Yekcidmij

To understand Trinitarianism it's important to understand philosophical concepts of "essence" and "personhood" and how they have been used over the centuries (such as Athanasius, the Cappadocian Fathers, etc..). The basic idea is easy: we believe in a tri-personal God. God is one Being/Essence/Substance/Nature and 3 persons. Conceiving how this "looks" or explaining the Trinity in further detail is difficult. I think the difficulty comes from the fact that we don't interact with too many objects that we think of in this manner and analogies we try to use to help us never seem to work. Some analogies that I have seen that I think all fail are as follows: The Human Analogy: I am body, soul and spirit just as God is Father Son and Spirit. The Egg: The egg is one egg composed of shell, white, and yolk. Water: Water can be in 3 states: solid, liquid and gas. Time: Time exists as past, present and future. And there are probably more too. I think these all fail for various reasons. If you are interested in current thinking on how to conceive and explain detail about the doctrine of the Trinity, it's worth noting that there are several main schools of thoght, all of which are trinitarian (they all affirm the historical creeds): Latin Trinitarianism, Social Trinitarianism, and Plain-ol-Mystery. Read all about them at Stanford here and enjoy: Trinity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) If you are LDS, I suspect the Social Trinitarianism in particular will be appealing to you, and as you might imagine, those who are social trinitarians always end up defending charges of tri-theism in the literature.

Josephus talks about the building of the Samaritan Temple in Antiquities 11.8 and 13.3.4.

The was only occuring until the Assyrian destruction. They had another one built during the Judean Second Temple Period.

Don't forget the Samaritan Temple. Fun trivia note: the Samaritan's, though no temple now, still do sacrifices and such on Mt. Gerizim, and have been for quite some time (a couple thousand or so years). You can watch it on youtube; it's pretty interesting and probably helps see what the whole deal might have looked like back in the day.

I guess saying that Joseph got it right would depend on which version of Gen. 1 we are going to use from Joseph. Are we going to use the rendering in Moses 2? Abraham 4? The King Folllet Discourse? The Plurality of gods Sermon? 3 Nephi 9:15? D/C 14:9? And if we are going to quote modern scholars and use their methods (which I'm fine with), then I guess it's important to ask what's P doing in the book of Abraham, Moses, and Mormon anyway?

nvm

I'm sure there are churches out there who deny all revelation, but this would seem to me to be an extreme minority. Most churches affirm revelation and must do so because revelation for most born again churches is the only way to learn about God. Almost all would agree that the bible is a source of revelation. So it’s inaccurate to say that in most revelation is denied. Many people also DO claim personal revelation with things like, “God impressed this on me…” or “I feel God is really telling me…”. So it’s also inaccurate to say that most born again churches deny personal revelation. That’s simply not true. There are some people who are more open to personal revelation than others and sure, there are people who don’t believe in personal revelation at all today. I’ve also noticed that born-again Christians who engage in polemics against the LDS church are themselves more likely to deny personal revelation, but this seems to me to be a debate tactic and defense mechanism and not a reflection of what average Evangelical-Joe will believe. I could be wrong though, I have no statistics on this; perhaps you do and can show me wrong.

That's not actually how variants work though, and I thought after seeing a lot of your posts that you would know better.

I mean that not everyone is a member of a covenant relationship with the Creator. And yes, I do believe in election. I don't think everyone is part of the elect though. I think those who God does not give grace to are judged on the basis of their works. Do they go to hell? In short, it appears that if someone has not received God’s grace, the result will be “hell”. I put “hell” in quotes because I think many people have a flawed image of it in their minds and I’m just going to highlight that your concept of hell and mine may be slightly different. Thanks for the summary of your views. I’m aware of LDS theology in this area and I’m aware that not all Christians see it the same way as a Calvinist like me would. I do think that what I have come to believe is more or less what has been revealed to us. I’m not perfect though, so I imagine I’m wrong on some things here and there.

