ThreeInOne
-
Posts
21 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by ThreeInOne
-
-
Who said the books of the bible were inspired?I don't expect you to believe me. I'm simply stating what I believe and how I back up that belief.
I know cephas means rock- hence my example in John 1:42. I was reiterating that the use of symbols pertaining to rocks and stones were in support of Christ being the ultimate foundation of the church.
Alexandria interpreted Matthew 16:18 the same way you and all other Catholics have, so of course quoting him will support your position. You believe him, because he is a well-known historical figure within the Catholic church. Same for Tatian.
However- their words do not constitute scripture, and I don't believe them. I believe they were mistaken in their interpretation.
So I am not convinced of your position, just as you are not convinced of my position.
Hmmm... sounds like this convincing thing isn't really working?
I am most willing to share with you what I believe and why I believe it, but I certainly don't expect to convince you of anything. And you will continue to hit a brick wall if you think you will convince me of anything.
I rely on the spirit to testify to me of truth after I've studied it out in my mind and in my heart. Through this witness, I believe the Book of Mormon to be scripture, just as the Holy Bible is scripture, and I depend on the two together to acertain my interpretations as I study them and seek answers directly from the Lord in prayer.
Meaning;
When they were choosing (and throwing out - see the gospel of Mary or gospel of Judas) which books were to be in the bible. Who was it that decided?
The bible didn't just appear out of the sky.
-
There is evidence in the bible.But you said your belief in the Bible was based on edvidence. By saying that, you lost the debate right to claim "mysteries of God". Unless you take that statement back, you will have to back up everything you believe with evidence.
Just like, there's evidence of Jesus..look at the year 2013 A.D.
Can you prove the claims of Joseph Smith? I revert to the question a couple pages back the person proposed to me; if there WERE archeological evidence for it..
There's not any.
-
A mind is like a parachute. It'll only work if it's open.
That goes both ways..
-
I love the story of Balaam.I know the Red Sea was parted because the Red Sea exists. I also know a donkey talked because donkeys are real.
Donkey's don't talk so we would have to prove it. I don't know anyone who can prove that a donkey can talk, do you?
Some miracles God performs in the bible will always be a mystery to us.
-
Ask a rabbi if their savior will be from a woman who had sex with God..2 Nephi 29:3-12
Jewish tradition will not build your case whatsoever.
-
ROFL! Heck, no. Not hardly.
Although there have been some dark days (Think Galileo, Inquisition, etc.)... In general the Catholic Church is very open about not being very open
, as well as continuing searches for truth (Jesuit order in particular, though there are other orders that strive for the acquisition of both secular and religious knowledge as well). The Pope regularly changes church doctrine and practice, as do various convocations... The first of which (ahhhh...I believe first, I may not be remembering correctly and it was simply an early one), after a LOT of arguing declared the Holy Trinity in the first place. (Prior FSHG was worshiped both as a trinity, and as a 3 part godhead, and as a 2 part, and 1 part. Ditto arguments and votes on whether J was the son of g-d in body or in spirit, etc.). Their Holinesses (The Popes) also have a habit of coloring outside the lines on a regular basis. Teaching things that are not gospel in order to provoke a response. Something many Mormons, I've found are unfamiliar with is the concept of Mary Magdalen being a prostitute. A Pope was trying to shame people to be more Christlike (and stop an epidemic of prostitute beatings and killings), and so gave MM the job as well. It was never meant to be taken up as doctrine, but it was by many... For a very, very, long time. I was 15 before I knew that it was a parable, and not gospel.
The LAST thing the Catholic Church has ever taught is the NT is 'it'. The Pope? That comes closer. But not the NT.
________
I should mention (as a bias warning), I love and respect the Catholic Church, and have a particular soft spot for Jesuits & Benedictines. I was baptized Catholic at birth (though raised in a multi-religious household), and have priests/nuns in my family (They're going to whack me upside the head for forgetting which convocation the holy trinity was decided at).
That would be the Council of Nicea 325 that instituted the doctrine of the Trinity.
