 pm
Posts: 1390
gdemetz, I think you need to get out more. There is the vast Christian world which agrees pretty much on the essentials of the Gospels and then there is the tiny sect that is Mormonism....less than one percent of the world's population.....a tiny hair on the tail of the dog, and you see it as wagging the dog. I don't think so.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why Do LDS Dismiss the Greater Part of the New Testament
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:31 am 
God

Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 2:43 pm
Posts: 1390
Franktalk, I suppose when you start with a premise divorced from scripture there is a natural inclination to want to interpret everything as supporting that premise. I don't know your commitment to Mormonism but Mormons do it all the time. Once their "missionaries" convince a contact of the false validity of Joseph Smith its pretty easy to slowly feed them all the Bible verses that appear to or can be twisted to support his fraud.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why Do LDS Dismiss the Greater Part of the New Testament
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 10:39 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:28 pm
Posts: 1345
Location: AZ
Albion wrote:
Franktalk, I suppose when you start with a premise divorced from scripture there is a natural inclination to want to interpret everything as supporting that premise. I don't know your commitment to Mormonism but Mormons do it all the time. Once their "missionaries" convince a contact of the false validity of Joseph Smith its pretty easy to slowly feed them all the Bible verses that appear to or can be twisted to support his fraud.


Really Albion, you disagree but just what is the "correct' view of the scripture? Can you tell me? Or should I use the Catholic method where they just call the Apostles liars.

When church leaders interpret scripture for the members they cast their own views of scripture as correct and all others as error. If they are guided by the Spirit of God this should not be a problem. But how are we to know if another is actually telling us the truth as God wants it told to us? The easy way is to have the witness of the Holy Spirit and just pray for the witness to truth.

I will now show a few examples of scriptural interpretation from the Roman Catholic Church. To start with I will quote some material from the Catholic Encyclopedia Volume 1 pages 597 and another on page 599. This section deals with the book of Revelation known as Apocalypse to the Catholics.

…..From this cursory perusal of the book, it is evident that the seer was influenced by the prophecies of Daniel more than by any other book. Daniel was written with the object of comforting the Jews under the cruel persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes. The seer in the Apocalypse had a similar purpose. The Christians were fiercely persecuted in the reign of Domitian. The danger of apostasy was great. False prophets went about, trying to seduce the people to conform to the heathen practices and to take part in the Caesar-worship. The seer urges his Christians to remain true to their faith and to bear their troubles with fortitude. He encourages them with the promise of an ample and speedy reward. He assures them that Christ’s triumphant coming is at hand. Both in the beginning and at the end of the book the seer is most emphatic in telling his people that the hour of victory is nigh. He begins saying: “Blessed is he that…….keepeth those things which are written in it; for the time is at hand.” He closes his vision with the pathetic words: “He that giveth testimony of these things saith, surely I come quickly: Amen. Come Lord Jesus.” ………It would appear, and is so held by many, that the Christians of the Apostolic age expected that Christ would return during their own lifetime or generation. This seems to be the more obvious meaning of several passages both in Epistles and Gospels. The Christians of Asia Minor, and the seer with them, appear to have shared this fallacious expectation. Their mistaken hope, however, did not effect the soundness of their belief in the essential part of the dogma. Their views of a millennial period of corporal happiness were equally erroneous. The Church has wholly cast aside the doctrine of a millennium previous to the resurretion. St. Augustine has perhaps more than any one else helped to free the Church from all crude Fancies as regards its pleasures. He explained the millennium allegorically and applied it to the Church of Christ on earth. With the foundation of the Church the millennium began. The first resurrection is the spiritual resurrection of the soul from sin. Thus the number 1000 is to be taken indefinitely.

I want to point out a few things. First of all they say that John wrote about the coming of Christ as very near (in time) and in this they declare him “fallacious”. They also declare “The church has wholly cast aside the doctrine of a millennium previous to the resurrection.” So they have redefined the millennium as meaning something completely different than John was told in his vision. In this they completely ignore the warning at the end of the book.

