St. Athansius and Gods

[Faded]

Maybe there is a language barrier between us that I am not understanding. You say any Jewish scholar would consider me a polytheist. Would they consider LDS polytheists?

Yes they would. They would say that Trinitarians added two persons to a singular person when they had no right to do so, and that Trinitarians are just worshipers of multiple gods who desperately try to convince themselves that they are not worshiping multiple gods.

They would call either of us polytheists.

But that's what I'm trying to get across here. You seem to object to my understanding of God based upon you're opinion that it sets up multiple gods. But you're failing to realize that this is exactly why Unitarianists hate the Trinity: Multiplicity of Gods. And they have scriptures they feel support their claim undeniably, just as you do.

Please tell me what in these creeds (Nicene creed) are an abomination / unbiblical as regarding their definition of the Godhead/Trinity? I believe those creeds to be Biblical and am willing to politely show why.

"Biblical" and "Unbiblical" have nothing to do with whether they are an abomination before God. Anybody can take a strongly felt theological opinion and go through the Bible and convince themselves that it is right. In all cases, they will find passages in the Bible that they feel establish their opinion as absolute fact and eternal truth. Why else would there be more than 30,000 denominations within Christianity??

But that's the trouble: The approach is not: A. Read the Bible. B. Find the Trinity taught there. C. Accept the Trinity. No, the common approach is: A. Accept the Trinity. B. Read the Bible. C. Find the Trinity taught there.

But the underlying thing is this: God is what he is. If the Council of Nicaea was wrong in their conclusions, then they defined and described God in a way that is false. They enforced by law and threat of rebuke and even violence, a description of God that was incorrect. God is what he is, and he cannot be made otherwise just because a lot of believers say otherwise. You don't get to change God into something he isn't.

If that is what happened, then of course it is an abomination.

Consider it from the LDS perspective. The Trinity description of God defines a being that is non-human in species. This means that we would have to give up the idea of being literal children of God to accept the Trintiy -- because we would have to accept that God is entirely alien to us and in no way similar. Erased is the notion that we are "made in the image and likeness of God" like Genesis claims we are.

It effectively unravels the entire plan of eternal progression as we understand it. We can never live up to the commandment to be like Our Father in Heaven and Jesus Christ because they are eternally alien and too different for us to fulfill this command. We can never be anything similar to God.

Now consider for a moment: If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is what it claims to be -- The Church and Kingdom of God restored here on the Earth -- then the entire concept of the Trinity turns a great many eternal truths into impossibilities. Would that not be an abomination to God?

I also am confused as to the different definitions I believe I'm getting from some LDS posters, although I know they are being sincere in their efforts. From the last post of Rameumptom, I don't see his objection to the creeds, though he must have some.

I think that the biggest underlying factor is that you're diligently trying to disprove of the LDS Godhead rather than trying to understand it. The questions and statements you have posted seem to indicate as much. They seem to be more focused on 'showing these poor misguided "Mormons" how wrong they' are rather than trying to see things from our point of view. I don't think you're really trying to understand.

On a personal note, I have have been a Christian now for 22 years and the Lord is AWESOME. He has brought me through many difficult trials to say the least. His love and mercy have changed my life and daily I pray for His wisdom and guidance in all things. There truly is no greater joy than being in His presence. When I first came to Him a verse He has kept on my heart is John 8:24 "for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." so I have been asking Him to reveal Himself to me ever since and I KNOW He has done just that. I will truly be amazing to praise and worship Him for all eternity.

And I think this is a wonderful thing. I can definitely say much the same thing. God is such an integral part of my being that anytime I stray away, I find myself completely miserable and just feel incomplete. The Lord brings happiness beyond description into my life and I love him for it. He makes me complete and whole. I have felt the power of the cleansing power of the Atonement when I have repented of sin.

And herein is one of the most important matters to bring to the discussion: Christ touches both our lives. God leads and guides us both. God works with us from wherever we are. There is a right answer and a wrong answer when it comes to the nature of God, but God has not utterly disowned whichever party is wrong. I feel this is partly because the two concepts are a lot more similar than most people realize. But mostly it is because God is merciful to his children when his children are doing their very best to seek Him.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Faded

[rameumptom]

From the last post of Rameumptom, I don't see his objection to the creeds, though he must have some.

Rameumptom: My objections are these: 1. that the creeds are not truly Biblically based, and 2. are imposed upon people as a requirement to be considered Christian.

Among the requirements of the various creeds we find that God is so incomprehensible that we cannot begin to comprehend him, that we are not made of the same stuff as God even though we are called his children and heirs, and that God does not have any parts nor passions (which would include love). It requires us to believe that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are ontologically the same being while still being 3 separate persons (which to me IS incomprehensible, and is non-Biblical).

On a personal note, I have have been a Christian now for 22 years and the Lord is AWESOME. He has brought me through many difficult trials to say the least. His love and mercy have changed my life and daily I pray for His wisdom and guidance in all things. There truly is no greater joy than being in His presence. When I first came to Him a verse He has kept on my heart is John 8:24 "for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." so I have been asking Him to reveal Himself to me ever since and I KNOW He has done just that. I will truly be amazing to praise and worship Him for all eternity.