-
Yes. With love and good charity :)ThreeInOne,
I was thinking about this thread, and I wonder if your real issue here is simply that you and we differ on our approaches to faith. Now, I'm sure most of this forum likes BoM evidence as much as the next person, but it's not really a faith basis. Are you just trying to pick our brains to find out WHY we believe?
-
Ah, here are some scriptures that actually explain your position.
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18)
As a Catholic, I know you interpret this scripture to mean that Christ's church established through Peter, the Catholic church, is HIS church. I can understand where you are coming from and why you believe that.
However- I do not share your belief because I do not interpret this scripture the same way you do. Peter's name comes from the Greek word "petros" which means rock, and the following word in the original scripture (where it says "upon this rock") was "petra" which means bedrock. Thus, Peter was to lead the church which was built on the "bedrock", which was Christ.
Christ used similar symbolic representations with others of His disciples. For example: "And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone" (John 1:42). Many of His prophets and disciplies were representations of Himself in their names and deeds, and we can learn from His use of symbolism.
We can also come to a better understanding of the "building" of His church in 1 Corinthians 3:9-11
"For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.
According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."
So, HIS church, is a church which is built on the foundation of Christ. And I can assure you that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that church.
"And now, my sons, remember, remember that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer, who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your foundation; that when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and his mighty storm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power over you to drag you down to the gulf of misery and endless wo, because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall." (Helaman 5:12)
Origen of Alexandria says;
"Look at Peter, the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church."
(Homilies on Exodus 5:4) A.D. 249
Tatian The Syrian says;
"Simon Cephas answered and said, (you are the Messiah, the Son of the living God). Jesus answered and said to unto him, (Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in Heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." (Diatesseron 23) A.D. 170 - a little over 20 years after the bible was canonized.
Whose words am I gonna believe? You or the ones that were there from the beginning?
Look in Titian's writing..he uses "Cephas" which means "rock". Just as "petra" means rock.
-
Well, that's a new one. There is no "definitive" history of the flood, there is no archaeological support for Melchizedek and the flight of the Hebrews out of Egypt is still not archaeologically substantiated.
We can't archaeologically prove the earth was created in 6 days either.
-
The term "catholic" comes from a letter of St. Ignatius. An early Christian from the first century addressing the universal church in a letter. The term "catholic" translate to "universal" (katholikos in Latin)I understand this is how Catholics believe this, however I wouldn't agree with this interpretation of scripture.
Can you tell me, why I should accept your interpretation over the LDS churches interpretation?
The idea of something being around longer than another religion doesn't make the other more true, or the other more false.
If the idea of how long a religion has been in existence to be true, then I must accept the Jewish religion to be true, and thus Christ the Messiah has not yet fully come.
Along the lines and theology presented, about the Book of Mormon not being mentioned in the NT.
Is there any evidence that the Catholic Church is the church established, because I don't see any mention of a Catholic church at all in the NT?
If you're gonna use that argument then you should know the word "bible" isn't in the bible either.
I don't think comparing Mormonism to the Jews would build a good case for you. Though they don't believe in Jesus, they don't think God was born on another planet.
-
There is no problem with The Book of Mormon.
The problem is whether or not you are going to choose to accept it as scripture.
Why do you choose to accept the Bible as scripture? Have you prayed about it? Do you feel the Holy Spirit as you read?
Or do you accept it simply because it's the most widely known book of scripture on the Savior and more churches use it over anything else?
Why do I chose to accept the Bible as scripture?
I accept my faith and the Bible because history proves it.
My question to you is; who declared the books of the bible to be inspired?
-
Well, this is surely from your perspective. Whereas, we don't believe the Catholic church to be the same Church the Lord established, thus, the Catholic church would have been the first of the "church(es)" you mention.
Sure, read the Book of Mormon. It specifies Lehi, the first prophet of the Book of Mormon lived 600 years B.C.
Catholic Church instituted and established by Christ in the gospel (Mat. 16:18)
The Mormon church established in the early 19th century.
Big gap in time there..
Now lets look at Matthew 16:18;
I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
It says church, not church(es)
This can't be the Mormon church can it?
-
I would be convinced if Jesus said it were so in the scriptures. Yes.Something to consider:
Let's say tomorrow, non-mormon archaeologists found the sword of Laban, the city of Zarahemla, examples of a 'reformed egyptian' language, and Nephi's grave, where a DNA analysis showed definite ties to various hebrew groups living in and around the palestinian areas of the time.
