Dymmesdale

The papacy really began to run into trouble, though, after Vatican I, from which the Roman Catholic doctrine of Papal infallibility, and the Pope's privilege to speak ex Cathedra, came. Putting any human up on that kind of pedestal, I believe, is asking for trouble.

It is important to understand that there were certain parts of the Mosaic Law that were meant to make the Israelites a peculiar people. Such is the case with the dietary laws, and circumcision (although circumcision had another meaning and function, as well). To answer your question, the law had to be fulfilled so that sinners might be saved! Christ fulfilled the law on our behalf, that is how Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. I hold that the Mosaic Law was perfect in its justice, though incomplete in its function until Christ's advent. We are saved by grace, through faith, and the jews under the Mosaic Law before Christ were also saved by grace, through faith. the difference is that the object of their faith was in the future, not in the past. Circumcision, as a sacrament signifying entry into the household of God, was replaced by baptism, because Christ tore down the wall separating Israel from the Gentiles, so there was no longer any need to distinguishing marks. This is also why formerly forbidden foods are now permissible. They were permissible from the time of Christ's resurrection, even if some of the Jewish Christians did not realize that fact, until Peter's vision. I hope I am not being more confusing than helpful...I have not been sleeping well lately, so please let me know if any clarification in needed.

Trinitarians absolutely believe that Jesus is begotten of the Father. If you would like clarification on what trinitarians believe, I would recommend you read the Athanasian Creed. It's readily available on the internets. It is pretty dangerous to introduce new terminology in describing how the trinity exists as three-in-one, and how it operates. Being, and vehicle, introduce some difficulty in understanding the concept. I believe that the Trinity is an infinitely difficult concept, but the Holy Ghost has given certain providence to the Church, which describes the trinity almost uniformly as "one God, in three persons." I have no problem saying that Jesus is subordinate to the Father in authority. It is when His divinity is brought into question that I begin to have problems. To address the instance in which Jesus said there is none good, but one, that is, God, the man who called him good master did not address him as God, or Christ. He addressed him in a human assumption. Jesus was making the point that no human master, however good, can approach the goodness of God. Paul says the same thing in Romans. There is none righteous, no, not one.

From the earliest days of the Church, the teaching has been that Jesus is of the same substance as the Father, but different in person. This is what is meant when we say he was begotten of the Father, rather than created by the Father. If a woman begets a child, the child is flesh and bone, the same substance as the woman. If a man creates a table, the table is made of wood, a different substance. If Jesus were of a different substance from the Father, this would mean that he was created, rather than begotten. But the teaching of the Church has always been that Jesus was begotten of the Father, not created. This is how he is able to be co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. He came to earth to do the will of the Father, subjecting himself to the Father's authority, but in doing so, he did not relinquish his divinity.

This has to do with the covenant that God made with Abraham. God not only said that he would make him the father of many nations, but that the whole world would be blessed by them. Not only would he be the father of many nations, but those people would be God's people. God is manifesting His glory. He chose Abraham to be the progenitor of His chosen people. The reason that we can be adopted as God's children today is because in the days of Israel, God wanted to protect His people from the influence of outside nations and religions. Under the New Covenant, Christ's disciples were commanded to go and preach the Gospel to everyone. In short, we are able to be adopted as God's children because we have the Gospel, when before only the Israelites were able to be God's people (some exceptions, such as slaves and servants, but not many).

I believe that the spiritual gift of supernatural healing was given to the early New Testament church as a sign that the Holy Ghost was in them, that they may evangelize to the nations. It was given for a specific purpose, for a limited amount of time, which has ended. God certainly may miraculously heal people today, but it is not because of some agency given as a supernatural gift to human beings; it is entirely according to the sovereign will and grace of God.

God gave Moses the Law. God is just, and perfectly holy, and gave Moses a perfect law. Since humans are sinful, because of the sin of Adam, the law brought greater condemnation upon humanity. Christ did not come to abolish the law or to replace it, but to fulfill it. Christ kept the law in all of its requirements, and Christ's righteousness was imputed, or transferred, to us, if we trust in Him. Can anyone tell me just which parts of the Bible have difficulties in translation? There are numerous resources available to help with translation, and I would be glad to do some research on some of these problematic texts, as far as I am able.