Rameumptom: And I'm happy you've such a great experience with the Lord. A person does not have to be Mormon, Catholic, or Baptist to have a personal relationship with Christ. Where it makes a difference is in the level of glory a person will receive in His presence. While LDS separate this into 3 kingdoms of glory, most traditional Christians also agree that there are "many mansions" and types of crowns in heaven.

The more truth we accept from God, the greater he can bless us. And we believe that not only has God blessed us with the Bible, but also with additional scripture in the Book of Mormon, etc. And He loves us so much as to give us prophets today, just as he did with ancient Israel. If these things are true, then being a traditional Christian is good, but being a LDS Christian would be better.

[Soninme]

Yes they would. They would say that Trinitarians added two persons to a singular person when they had no right to do so, and that Trinitarians are just worshipers of multiple gods who desperately try to convince themselves that they are not worshiping multiple gods.

They would call either of us polytheists.

But that's what I'm trying to get across here. You seem to object to my understanding of God based upon you're opinion that it sets up multiple gods. But you're failing to realize that this is exactly why Unitarianists hate the Trinity: Multiplicity of Gods. And they have scriptures they feel support their claim undeniably, just as you do.

I can't help what other people think or don't think about God or what I believe, I can only point them to what God has revealed about Himself in His word.

Quote:

Please tell me what in these creeds (Nicene creed) are an abomination / unbiblical as regarding their definition of the Godhead/Trinity? I believe those creeds to be Biblical and am willing to politely show why.

"Biblical" and "Unbiblical" have nothing to do with whether they are an abomination before God. Anybody can take a strongly felt theological opinion and go through the Bible and convince themselves that it is right. In all cases, they will find passages in the Bible that they feel establish their opinion as absolute fact and eternal truth. Why else would there be more than 30,000 denominations within Christianity??

Biblical and unbiblical have EVERYTHING to do with whether they are an abomination before God. If one was to tell us something about God that was contrary to scripture such as; Jesus didn't really die for our sins, then that would be an abomination no matter what they used to defend it. Satan quoted scripture (Math 4:6) but out of context. Peter warned us of those who distort the truth, (2Peter 3:16-17) but that doesn't make their opinion correct. There is no infallible interpreter of Scripture, nor is there a need for one. There is no infallible denomination or church. Even after receiving Christ as Savior, we are all still tainted by sin. We all make mistakes. No denomination/church has absolutely perfect doctrine on every issue. The key is this – all the essentials of the faith are abundantly clear in God’s Word. We do not need an infallible interpreter or 2000 years of church tradition to determine that there is one God who exists in three Persons, that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected from the dead, that Jesus is the one and only way of salvation, that salvation is received by grace through faith, that there is an eternal heaven awaiting those who trust in Christ and an eternal hell for those who reject Him.

But that's the trouble: The approach is not: A. Read the Bible. B. Find the Trinity taught there. C. Accept the Trinity. No, the common approach is: A. Accept the Trinity. B. Read the Bible. C. Find the Trinity taught there.

But the underlying thing is this: God is what he is. If the Council of Nicaea was wrong in their conclusions, then they defined and described God in a way that is false. They enforced by law and threat of rebuke and even violence, a description of God that was incorrect. God is what he is, and he cannot be made otherwise just because a lot of believers say otherwise. You don't get to change God into something he isn't.

If that is what happened, then of course it is an abomination.

This I would stongly agree.

Yes there is a but:) but on the other side; if those two creeds are correct in their conclusions, then to call them an abomination would be blasphemy.

Consider it from the LDS perspective. The Trinity description of God defines a being that is non-human in species. This means that we would have to give up the idea of being literal children of God to accept the Trintiy -- because we would have to accept that God is entirely alien to us and in no way similar. Erased is the notion that we are "made in the image and likeness of God" like Genesis claims we are.

It effectively unravels the entire plan of eternal progression as we understand it. We can never live up to the commandment to be like Our Father in Heaven and Jesus Christ because they are eternally alien and too different for us to fulfill this command. We can never be anything similar to God.

As I said above; if the Trinity is correct then all who call it an abomination are.........?

Erased is the notion that we are "made in the image and likeness of God" like Genesis claims we are.

Or ... Forgive me, I copied and pasted this from another site cause I'm lazy.

Having the “image” or “likeness” of God means, in the simplest terms, that we were made to resemble God. Adam did not resemble God in the sense of God’s having flesh and blood. Scripture says that “God is spirit” (John 4:24) and therefore exists without a body. However, Adam’s body did mirror the life of God insofar as it was created in perfect health and was not subject to death.

The image of God refers to the immaterial part of man. It sets man apart from the animal world, fits him for the dominion God intended him to have over the earth (Genesis 1:28), and enables him to commune with his Maker. It is a likeness mentally, morally, and socially.

Mentally, man was created as a rational, volitional agent. In other words, man can reason and man can choose. This is a reflection of God’s intellect and freedom. Anytime someone invents a machine, writes a book, paints a landscape, enjoys a symphony, calculates a sum, or names a pet, he or she is proclaiming the fact that we are made in God’s image.