Would you bend your knee, confess Christ, accept Thomas Monson as your prophet, and seek to be baptized into the LDS church?
However, I don't think archaeology is making a good case for this point.
-
Thank you for taking kindly to my rebuttal. I'm here to learn as well. I like what you said about if we could be convinced by touching Jesus' scars.This is a good question. The premise though appears to be incorrect in association with the verses provided. The verse represents doubting Thomas, who was first told of the risen Lord by the other disciples, by which he replied, "I will not believe until I have seen" (paraphrased obviously).
By which the Lord, after showing himself and allowing Thomas to touch him, said,
Wouldn't it be nice if all of us could be "convinced" as Thomas was, by actually seeing the Lord and touching his scars?
Alas, we are not, thus we rely on the promise given to the disciples John 14: 26, and the promise within the Book of Mormon Moroni 10: 3-5.
An anti-Mormon statement doesn't need to be untrue to be anti-Mormon. There are plenty anti-Mormon statements which are true.
As I specified, the "burning in the bosom" is foreign to me. I have never experienced it.
"Wouldn't it be nice if all of us could be "convinced" as Thomas was, by actually seeing the Lord and touching his scars?"
Yes, I agree!
The problem with the Book of Mormon is that it's not foretold or spoke of in the NT.
-
Believe what though? That God is? That Jesus is the Messiah? The need to repent? Not sure scriptures ever tell us we should convince people of which church to join.
I believe that a good portion of the BoM is said to have predated the New Testament.
If you see the original post you will see what I asked to be convinced of..
To answer your first question, all thee above.
Scripture tells us a church was established in Matthew 16:18 and then later in chapter 18:17, he talks more about "the church".
1 church, not church(es). That issue doesn't exist until the Protestant reformation in 1517
Can you show evidence to your claim that the BoM predated the New Testament?
-
Is there ant scripture that says we should not convince people to believe?
-
Our Lord had to convince his disciples who he was when he rose from the dead. You think if they wouldn't have believed him, he wouldn't have tried to convince him? (John 20:24-29)If an athiest ask questions, we share what we know to be true. We don't seek to convince, nor did the Savior. We teach, we prophesy, and we write so that people may know and then seek a witness themselves.
It appears your word for "convince" is what we would call share, invite, teach, visit, chasten if necessary.
This last statement reveals more about your heart than any other statement you have mentioned.
No one mentioned a burning in the bosom, and I have never felt what you are speaking about. I have had a witness from the Holy Ghost, however the anti-Mormon thread "burning in the bosom" is foreign to me.
Is the "burning in the bosom" anti-mormon because its untrue?
-
See also Acts 1:3"But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them" (2 Timothy 3:14)
"But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak" (Hebrews 6:9)
"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind" (Romans 14:5)
Umm... I don't see how any of these scriptures say it is our job to convince others to believe....
We are to share, yes. To proclaim the gospel, yes. To bring good tidings, yes. To speak of Christ, preach of Christ, and rejoice in Christ, yes.
But convince people? .... of anything?
That's not our job. That is the job of the Holy Spirit who may use our preaching to speak to another's spirit and testify to them of the truth.
Hypothetical question for you; if I'm an atheist and I ask you if there is a God, what are you going to tell me?
Was Jesus on earth not trying to convince people to believe?
It's our job to convince people to believe in The Lord. It's not by our doing that people become convinced.
Just like if I read the Book of Mormon and pray for that burning in the bosom
-
Thanks for the replies.
Let me start by saying i would disagree with some of you already. It is our job as Christians to try to convince people to believe. (2 Timothy 3:14, Hebrews 6:9, Romans 14:5)
With regards to the Book of Mormon. How can we take it as true if we don't see a prophesy of it in the Gosples?
-
If i were curious about the mormon faith, how can you convince me that the Mormon church is the true church of God?
Can you point to any scripture? Or give me any writing as evidence?
How can you convince me?
in General Discussion
Posted
Joseph Smith's vision or his stories cannot be proven with evidence.