May I suggest looking into 1 Peter 3:18-22, with regards to baptism? I believe this passage makes a strong case for the saving power of baptism. Baptism has everything to do with the New Covenant, and Christ's fulfillment of it. I find it very helpful to think about baptism the same way the Israelites thought about circumcision. It was the sacrament that brought an individual into God's Church, just as baptism does today. The flood was a forerunner of baptism, in that it saved Noah from the evil of the old world, and delivered him into new life in the new world, just as we are saved from sin by baptism (having a good conscience toward God), and brought thereby into new life in Christ.

Chronologically, the first reason that I believe what I believe is because that is what I was taught by my parents. As I went through life, I was able to see how creation testifies the work and the glory of God. The biggest aspect of the foundation of my belief, however, is faith. I have faith that there is one God, and I have faith that He has communicated to us his will through the Bible. I believe that all of creation supports this, and is constantly affirming my beliefs. I can have complete trust in Him through His word. Finally, I believe that the Holy Ghost has directed the Church throughout history, so that the true faith was for the most part kept whole, because God loves His people, and does not let them go astray, unless they are in rebellion against Him. I would say more, but my break is over, and I have to get back to work...

Could someone explain to me how John 1:1 can be true if Jesus is not God? I have looked at the Greek, and it seems pretty clear to me that Jesus is God.

The issue of the trinity, and hammering out just who the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost were individually and collectively was the primary concern of the catholic church for the first four centuries after Christ. The Athanasian Creed does a wonderful job of defining the Trinity, as far as we can understand it, being finite beings with finite capacity for understanding. The athanasian creed says: "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved." Hope that helps.

Sorry if someone already answered, but I don't have time to read the whole thread right now (i definitely will when i can!) The term, 'Trinity' was coined by Tertullian in the 2nd century A.D. but the concept or understanding God as such was not invented by him, that was understood by the apostles themselves.

I have read parts of it, and when making references or quoting it, I obviously read those parts. I also generally read the bits what people quote in their posts, especially if the post is directed to me.

Where are you getting that the men with Paul did not see the light?

Just because Matthew and Mark mention only one angel, while Luke and John mentio two, doesn't mean that The former contradict the latter. They never said that the angel that spoke was the only one present. If you ask anyone on the street how many wise men came to visit Jesus, they will tell you "three," because there were three gifts offered, so we assume that there were three wise men. It never says how many there were, it only says "there came wise men from the east."

In Acts 26, I am not sure what you see here that disagrees. Paul says that the light shone all around him, and on the men with him. It never says in this chapter what the men saw or didn't see. EDIT: Also, that you for your comment about the Comma Johanneum. I found an article about it here. Bible.org: The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian The article deals with Cyprian and how early the comma appeared in the manuscripts.

I think it is a fair thing to say that what one conceives to be a contradiction may be based upon one's understanding of the work. My understanding of the Book of Mormon is far less than my understanding of the Bible, so the seeming contradictions thereof may in fact be perfectly valid. However, if an atheist thinks that something in the Bible is contradictory to itself, it is up to the Christian to explain the resolution, because the atheist doesn't know enough about the Bible to do so.