Morally, man was created in righteousness and perfect innocence, a reflection of God’s holiness. God saw all He had made (mankind included) and called it “very good” (Genesis 1:31). Our conscience or “moral compass” is a vestige of that original state. Whenever someone writes a law, recoils from evil, praises good behavior, or feels guilty, he is confirming the fact that we are made in God’s own image.

Socially, man was created for fellowship. This reflects God's triune nature and His love. In Eden, man’s primary relationship was with God (Genesis 3:8 implies fellowship with God), and God made the first woman because “it is not good for the man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18). Every time someone marries, makes a friend, hugs a child, or attends church, he is demonstrating the fact that we are made in the likeness of God.

Part of being made in God’s image is that Adam had the capacity to make free choices. Although he was given a righteous nature, Adam made an evil choice to rebel against his Creator. In so doing, Adam marred the image of God within himself, and he passed that damaged likeness on to all his descendants (Romans 5:12). Today, we still bear the image of God (James 3:9), but we also bear the scars of sin. Mentally, morally, socially, and physically, we show the effects of sin.

The good news is that when God redeems an individual, He begins to restore the original image of God, creating a “new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness” (Ephesians 4:24). That redemption is only available by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ as our Savior from the sin that separates us from God (Ephesians 2:8-9). Through Christ, we are made new creations in the likeness of God (2 Corinthians 5:17).

Now consider for a moment: If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is what it claims to be -- The Church and Kingdom of God restored here on the Earth -- then the entire concept of the Trinity turns a great many eternal truths into impossibilities. Would that not be an abomination to God?

Answered above.

Quote:

I also am confused as to the different definitions I believe I'm getting from some LDS posters, although I know they are being sincere in their efforts. From the last post of Rameumptom, I don't see his objection to the creeds, though he must have some.

I think that the biggest underlying factor is that you're diligently trying to disprove of the LDS Godhead rather than trying to understand it. The questions and statements you have posted seem to indicate as much. They seem to be more focused on 'showing these poor misguided "Mormons" how wrong they' are rather than trying to see things from our point of view. I don't think you're really trying to understand.

These aren't my words and I haven't been disrespectful. I simply and logically believe we are talking about different Gods.

And herein is one of the most important matters to bring to the discussion: Christ touches both our lives. God leads and guides us both. God works with us from wherever we are. There is a right answer and a wrong answer when it comes to the nature of God, but God has not utterly disowned whichever party is wrong. I feel this is partly because the two concepts are a lot more similar than most people realize. But mostly it is because God is merciful to his children when his children are doing their very best to seek Him.

I agree Christ touches us both and is merciful even if we don't have everything just right.

He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.(Hebrews 11:6) I also think we would agree Christ said there are many false teachers/teachings out there. (Galations 1:6-12) I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel,

7.which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.

8.But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

9.As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

10.For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.

11.But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.

12.For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

I also think you and I would agree to ignore Gods word and His prophets/apostles or to believe what we want is not truly seeking Him. (2Timothy 4:3) For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

4.They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

What we believe is very important.

[Soninme]

Yes they would. They would say that Trinitarians added two persons to a singular person when they had no right to do so, and that Trinitarians are just worshipers of multiple gods who desperately try to convince themselves that they are not worshiping multiple gods.

They would call either of us polytheists.

But that's what I'm trying to get across here. You seem to object to my understanding of God based upon you're opinion that it sets up multiple gods. But you're failing to realize that this is exactly why Unitarianists hate the Trinity: Multiplicity of Gods. And they have scriptures they feel support their claim undeniably, just as you do.

I can't help what other people think or don't think about God or what I believe, I can only point them to what God has revealed about Himself in His word.

Quote:

Please tell me what in these creeds (Nicene creed) are an abomination / unbiblical as regarding their definition of the Godhead/Trinity? I believe those creeds to be Biblical and am willing to politely show why.

"Biblical" and "Unbiblical" have nothing to do with whether they are an abomination before God. Anybody can take a strongly felt theological opinion and go through the Bible and convince themselves that it is right. In all cases, they will find passages in the Bible that they feel establish their opinion as absolute fact and eternal truth. Why else would there be more than 30,000 denominations within Christianity??

Biblical and unbiblical have EVERYTHING to do with whether they are an abomination before God. If one was to tell us something about God that was contrary to scripture such as; Jesus didn't really die for our sins, then that would be an abomination no matter what they used to defend it. Satan quoted scripture (Math 4:6) but out of context. Peter warned us of those who distort the truth, (2Peter 3:16-17) but that doesn't make their opinion correct. There is no infallible interpreter of Scripture, nor is there a need for one. There is no infallible denomination or church. Even after receiving Christ as Savior, we are all still tainted by sin. We all make mistakes. No denomination/church has absolutely perfect doctrine on every issue. The key is this – all the essentials of the faith are abundantly clear in God’s Word. We do not need an infallible interpreter or 2000 years of church tradition to determine that there is one God who exists in three Persons, that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected from the dead, that Jesus is the one and only way of salvation, that salvation is received by grace through faith, that there is an eternal heaven awaiting those who trust in Christ and an eternal hell for those who reject Him.