Rev 22
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.


And on page 599 of the Catholic encyclopedia we find this:

…….To this objection, however, it may be answered that it was the custom of apocalyptic writers, e.g. of Daniel, Enoch, and the Sibylline books, to cast their visions into the form of prophecies of an earlier date. No literary fraud was thereby intended, it was merely a peculiar style of writing adopted as suiting their subject. The seer of the Apocalypse follows this practice.

Here they are saying that Daniel was written by someone else around 160 BC at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and it was not prophecy but a history of events that had already taken place. Daniel lived around 600 BC and wrote his book around 550 BC. But the big problem comes from scripture.

Mar 13:14
But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judea flee to the mountains:


These are words spoken by Jesus. Here Jesus declares that Daniel wrote the book of Daniel and that Daniel was a prophet. I don’t see how the Catholic Church can reconcile this conflict that their interpretation causes.
They also say that John followed the practice of writing after events had taken place yet John says:

Rev 1:3
Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.


I have a hard time believeing that John wrote a book saying it is a prophecy when in fact it was not. I am a futurist so I believe the events described in the book of Revelation have yet to take place. In my view John is telling the truth.

So please tell me what you think about the book of Daniel and the Revelation? Did the Catholic church have it right that both books are not prophecy? Was John a liar? Was the book of Daniel written by someone besides Daniel? Did Christ not know what He was talking about? You sitting back and disagreeing means nothing to me. Let me know what you think is correct. Or is your job just to disagree and offer no truth?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why Do LDS Dismiss the Greater Part of the New Testament
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:18 pm 
God

Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 2:43 pm
Posts: 1390
You have posted a lengthy post on the Book of Daniel and the Catholic Church that has, in my view, no direct bearing on my post at all. The first big gulp of Mormonism, and the one Mormon "missionaries" emphasize the heaviest, is that somehow the events cataloged over thousands of years in the OT and which were all designed to point to the coming of God's son, his life and atonement and the offer of free salvation through grace, all came to naught because it all collapsed a short time later. It paints a sad picture of a pathetic God who took all this trouble over such a long period of time but by Mormon standards was powerless to keep everything he had planned and engineered form staying together. When you convince people of that, using a few out of context scriptures that talk of "falling away" and apostasy and extend them to fit your point, it's pretty easy to take the next step to introduce Joseph Smith as God's superman who saved the world from itself by restoring what you have convinced your mark was taken away.. By extension Smith, as he did, can then introduce any doctrine or practice he wishes. That, I think, is where Mormons are coming from. Oh, the word "celestial" is mentioned in scripture...that must mean a special high, or third heaven and obviously supports the doctrine that found germination in Smith's fertile brain. Two sticks mentioned in Ezekiel....obviously that's a prophesy about the Bible and the Book of Mormon.....a reference to baptism for the dead in Corinthians....got to be a correct practice because Smith has a "prophesy" about the practice. Smith ascended to the highest degree of masonry...oh, here's a prophesy about actual temple practice. If I didn't believe people's salvation was at stake, it would be laughable. That is my premise and no matter how much you may want to interpret the Book of Daniel or slam the Catholic Church your post has no bearing on my point.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why Do LDS Dismiss the Greater Part of the New Testament
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:29 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:28 pm
Posts: 1345
Location: AZ
Albion,

As I suspected you are an empty suit. If you can't bring your own beliefs to the table then you have none worth defending. I study scripture daily and can defend all of my beliefs in some way. Unless you contrast what you believe with what I believe we get nowhere. You are nothing more than a noisy negative opinion box on autopilot.

Unless you bring scripture and your interpretation to a post I will not respond to you. You are a waste of time.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why Do LDS Dismiss the Greater Part of the New Testament
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 6:21 pm 
God

Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 2:43 pm
Posts: 1390
I made a post, you responded with something completely off the wall and off topic and somehow object when I bring it back to topic. Your decision is fine by me. I have no interest in your tangents and less interest in a discussion on Catholicism.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why Do LDS Dismiss the Greater Part of the New Testament
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 3:27 am 
God

Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:59 am
Posts: 1681
An empty suit is putting it mildly! Albion, if you can't see from the Bible, and in particular from the NT, that there was a great apostasy which required a restoration, then you are indeed very ignorant! I will just give you a few quotes right off the top of my head!