I provide comments on the 99% number. I povide them agan here: Someone keeps asking for a source from Snow. Tought I would help. Here is an article by Dan Wallace: And a book with Wallace as a co-author (see chs 4-8): Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary ... - Google Books

Does he have a chance at salvation? Sure, why not. Does he have a chance if he never has faith in Jesus? It doesn’t appear that he does. I think it’s pretty clear that people are justified, that is declared to be members in right standing in covenant with God, by their faith in Jesus. If someone doesn’t have faith in Jesus, it’s pretty hard for me to say that they have been justified. I think it’s clear that not everyone is called into God’s covenant. So if there is a man living in the backwoods somewhere who has never heard, and never hears of Jesus, then it appears that he is not in any kind of covenant with God. I would say that God will still judge such a person fairly. After all, God is the best arbiter of justice. I don’t see any indication that people have a chance after death.

I think did post something relevant to the topic; you just decided to ignore it and go into conspiracy theory mode. Two posters on a message board do not represent all of evangelicalism. I would encourage you to engage them on the merits of whatever case they are making, but when you title the thread “Do born again Churches Seriously Believe This” understand that most born again churches do not believe that people get a second chance after their deaths; I even listed major denominations of American Protestantism. Now, are you going to ignore this again? Are you going to regress into your shell and whine about the thread?

I only asked a question. No need to get worked up or rude about it. That is abnormal for evangelicals. My comment still stands. Maybe you shouldn't be so defensive? Not everyone is out to get you.

Who? An evangelical couldn't tell you about the messiah? I've never heard any evangelical say that. I know that Assemblies of God, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, and Anglicans don't teach that. .....sounds like it's someone else who is confused.....

I wasn't aware of 39 quotes of Enoch in the NT. I'm aware of a couple of verses in Jude and 1 Peter, but 39 is unsually large. And simply quoting Enoch doesn't mean it was considered 'canonical'. Paul quotes Aratus and Epimenides, but I hardly think Paul is saying that either is a canonical work.

BHS has a great critical apparatus. It's not as if it has just copied Leningrad and nothing else. There is hardly a critical apparatus that is as good and it's the one most widely used by scholars. I don't have a problem with someone using Aleppo though.

BHS/BHQ are the critical versions of the Hebrew Old Testament. NA27 is the critical verion of the Greek NT. Most of your modern English bibles (NASB, NIV, ESV, etc..) are based off of those.

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), or Biblia Hebraica Quinta [bHQ] which is in process, and Nestle-Aland 27 ed. (NA27) are the best critical versions to date. BHS/Q = Old Test. NA27=New Test.

I bought some tabs from walmart and mark a lot of passages with a short written label on one of those tabs.

Depends on what you mean by "Catholic" and what time period we are talking about.

I’m simply pointing at the evidence as it stands. Then there is a conflict with the evidence in the Lord’s Prayer. I’m not saying you have to buy into textual criticism, but if you are going to apply it at least apply it consistently. Nope, I agree. It appears He was just quoting version of Matthew’s Lords Prayer from around the 5th century. I would almost buy that, but Christian translators have used it before and continue to do so today. The church fathers will make textual comments. And today, there are Protestants and Catholics alike who are involved in textual criticism. It's not all secular nor does it necessarily preclude revelation. So it's a misnomer to say it's all secular. Perhaps it's just that the one most popularly known (Ehrman) from the Barnes n Noble and Books a Million bookshelves happens to be a secular agnostic. There is even a blog where evangelical textual critics discuss issues with each other; their discussions are usually pretty interesting if you‘re into this stuff: Evangelical Textual Criticism

The only conclusions that needs to be drawn from that is that regarding the Lord's Prayer, the author of Nephi left out a feature of both Matthew and Luke's version of hte prayer, he knew of Matthean traditions/Matthew's wording, and he included the full expanded doxolgy that doesn't show up in NT manuscripts until the 5th century (Codex Washingtonianus). The logical conclusion is that this portion of 3 Nephi is written no earlier than the 5th century. And this leaves open the quesiton on how such a thing got across the Atlantic.