But that's the trouble: The approach is not: A. Read the Bible. B. Find the Trinity taught there. C. Accept the Trinity. No, the common approach is: A. Accept the Trinity. B. Read the Bible. C. Find the Trinity taught there.

But the underlying thing is this: God is what he is. If the Council of Nicaea was wrong in their conclusions, then they defined and described God in a way that is false. They enforced by law and threat of rebuke and even violence, a description of God that was incorrect. God is what he is, and he cannot be made otherwise just because a lot of believers say otherwise. You don't get to change God into something he isn't.

If that is what happened, then of course it is an abomination.

This I would stongly agree.

Yes there is a but:) but on the other side; if those two creeds are correct in their conclusions, then to call them an abomination would be blasphemy.

Consider it from the LDS perspective. The Trinity description of God defines a being that is non-human in species. This means that we would have to give up the idea of being literal children of God to accept the Trintiy -- because we would have to accept that God is entirely alien to us and in no way similar. Erased is the notion that we are "made in the image and likeness of God" like Genesis claims we are.

It effectively unravels the entire plan of eternal progression as we understand it. We can never live up to the commandment to be like Our Father in Heaven and Jesus Christ because they are eternally alien and too different for us to fulfill this command. We can never be anything similar to God.

As I said above; if the Trinity is correct then all who call it an abomination are.........?

Erased is the notion that we are "made in the image and likeness of God" like Genesis claims we are.

Or ... Forgive me, I copied and pasted this from another site cause I'm lazy.

Having the “image” or “likeness” of God means, in the simplest terms, that we were made to resemble God. Adam did not resemble God in the sense of God’s having flesh and blood. Scripture says that “God is spirit” (John 4:24) and therefore exists without a body. However, Adam’s body did mirror the life of God insofar as it was created in perfect health and was not subject to death.

The image of God refers to the immaterial part of man. It sets man apart from the animal world, fits him for the dominion God intended him to have over the earth (Genesis 1:28), and enables him to commune with his Maker. It is a likeness mentally, morally, and socially.

Mentally, man was created as a rational, volitional agent. In other words, man can reason and man can choose. This is a reflection of God’s intellect and freedom. Anytime someone invents a machine, writes a book, paints a landscape, enjoys a symphony, calculates a sum, or names a pet, he or she is proclaiming the fact that we are made in God’s image.

Morally, man was created in righteousness and perfect innocence, a reflection of God’s holiness. God saw all He had made (mankind included) and called it “very good” (Genesis 1:31). Our conscience or “moral compass” is a vestige of that original state. Whenever someone writes a law, recoils from evil, praises good behavior, or feels guilty, he is confirming the fact that we are made in God’s own image.

Socially, man was created for fellowship. This reflects God's triune nature and His love. In Eden, man’s primary relationship was with God (Genesis 3:8 implies fellowship with God), and God made the first woman because “it is not good for the man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18). Every time someone marries, makes a friend, hugs a child, or attends church, he is demonstrating the fact that we are made in the likeness of God.

Part of being made in God’s image is that Adam had the capacity to make free choices. Although he was given a righteous nature, Adam made an evil choice to rebel against his Creator. In so doing, Adam marred the image of God within himself, and he passed that damaged likeness on to all his descendants (Romans 5:12). Today, we still bear the image of God (James 3:9), but we also bear the scars of sin. Mentally, morally, socially, and physically, we show the effects of sin.

The good news is that when God redeems an individual, He begins to restore the original image of God, creating a “new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness” (Ephesians 4:24). That redemption is only available by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ as our Savior from the sin that separates us from God (Ephesians 2:8-9). Through Christ, we are made new creations in the likeness of God (2 Corinthians 5:17).

Now consider for a moment: If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is what it claims to be -- The Church and Kingdom of God restored here on the Earth -- then the entire concept of the Trinity turns a great many eternal truths into impossibilities. Would that not be an abomination to God?

Answered above.

Quote:

I also am confused as to the different definitions I believe I'm getting from some LDS posters, although I know they are being sincere in their efforts. From the last post of Rameumptom, I don't see his objection to the creeds, though he must have some.

I think that the biggest underlying factor is that you're diligently trying to disprove of the LDS Godhead rather than trying to understand it. The questions and statements you have posted seem to indicate as much. They seem to be more focused on 'showing these poor misguided "Mormons" how wrong they' are rather than trying to see things from our point of view. I don't think you're really trying to understand.

These aren't my words and I haven't been disrespectful. I simply and logically believe we are talking about different Gods.

And herein is one of the most important matters to bring to the discussion: Christ touches both our lives. God leads and guides us both. God works with us from wherever we are. There is a right answer and a wrong answer when it comes to the nature of God, but God has not utterly disowned whichever party is wrong. I feel this is partly because the two concepts are a lot more similar than most people realize. But mostly it is because God is merciful to his children when his children are doing their very best to seek Him.

I agree Christ touches us both and is merciful even if we don't have everything just right.

He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.(Hebrews 11:6) I also think we would agree Christ said there are many false teachers/teachings out there. (Galations 1:6-12) I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel,

7.which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.