The topic of contradictions within the Bible came up in another thread, and several examples were mentioned. Here are those examples, along with my explanations (I think I linked to all of the external sources I used.) Please note that I believe that the Bible is true, and I am not trying to prove it otherwise. I wish to discuss these contradictions, and see what people think/can come up with. This one, I think, is easiest for me to explain. Non-Trinitarians will find it a bit hard to swallow though, so consider yourselves disclaimed. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1,3) Jesus, the second part of the Trinity, (i.e., God) was there in the beginning when the earth was created. Genesis is correct in saying that God created the heavens and the earth. Ephesians is also correct because Jesus is God. This is a site I found helpful for this question: The Death of Judas- Is there a Contradiction? - KATAGRAPHAIS“We must ask ourselves, does Matthew or Luke’s account render the other as impossible? If we think about it, I think we can safely say that no, they do not. Matthew’s account has Judas hanging himself. Luke’s account has him falling, and then splitting open. These two accounts fit neatly together. The presupposition of Judas falling is that he was, prior to falling, at a higher point from which he could fall. If he was hanging from a tree, this makes perfect and logical sense. The two obviously do not exclude each other from being possible. If we realize that Judas has been dead awhile, it also makes sense that his body would be in such a state of bloat and decomposition that we should have no problem with it rupturing. This view has Luke supplementing information, rather than contradiction. Since Judas hanged himself during passover, and before the Sabbath, it is likely that he hung for awhile, as no one would want to defile themselves by touching his body until after both Passover and Sabbath. This gave time for gravity to pool Judas’ blood, causing a lot of bloating.” 2. The difference between these two accounts is a problem of translation. In both accounts, the Greek word “akouo” is used. This word can mean either “hear” or “understand.” Therefore, it is apparent that the men accompanying Paul heard the voice, but did not understand either what it was saying, or what it meant. 3. Paul was battling the idea that we are saved by being good people, and was stressing that we can never do anything to deserve eternal life, but rather it is by grace through faith that we are saved. James was saying that the natural outcome of having a true faith is works. If no fruit comes of your faith, then you should probably check its pulse. 4. I don’t think I can give an adequate answer to this one right away, but I will spend some time on it and get back to you. In response to the question of the staff: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/nostaff.html FYI, this explanation is rather long and technical, but I read through it and it seems to make sense. I am not a Greek scholar (although I hope to be soon), but my father-in-law is, and if necessary, I can ask him to help clear it up for me so I can better explain it to anyone who is still confused. For the question of the angels at the tomb, I direct you to this commentary: Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 3 | Christian Classics Ethereal Library “Our three Evangelists, from a desire of brevity, leave out what is more fully related by John, (20:1-12) which, we know, is not unusual with them. There is also this difference, that Matthew and Mark mention but one angel, while John and Luke speak of two. But this apparent contradiction also is easily removed; for we know how frequently in Scripture instances occur of that figure of speech by which a part is taken for the whole. There were two angels, therefore, who appeared first to Mary, and afterwards to her other companions; but as the attention of the women was chiefly directed to the angel who spoke, Matthew and Mark have satisfied themselves with relating his message. Besides, when Matthew says that the angel sat on a stone, there is in his words (ὕστερον πρότερον), an inversion of the order of events; or, at least, that order was disregarded by him; for the angel did not immediately appear, but while the women were held in

I believe that the Bible is true, and intend to defend that belief if necessary. I am curious to see which contradiction will be brought to the table, and how they are resolved, or defended. I really wish to discuss, and I will reiterate my intent in the initial post of the new thread.

My view tends to be somewhere in between 1 and 2. If something is divinely inspired, The Holy Spirit led the author in what to write. The words given to the author come directly from God, and He said that His Word shall persevere forever. I suppose it is possible for minor discrepancies in translation and transcription to exist, but personally I trust that the Word of God has remained intact throughout the ages.

I apoligize for not acknowledging your land of Jerusalem explanation. That makes sense and I rescind my accusation of contradiction on that account. All of the submitted contradictions within the Bible itself are great places to start a conversation, and I need to do a bit of extra research about them. I think I will start a new thread and list the examples given since my last post.

My motives are to understand how Mormons logically come to the conclusion that the BoM does not contradict the Bible. If my motives are unwelcome, I would be glad to look elsewhere, or ask some missionaries in person. I would be glad to start a thread about contradictions within the Bible itself, as long as someone will be able to discuss and debate, while remaining civil and refraining from taking it all personally. Do I need to be more clear? God does not lie, and is never wrong. If God says something that is not true, he has either lied, or is wrong. If something is divinely inspired, that means God said it. If a supposed divinely inspired work is wrong, God cannot have said it, and it is therefore not divinely inspired. It's all so clear now! I am speaking less of science, and more of history. The doctrine of circumcision and kosher eating was changed only because of the advent of Christ to fulfill the Law. It would not make it less sacred, but if there were no facts, there would be no facts to test. It would be no more disprovable than the proverbs of Confucius. (Stepping out of my arena, knowledge and study-wise on the Confucius issue. That is, if he really did state facts, I didn't know it, and anyone can feel free to enlighten me on the issue.) I believe that it is. Give me a break, it's St. Valentine's Day, and I generally have a job (although lately my hours have been scarce, hence my presence on this site).

The reason that I think it's necessary for the BoM to agree with the Bible for them to both be true is that God does not lie. He doesn't make mistakes. He is never factually wrong. If the BoM is inspired, then everything in it should be factually correct.

Where does the doctrine of intelligences come from?

Can the same be said of the sun not setting one day, or Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead? Or, for that matter, His own resurrection?