The double standard is your application of methods to the biblical text which you probably do not apply to the BoM, PoGP, D/C, and JST. We're all dense to some extent. :) Nobody is saying we have the original documents. In any case, how would you be able to tell if a document was THE original? Would you have to depend on tradition? Would you have to depend on the text critic? The enterpriese of textual criticism is to reconstruct the original from the available manuscripts. This needs to be done for the very reason that we don't have the original manscripts. Look at the available manuscripts. We can play the arbitrary-doubt game till we turn blue (just ask Decartes). Who's to say the original writer is himself reliable? And what is meant by "reliable"? Are we demanding that all writers throughout history adhere to our standards today? Should all ancient writers write like modern historians? Should they act like moden journalists (ok, that may not be much better anyway)? What if, say, Matthew doesn't want to simply report history? What if Matthew wants to report theology too? What if the Priestly writer isn't interested in bland facts without proper interpretation? Let's take a test case in the Lords Prayer in Matthew. Specifics are usually easier to work with than generalities. Reciting from memory at the moment the Lords Prayer as I was taught growing up goes like this: Our Father who art in Heaven Hallowed by thy Name Thy Kingdom come Thy will be done On earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our treaspasses as we forgive those who trespass against us And lead us not into temptation, but deliever us from evil For thine is the Kingdom, Power, and Glory forever. Amen. This is the tradition that was handed down to me through church. Where did this come from? Well, it's found verbatim in the Textus Receptus that was translated into the KJV in Matthew 6. But if I apply text critical methods I discover that I haven't been reciting the original version, but an expanded version. How can I know this? By looking at various manuscripts. I discover a parallel version in Luke: Already I notice something is afoot. It doesn't have "for yours is the kingdom power and glory forever. Amen". Luckily, there are numerous other manuscripts besides the TR and KJV that attest to the Lord's Prayer in both Matthew and Luke. If I picked up, for example, Codex Sinaiticus, I would disover that in Matthew the doxology of the prayer is not there. In fact, in most of the oldest manuscripts the doxology is "missing". Then there are some old manuscripts that have only part of the doxology. For example, several Syriac manuscripts only have "for yours is the power forever". A couple of old manuscripts only have "amen" in the doxology. Some have "because yours is the kingdom and glory forever. Amen". In fact, you can trace the expansion of just the doxology of the Matthew-Lord's Prayer until a late manuscript in AD 1122 reads "For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit for ever. Amen". It winds up in a Trinitarian expansion! Also interesting is that over the centuries the version in Luke is expanded until it reads, strangely enough, like Matthew's version. Without the centuries worth of expansion, Luke's version (ch 11) reads like this: Father, may your name be honored; may your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread, and forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And do not lead us into temptation It sufficies to say that we are looking at two different, early traditions of the Lord's Prayer. Matthew's audience knew of one version and Luke's audience knew of another version. This doesn't really take away anything from the Prayer though. They are both communicating the same message. It's probably likely that Jesus Himself taught the prayer on different occasions in slightly different fashions just as it is likely that Matthew and Luke tailored it to their audiences. But, here we have two different strands of tradition of the same prayer and both appear in our canon as authoritative. It's most probable then that Jesus uttered something extremely similiar and probably did so on multiple occassions. It may be that the disciples were largely illiterate as well which would even necessitate Jesus' repetition of His various teachings as a good Rabbi would do. But with textual criticism scholars are able to reconstruct what Matthew and Luke looked like before those expansions. In fact, it's established with pretty good accuracy so that it's fair to say this is what Matthew and Luke's versions of the Prayer looked like when it was originally penned down in their respective gospels. And perhaps this makes some people feel good to see these sorts of differences between Matthew and Luke. How can we ever know what Jesus originally said if Matthew and Luke are reporting things so differently? The mistake here is to assume that Matthew and Luke are trying to write something akin to a scientific, historical, or doctrinal paper for us or that Matthew and Luke are trying to report "just the facts". In fact, they weren't writing for US at all and neither of them are historians like we think of historians. Both are also theologians. Luke is writing for Theophilus. Matthew is writing to someone else. Luke is writing to Theophilus for a particular purpose (see ch 1) that is not the exact same as Matthew's purpose to his audience. Both of them are passing on teachings of Jesus, but they seem more interested in their audiences getting the gist of things and taking away a few specific emphases than they are interested in us (or them) geting every minute detail. Matthew's Lords Prayer sounds very liturgical as if it is meant to be repeated on multiple occassions. Luke's doesn't have that flavor to me. Maybe some will claim that these sorts of differences are proof that we need further revelation to sort it out. Well, I am comfortable with saying that both versions are just fine the way they are. I'm even comfortable with the expansions. We have 2 versions are textual criticism demonstrates it. Both versions are canonical and authoritative and inspired. Big deal. It's adequate to me to say that Jesus probably uttered something very similiar to both of these versions which might explain why there are 2 versions. It's adequate to me to say that Matthew and Luke are passing on traditions as they received them whether they be from Jesus Himself or from somone who knew Jesus. But here is where I think a double standard comes in for a lot of people. Because here we have another version of the Lords Prayer: 3 Nephi 13:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And alead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen. The underlines portions are distinctly Matthean, not Lukan. This version has dropped out "may your kingdom come" which appears in both Matthew and Luke and was a central feature of Jesus' teachings. Morever, the red-highlighted portion is the full doxology that was added by later Christian scribes. So not only does Nephi have a Matthean ring to it, meaning Nephi would be written no earlier than AD 60 by someone familiar with Matthean traditions, and not only would it be problematic to figure out how Matthew's words wound up across the Atlantic, but it must be dated even later to no earlier than around the 5th century due to the scribal interpolation. And then we are faced with the problem of figuring out how 5th century Christian scribal interpolations are winding up in writings across the Atlantic and why Nephi is giving authority to the Heretics. But now maybe textual criticism isn't so fun.