8.But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

9.As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

10.For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.

11.But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.

12.For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

I also think you and I would agree to ignore Gods word and His prophets/apostles or to believe what we want is not truly seeking Him. (2Timothy 4:3) For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

4.They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

What we believe is very important.

[Soninme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soninme

From the last post of Rameumptom, I don't see his objection to the creeds, though he must have some.

Rameumptom: My objections are these: 1. that the creeds are not truly Biblically based, and 2. are imposed upon people as a requirement to be considered Christian.

Among the requirements of the various creeds we find that God is so incomprehensible that we cannot begin to comprehend him, that we are not made of the same stuff as God even though we are called his children and heirs, and that God does not have any parts nor passions (which would include love). It requires us to believe that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are ontologically the same being while still being 3 separate persons (which to me IS incomprehensible, and is non-Biblical).

Does this mean God HAS to be a being that you "comprehend"?

Does being His children have to mean "made of the same stuff as"?

Parts nor passions (which would include love)??? were was this in the creeds?

I believe God is incomprehensible. How does the finite comprehend the Infinite?

Man has a beginning (Gen 1:26) "let Us make man". God doesn't. (Psalm 90:2) "even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God".

Just a thought about infinite. If I have an infinite amount of pennies and you have an infinite amount of dollars, who has more money?

[Faded]

These aren't my words and I haven't been disrespectful. I simply and logically believe we are talking about different Gods.

I'm not saying that you've been disrespectful. All I'm saying is that you seem more interested in proving your own point of view than understanding our point of view.

For God to communicate his will to mankind, sometimes he has to call those who are a blank slate, so he can begin again without a whole lot of traditions that are either not quite true or not understood correctly.

When Israel needed to be led out of Egypt, the Lord called Moses, a man who had been raised Egyptian and knew virtually nothing about the God of Israel. Later on, when the high priest was out of touch with the Lord's will, he called a young boy named Samuel to lead his people. He called farmers and shepherds instead of scholars and priests time and again. Christ called twelve apostles that were not scholars nor theologians. They were tax-collectors and fishermen and common laborers. There was one scholar among the the apostles, a former Pharisee named Judas Iscariot. We believe that in modern times, God began again through revelation to an uneducated 14 year old farm boy named Joseph Smith.

Why do you think this keeps happening? Probably because God can't fill a cup that is already full. I pastor friend of mine spent 16 long years studying our religion before he was able to set aside deeply ingrained traditions and accept the restored gospel. Why do you suppose it would be so hard for him?

You can go to the Bible and pull out the long list of passages that you believe proves your point of view. And if I were truly foolish I could respond with the many passages that I feel proves my point of view. But if the Bible alone were sufficient to establish all truth and answer all questions and remove all confusion and contained every scrap of truth we need, there would be one denomination, not 30,000+ of them. That's more than 30,000 different points of view with followers and leaders who sincerely believe that they have got the better understanding and interpretation of the Bible.

I would propose that this is more than enough evidence that debating the matter via passages from the Bible is entirely insufficient to settle the matter. If either of our points of view were completely, explicitly and thoroughly outlined within the Bible, that would be one thing. But they are not.

I agree Christ touches us both and is merciful even if we don't have everything just right.

He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.(Hebrews 11:6) I also think we would agree Christ said there are many false teachers/teachings out there. (Galations 1:6-12) I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel,

7.which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.

8.But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

9.As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

10.For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.

11.But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.

12.For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

I also think you and I would agree to ignore Gods word and His prophets/apostles or to believe what we want is not truly seeking Him. (2Timothy 4:3) For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

4.They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

What we believe is very important.

All true and what needs to be answered is this:

Did mankind "turn away from truth and turn aside to myths" anciently? Has mankind gone through a long era "when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear"? Did mankind already turn away unto "another gospel" other than the one that was received from Jesus and his Apostles? Has the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ long since been perverted and changed from it's original form.

The Protestant Reformation came about primarily because a lot of men read the Bible and believed that was exactly what happened. False teachings abounded, incorrect doctrine had been handed down for generations, etc. The Church of the day was vastly different from the Church during the time of the Apostles, and so they separated themselves from it. But they did not seem to know how to solve this other than just studying the Bible and doing their best to recreate what had been lost all those centuries earlier.

The message of the Church of Jesus Christ is that God has once again revealed himself. He has sent prophets and apostles to recreate what was lost: The fully authorized, whole and complete Church and Kingdom of God on this earth. It's purpose it to bring all men everywhere unto Christ. For those who already know him, this is the completion and fulfillment of what you have already received.

[Soninme]

You can go to the Bible and pull out the long list of passages that you believe proves your point of view. And if I were truly foolish I could respond with the many passages that I feel proves my point of view. But if the Bible alone were sufficient to establish all truth and answer all questions and remove all confusion and contained every scrap of truth we need, there would be one denomination, not 30,000+ of them. That's more than 30,000 different points of view with followers and leaders who sincerely believe that they have got the better understanding and interpretation of the Bible.