"made war with the saints and overcame them"
" {the woman representing the church} was driven into the wilderness...for 1260 day" {prophetic days representing years}
" {for that time will not come - the coming of Christ until..} a great falling away"
"the times of the restitution of all things as spoken of by the mouths of all the holy prophets since the world began"

There are so many, Albion, wake up and ask yourself what were all the thing which needed to be restored! I think that you are in way over your head on this site!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why Do LDS Dismiss the Greater Part of the New Testament
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 6:48 am 
God

Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 2:43 pm
Posts: 1390
The brotherhood of the insult.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why Do LDS Dismiss the Greater Part of the New Testament
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 6:52 am 
God

Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 2:43 pm
Posts: 1390
gdemetz, your scattergun approach has little meaning. Merely quoting the use of words is not substance. "Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it," Jesus said. I'll take his words over your interpretations.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why Do LDS Dismiss the Greater Part of the New Testament
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 7:56 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:28 pm
Posts: 1345
Location: AZ
Albion wrote:
gdemetz, your scattergun approach has little meaning. Merely quoting the use of words is not substance. "Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it," Jesus said. I'll take his words over your interpretations.


Let us say that Peter represents the church. Then:

Mat 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offense unto me: for thou savorest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

So within a short period of time Peter (the church in your opinion) turned to Satan and accepted the things of man. In this Peter does represent the church. But the foundation of the church in truth is the spiritual communication that Peter received from the Father. That is solid and will not break like Peter did. Did you not read what Jesus said? He said the gates of hell will not prevail against it. So how can Peter then turn to Satan? And the whole of the RCC is based on this weak analysis of scripture. Yet the communication of the Father has never submitted to the gates of hell. Can't you see this or are you blind?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why Do LDS Dismiss the Greater Part of the New Testament
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:26 pm 
God

Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 2:43 pm
Posts: 1390
I am not quite sure exactly what you are driving at here but I do read your post as a reaffirmation of the Mormon position on these verses. Firstly, I do not see Peter as being singled out as "the church". For that matter I do not see Christ's church as an defined institutional entity the way Mormons do, preferring the original interpretation of the word which is "the body of believers" or "called out ones". Jesus' words in verses 17 through 19 follow on from Peter's declaration in response to Jesus' question about who Peter believed him to be. Peter clearly responds, "You are the Christ (the Messiah) the Son of the Living God." Jesus acknowledges that Peter knows this only from a spiritual source and not from any earthly source. Jesus then proceeds with a statement that has various interpretations: "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades (hell) will not will not overcome it." I am quoting from the NIV, perhaps the most scholarly modern translation of the Bible. I personally prefer the KJV use of the word prevail since gates are a defensive element rather than an attacking element and the original intent of the verse, I believe, is that the gates of hell will not be victorious in holding off the assault of Christ's church WHICH WILL prevail against everything.

In the original Greek from which Matthew was translated there are two word used for rock. When referring to Peter (whose name we know means rock) the Greek word Petros is used. However, when referring to the rock on which the church will be built, the Greek word used is Petra...different words with slightly different meanings. Catholicism mainly believes that Peter is the rock on which the church is built. I do not accept this and there is certainly no inference in word usage the excludes the other disciples. Others interpret Peter's confession of Christ as the rock...the firm attestation that Jesus is the Son of the Living God....as the foundational belief of Christ's church. Not the way he received this information....but the firm confession of belief that is the heart of Christian theology...Jesus is the Son of God, second person of the Trinity, and God incarnate.