Do you see any double standards here? Any special pleading? Also, I don't think you understand the discipline of textual criticism, which is different from historical criticism/higher criticism. In your post, you have bunched higher and lower criticism together and treated them as if they are the same. And you don't distinguish between textual criticism and higher criticism of the NT, which is different from textual criticism and higher criticism of the OT. And higher and lower criticism are different from translating from one language into another, though all of these disciplines interrelate to one another in some fashion. Textual criticism takes the available evidence in the form of various manuscripts and reconstructs the probable original. This doesn't mean that 100% certain accuracy has been achieved. But requiring that sort of thing before knowledge can be achieved is pretty unrealistic. The evidence available, for the NT at least, is very conclusive and we shouldn't argue from silence about the text by appealing to possible, but undiscovered manuscripts that would overturn the critical consensus. Sure, there may be a document that turns up tomorrow that overturns our thinking on everything related to the NT. Maybe someone will discover a long lost manuscript and it will just shock the living mess out of everyong. But until such reason appears, there is no reason to believe it. Until then, the NT uber-text has been reconstructed from the available manuscripts with great accuracy by textual critics. I guess that can't stop anyone from simply dismissing the textual critics, but I think that would be unwise. Lower-textual criticism is different from higher criticism which attempts to discover the origins of the text itself. Higher criticism on the NT will say things about Matthew and Luke using Mark, the plausible settings for the composition of the gospels, authorship of documents, and the dates of the various documents. Higher criticism is inherently more speculative, but it does appearently have it's uses as was proven with discoveres of the Epic of Gilgamesh. I have a real bug about double standards as well. If you are going to appeal to textual critics for evidence of the bible transmissional changes, scribal changes, composition, etc.., then we should apply the same standards to the BoM, PoGP, D&C and JST. If you want to say that doing so is somehow out of bounds because those sources are divinely inspired, then just realize that it's fair when Protestant Joe comes by and says the same thing about the biblical text.

Someone keeps asking for a source from Snow. Tought I would help. Here is an article by Dan Wallace: And a book with Wallace as a co-author (see chs 4-8): Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary ... - Google Books