Yes but this isn't the Bible's fault. Paul told Timothy "from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

We of course don't reject or limit scripture just because fallen men (which includes me) don't rightly divide the word of truth. In fact wouldn't it be expected? Truth is truth whether people believe it or not. A sincerely held belief can be sincerely wrong.

The holy Scriptures (rightly divided 2Tim 2:15) were sufficient for Timothy, Paul and you and me to be thoroughly equipped.

I like what Charles Spurgeon said, "There are some precious jewels which may be discovered even by the wayfaring man, but the mass of the gold is hidden in the bowels of the earth; and he who would be rich in these treasures, must dig into Scripture. Thou must go down into its depths, and thou must rummage there until thou gettest at last at the treasure." May we be among those who "labour (toil to the point of weariness and exhaustion) in the word and doctrine" (1 Timothy 5:17). Woe be unto the lazy and slothful workman who will be ashamed before Christ for his failure to "give himself wholly" to the study of the Word (1 Timothy 4:16).

I would propose that this is more than enough evidence that debating the matter via passages from the Bible is entirely insufficient to settle the matter. If either of our points of view were completely, explicitly and thoroughly outlined within the Bible, that would be one thing. But they are not.

Sorry, I disagree.

Has the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ long since been perverted and changed from it's original form.

Not according to Jesus; Math 16:18 "upon this Rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Are you saying it did prevail?

The Protestant Reformation came about primarily because a lot of men read the Bible and believed that was exactly what happened. False teachings abounded, incorrect doctrine had been handed down for generations, etc. The Church of the day was vastly different from the Church during the time of the Apostles, and so they separated themselves from it.

Yes, reading the Bible exposes false teachings, just as God promised it would. They got "back to the basics" so to speak.

But they did not seem to know how to solve this other than just studying the Bible and doing their best to recreate what had been lost all those centuries earlier.

Just studying the Bible??

What did Paul and Timothy do? What did the Bereans do?(Acts 17:10-11) What did Spurgeon do? What should you and I do?

Lost????

We have the very same scriptures (Old Testament) Paul and Timothy had AND the New Testament that is God-breathed. Surely it was enough for the first Christians, why isn't it enough for all?

[rameumptom]

We have the very same scriptures (Old Testament) Paul and Timothy had AND the New Testament that is God-breathed. Surely it was enough for the first Christians, why isn't it enough for all?

Actually, no we don't. We have some of the scriptures they had. Most of the New Testament writings were not written until after the death of Paul. The New Testament is not as God breathed as you insist. There is nothing in it that states it is God breathed. That is your opinion only.

The First Christians had the Old Testament and a few other writings (such as the dozens we have found among the Dead Sea Scrolls). Today, our Old Testament is missing dozens of books that the Jews of Jesus' day used.

The early Christians also had books such as the Book of Enoch, the Shepherd of Hermas, etc. The Book of Enoch is quoted 39 times in the New Testament (see Jude for one example). These were considered inspired by early Christians, but tossed out of the first Bible by St Jerome in the 4th-5th centuries AD, because they did not meet his criteria. I do not recall which heavenly messenger it was that called St Jerome to put the Bible together - oh wait, there WASN'T any angel to call him to do it! Instead, he did it to fight off other Christian sects, such as the Gnostics, who were gaining lots of strength in Christianity. His goal was to seal the holy writ, and establish that nothing else was inspired, so that no one could claim continual revelation. He did this by rejecting dozens of holy books. He almost kicked out Hebrews and Revelation, except the Western Church insisted they stay in the sacred tome or they wouldn't accept it.

Bible scholars will tell you that 1/2 of the writings attributed to Paul were not written by him, but came long after his death. Do I still accept them as inspired? Yes. But they are not God-breathed.

When you look at the various pre-press New Testaments hand written over a thousand years, there are more differences among them than there are words in the New Testament. Yes, most of the differences are minor, but there are also major differences, such as the Johannine Comma. This one edit, which is still in the KJV, but edited out of some newer NT versions is proof that the Bible is NOT God breathed/perfect. One imperfection is all it takes to show it isn't perfect. Inspired? Yes. Perfect? No.

We need continual revelation because each period of time is different. Noah's revelations and teachings were needed in his day to prepare the world for the Flood. Moses was needed to rescue Israel from Egypt and give them the law. Isaiah and Jeremiah were needed in their day to prepare Israel for destruction. Each prophet came to generally give similar teachings, but to provide them in their own day for a specific purpose.

We do not need someone today to build another ark. We need someone to prepare us for the 2nd Coming of Christ and the destruction of the last days. Even John the Revelator foresaw prophets in Jerusalem in the last days of Armageddon - proving that prophets and prophesy are not ended with the Bible!

Has God changed? If not, then we should see his pattern throughout the ages. And his pattern has always been to send prophets and apostles to the world. Paul stated that we need prophets, apostles and others until we "all come to the unity of the faith" and so we no longer are tossed about by false doctrine (Ephesians 4:11-15). He explained in chapter 2 of Ephesians that the Church is built upon a "foundation of apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone." If that is the foundation, then shouldn't we continue with a live foundation, rather than a dead one? It makes no sense for God to give prophets for thousands of years, even after the death of Jesus, only to suddenly end revelation and prophetic authority sometime in the 2nd century AD. Either there are continual revelation and prophets, or God HAS changed.