I have a great deal of empathy for that interpretation though I believe without debate that Jesus is the rock on which his church is built. Unfortunately words do not convey everything about a conversation...they do not show the body language as it were. I prefer the interpretation that Jesus, perhaps pointing to himself, said in essence: "You are Peter, ( Petros, a little rock) and on this big rock (Petra...me) I will build my church." I reject completely, as does Christianity, that the process of revelation has greater importance than the declaration and substance of Peter's declaration. Emphatically, Jesus is the rock on which his church is built.

These verse are followed by those you used in your post. Here Peter, still a very human disciple with faith that hit highs and lows with great frequency, rebukes Jesus for even suggesting that death at the hands of the religious establishment is in his future. "Never, Lord! This shall never happen to you!" Jesus sharp words in response reflect a very strong emotion...similar words and emotion as Jesus used again Satan who tried to tempt him away from his mission. One Christian writer puts it: "In this suggestion that he might obtain the crown without the cross...Christ saw the recurrence of the temptation which had offered Him the glory of those kingdoms on condition of His drawing back from the path which the Father had appointed for him"

Unless you are assuming that I take the RC position of Peter as the rock I see no reason why you are connection these verses. Verse 21`suggests a time interval of undetermined length between the two incidents. One didn't happen right after the other.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why Do LDS Dismiss the Greater Part of the New Testament
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 1:00 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:28 pm
Posts: 1345
Location: AZ
Albion,

A good post by the way. I like the idea that you think that Jesus is referring to the declaration that He is the Christ as the rock of the church. That is obviously the foundation. Not so sure about reference to revelation. Any revelation from God will never disagree with Christ as the rock. I too think that body language could tell a different story. I too have often thought that Christ pointed to Himself when He said this rock. I will add some more comments later.

But let me add that each of us that declares Christ the Son of God received that message from the Father. So by extension both the spiritual and the declaration are in view.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why Do LDS Dismiss the Greater Part of the New Testament
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 10:48 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 13336
Location: Koloburbia
Albion wrote:
Moksha, my immediate response is...huh? What has any of that got to do with the shady character of Joseph Smith. To my knowledge, Trump hasn't been convicted in a court of law for "glass looking" and makes no claim to prophetic ability.


However Trump is an excellent promoter and salesman. The entity on his head would not permit disclosure of prophetic ability.

_________________
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why Do LDS Dismiss the Greater Part of the New Testament
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 1:10 am 
God

Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:59 am
Posts: 1681
Albion, as usual, your brain is having a hard time piecing everything together! Yes, there was an apostasy. It is very obvious that there was since it was mentioned in so many scriptures. Of course, the gates of hell will not prevail against it in the end! However, the scriptures clearly state that the beast made war with the saints and overcame them! That was for the 1260 year period. The saints lost the battle, not the war! You need your own Papa Joe version of the Bible because you obviously don't understand and except the KJ as well as nearly all of the other versions!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why Do LDS Dismiss the Greater Part of the New Testament
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 5:06 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:28 pm
Posts: 1345
Location: AZ
gdemetz,

We have to consider that all of us are on a path. Six years ago I had not read the Bible. Since then I have made progress but each year brings new revelations. So next year I will have slightly modified views of scripture. My studies have brought me to the point I am at. But in all of this I know very little and will wait for the end for all of the detail that is sure to come. So I see all of us at different points on our personal path. And not all people will arrive at the same understanding. This is part of the mystery of God. The gift of scriptural discernment is not universal so we will struggle as a people this is part of what we must live through. It is hard to separate a persons attitude from error in scripture. But that is what we must do to be fair. A person who is on an early path may never reach where others go. Only God knows what we need and He will bring each of us to what we need. In this we must trust God. It is hard but I respect all opinions of scripture. What is most important is the desire to know God. What is not so important are the details. There is but one truth but no man knows it all or has an errorless doctrine. We are all men after all and what we do is always filled with error. So that good feeling we get when we feel we have achieved an understanding should never be used as a club. We should instead explain our views and let God do what God will do to others. I know for a fact that I can bring no one to God and will bring no one to understanding except that they accept God's revelation. But I know also that what they receive will not be my understanding. For they are on one path and I am on another. This I know is true and the evidence of this truth is all around us in this sea of conflicting doctrine. Some of us love God and some of us love scripture. Those who love scripture have missed the target. The target is a living God not words on a page. If I read a book about my brother I may know my brother. But when I talk with my brother I come to love him. The same is true with God. Scripture is but a stepping stone to the living God. Although I know this I fail to apply this understanding all of the time. It does suck to be in this weak vessel. It is very hard to see our own weaknesses but easy to see the weakness of others.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why Do LDS Dismiss the Greater Part of the New Testament
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:00 am 
God

Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 2:43 pm
Posts: 1390
If these last two posts weren't so condescending, they would be almost amusing. I think the emperor has no clothes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why Do LDS Dismiss the Greater Part of the New Testament
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:55 am 
God

Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 2:43 pm
Posts: 1390
gdemetz, the Bible is full of apostasies of various kinds. The Israelites were constantly falling away from obedience to God. Paul wrote various letters in an effort to bring believers back to the fold. Despite all of this there were those who remained steadfast. To suggest that Almighty God is the author of a failure is ludicrous in the extreme to me and Christianity as a whole but if that is the kind of god in whom you place your trust I am not sure he is worthy of that trust in the first place....perhaps it's only his "once a man side" showing through. Recently, while talking to students at Utah State University, Marlin Jensen (a highly placed Mormon) talked about those leaving Mormonism. He said: We've never had a period of, I'll call it apostasy, like we're having now." Even I, in my wildest hope, would not argue that the Mormon Church is in imminent threat of total collapse. I only wish it were. Yet here the man uses the term "apostasy". Mormonism claims 14 million "members", a total that most probably includes countless numbers under the age of about 100 whose names are still kept as members of record even though huge numbers of them have not cast a shadow on a Mormon church in years. Perhaps the "active" number, even taking into account those who only attend on special family event days (blessings...baptisms and such) is at best maybe 5 million worldwide for an organization that has been going for a little under 200 years (if you count either 1820 or 1830 as the start date). Even in an average ward it is the smaller percentage that are "worthy" enough to have a temple recommend bringing the TBM percentage way down. And yet you claim that this organization is the answer to a claimed complete failure of Christ's church. Now I will admit that numbers are not necessarily an indicator of truth but clearly the Mormon Church is hardly a stranger to apostasy now is it, any more than the early church was?

I have been meaning to ask you, too, about the "man in the moon". More than once you have accused me of having no more intelligence than the "man in the moon".....is this the man in the moon that according to a Mormon "prophet" dresses like a Quaker? I am sorry to be flippant but I just couldn't resist.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why Do LDS Dismiss the Greater Part of the New Testament
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 10:40 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:28 pm
Posts: 1345
Location: AZ
Albion wrote:
If these last two posts weren't so condescending, they would be almost amusing. I think the emperor has no clothes.


In a strange way this is true from a worldly perspective. The greater reality is not like this physical reality we find our self in. The greater reality is more complex and way more spiritual than this place. So any mention of the nature of the heavens will be received by the world as utter nonsense. I want to thank you for making this point clear. As someone gets close to a spiritual walk they appear to the world as detached and distant


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why Do LDS Dismiss the Greater Part of the New Testament
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 10:52 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:28 pm
Posts: 1345
Location: AZ
Many times I post about a spiritual walk and I use the Bible as a reference for those talks. But let me say that a spiritual walk needs no scripture. I have come across spiritual people in different churches and outside Christianity. The door is open to all. All that is required is to seek outside of this creation and believe in more than can be perceived by our senses. Again those of the world will consider this nonsense.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why Do LDS Dismiss the Greater Part of the New Testament
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:12 pm 
God

Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 2:43 pm
Posts: 1390
Sounds a little too gnostic for me....I much prefer to rely on God's grace through the shed blood of the Savior. I am nothing, have nothing, with which to impress God. My hope rests only in faith in God's son.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 235 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 12  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group