[rameumptom]

Does this mean God HAS to be a being that you "comprehend"?

Does being His children have to mean "made of the same stuff as"?

Parts nor passions (which would include love)??? were was this in the creeds?

I believe God is incomprehensible. How does the finite comprehend the Infinite?

Man has a beginning (Gen 1:26) "let Us make man". God doesn't. (Psalm 90:2) "even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God".

Just a thought about infinite. If I have an infinite amount of pennies and you have an infinite amount of dollars, who has more money?

John 17:3 tells us "this is Life Eternal, that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

Yes, I think comprehending God IS important, unless life eternal is not important to us. Anciently, God revealed himself to the righteous. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Isaiah, and others saw God face to face. They truly comprehended God. They knew him intimately. Why should it be any different for us today?

When God said "Let us make man in our own image" (nice that you cut that off), it brings up a few questions. First, who is the "us" that God is talking to? Second, what does it mean to be in God's image, especially when we later see in Genesis that Seth is made in Adam's image.

On the first, Job was asked about events prior to the earth's creation when the "morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" (Job 38:7). Bible scholars tell us that these refer to the divine council, or divine children of God. Prior to the earth, God was not alone. When God "formed" man from the earth, it does not say he made man from nothing (ex nihilo creation). It states the body was made of earth, but then spirit was breathed or placed into the body. That spirit existed with God prior to this life. It was one of the sons of God. How do I know this? Because Paul agrees, when he tells us we should obey the "Father of our spirits" (Hebrews 12:9).

What does "everlasting to everlasting" mean? It suggests a time that is inconceivable to mankind. It does not necessarily mean an infinite amount of time.

In the OT, God became angry. He loved. He was jealous. Are these not passions? Moses saw God's back parts. Several saw God's face and body. Are these not parts? Even in the New Testament, Stephen and John describe seeing God on his throne - when does a spirit that fills the universe need a throne? All of it shows us that God is anthropomorphic or man-like. We are made "in his image" because God looks like and is man-like.

As for God having no body, parts nor passions, try the Westminster Confession: http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Creeds.html

And here is the Catholic response concerning the LDS belief in an anthropomorphic God: God Has No Body

Clearly, they state God has no body, nor parts, nor passions. If he is the Trinity-God, he cannot have these. Otherwise he is not considered perfect, and cannot be God. At least that is the argument Trinitarians use. And while they use one verse in the Gospel of John to "prove" their belief, they ignore the dozens of scriptures that say otherwise. Also, it is based upon Greek philosophers' beliefs that the perfect God could not be made of the same stuff as this universe, because it is imperfect and therefore God must be made from other stuff.

Greek philosophy is the origin of this idea, not revelation from prophets.

[Faded]

We have the very same scriptures (Old Testament) Paul and Timothy had AND the New Testament that is God-breathed. Surely it was enough for the first Christians, why isn't it enough for all?

They had something that the Protestant Reformers didn't have and that modern day "orthodox" Christianity doesn't have. Living, breathing, fully authorized messengers from God. They had Apostles.

And whether it's prophets or apostles or whether mankind calls God's authorized servants by some other name, one thing was never disputed:

These men held a level of authority from God above and beyond what most other men had. Their writings and and revelations were more important than anything that your pastor might write, speak or have revealed to him today. Their words conveyed and communicated the will of God to mankind on the Earth.

Ancient Israel had such men, living and breathing and very much alive in the here and now, back before they apostatized from the truth of God. The early Christian Church had such men living and breathing and very much alive in the here and now during the time of the Apostles. In both cases, these servants of God kept the people of God from straying into falsehoods and errors, and an examination of the Biblical record confirms that this was a CONSTANT and NEVER ENDING struggle.

At what point did God change programs and reveal to humankind that he was changing? This would surely be a HUGE change! "No more need for living oracles, prophets and apostles of God" to be replaced by "The Bible contains everything that God intends to reveal and that mankind and there isn't anything else that you need to know." That is a change so monumental that surely the revelation from God explaining it must have been absolutely clear and thorough and explicit, leaving no room for humankind to misunderstand. But where is this revelation? At what instant did the need for living prophets and apostles cease?

[Soninme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soninme

We have the very same scriptures (Old Testament) Paul and Timothy had AND the New Testament that is God-breathed. Surely it was enough for the first Christians, why isn't it enough for all?

Actually, no we don't. We have some of the scriptures they had. Most of the New Testament writings were not written until after the death of Paul. The New Testament is not as God breathed as you insist. There is nothing in it that states it is God breathed. That is your opinion only.

Seriously? 2Tim 3:16 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." God-breathed is from the Greek word "Theopneustos." Theo; meaning God and pneustos; meaning wind, spirit or breath.

Also translated "God inspired" or "inspired of God."

Consider what Paul said; 1Cor. 2:13 These things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.1 Cor. 14:37 "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."1 Thess. 2:13 "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." Galations 1:11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. 2 Peter 3:14-16 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, 15 and regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. Seems Peter believed Paul's writtings were on a par with scripture. I could go on and on but I get the feeling from you the New Testament is not to be taken too seriously even though it claims to be from God.

The early Christians also had books such as the Book of Enoch, the Shepherd of Hermas, etc. The Book of Enoch is quoted 39 times in the New Testament (see Jude for one example).

I'll give you the one in Jude; could you provide a link or something for the other 38.

Bible scholars will tell you that 1/2 of the writings attributed to Paul were not written by him, but came long after his death. Do I still accept them as inspired? Yes. But they are not God-breathed.

What Bible scholars? We need to keep 2Tim 4: 3-4 in mind.

Thirteen New Testament letters claim to have been written by Paul under the leading of the Spirit Of Truth. If any of those thirteen aren't written by Paul, much more 1/2 as you claim, then a false spirit has done it and I should totally reject it, but; Heb.6:18 "it is impossible for God to lie".

"Inspired" but not "God-breathed"????????? What is the difference? Is it God's word or not?

When you look at the various pre-press New Testaments hand written over a thousand years, there are more differences among them than there are words in the New Testament. Yes, most of the differences are minor, but there are also major differences, such as the Johannine Comma. This one edit, which is still in the KJV, but edited out of some newer NT versions is proof that the Bible is NOT God breathed/perfect. One imperfection is all it takes to show it isn't perfect. Inspired? Yes. Perfect? No.

No one says the translations are God-breathed perfect. God didn't speak in King James english and yes translators are fallable and can make mistakes. The Bible claims its contents to be God-breathed to the one who authored it originally. Now of course we don't have the originals but people who know more about this than me say; the great abundance of manuscripts we have today are in 99% agreement with one another. Yes, there are some minor differences, as you said, but the vast majority of the biblical text is identical from one manuscript to another. Most of the differences are in punctuation, word endings, minor grammatical issues, word order, etc. – issues easily explainable as scribal mistakes. No important theological or biblical issue is thrown into doubt by any supposed error or contradiction. We can have absolute confidence that the Bible we have today is almost exactly identical to what the apostles and prophets wrote 2000+ years ago. Is it God's word or man's word?

We need continual revelation because each period of time is different. Noah's revelations and teachings were needed in his day to prepare the world for the Flood. Moses was needed to rescue Israel from Egypt and give them the law. Isaiah and Jeremiah were needed in their day to prepare Israel for destruction. Each prophet came to generally give similar teachings, but to provide them in their own day for a specific purpose.

We do not need someone today to build another ark. We need someone to prepare us for the 2nd Coming of Christ and the destruction of the last days. Even John the Revelator foresaw prophets in Jerusalem in the last days of Armageddon - proving that prophets and prophesy are not ended with the Bible!

Hebrews 1:1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

I'll quote this verse again; 2Timothy3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.Including the 2nd coming of Christ and the last days. Prophets and prophecy are for today but they cannot contradict what God has already revealed to us in His word.

Has God changed? If not, then we should see his pattern throughout the ages. And his pattern has always been to send prophets and apostles to the world. Paul stated that we need prophets, apostles and others until we "all come to the unity of the faith" and so we no longer are tossed about by false doctrine (Ephesians 4:11-15). He explained in chapter 2 of Ephesians that the Church is built upon a "foundation of apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone." If that is the foundation, then shouldn't we continue with a live foundation, rather than a dead one?

Dead foundation? Our faith is not in the apostle Paul or Abraham or any angel, it's in the Person of Jesus Christ and His Word. The "foundation" is the teachings of the apostles and prophets. Just because a prophet or an apostle has died does that mean the Church is incomplete?

It makes no sense for God to give prophets for thousands of years, even after the death of Jesus, only to suddenly end revelation and prophetic authority sometime in the 2nd century AD. Either there are continual revelation and prophets, or God HAS changed.

Or.........His word is complete. 2Timothy3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. Every means every, so what else do we need to know?

Therefore we have all we need and our commission is to take THAT message to all nations.

[Islander]

Soninme said: "Or.........His word is complete. 2Timothy3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. Every means every, so what else do we need to know?

Therefore we have all we need and our commission is to take THAT message to all nations.

OK, but unless you are a Catholic Priest and a follower of the Universal Church, who was the first after the traditions and teachings of Peter, the Bishop of Rome and keeper of the keys of the Faith you are not authorized to teach or preach. For you are not ordained and schooled in the ancient languages and in the secrets of the sacrament of the Latin Rites.

Right? Not to deride but to point out that some make claims that would, on its face, invalidate your position.

You seem very keen to repeating what you have been taught rather than studying on your own and inquire as to our point of view. You are making the same mistake the Jewish people made when the Savior came. They had scripture from God, history and prophets. They thought they needed no more prophets, truth or God's direct instruction. But they did! Because after a while, people forget, they abandon the true doctrine and the commandments, they change the law, they corrupt the ordinance and they transgress the covenant. In fact, those that claim that they already know (scribes, pharisees and the like) are just too eager to showcase their greater intellect and insight to the point of rejecting the living prophets of God (see also 3 John 9-10). It happened then and it is happening now. That is why the word of God does not stop, it never has and the evidence rests in the fact that we have scripture that encompasses almost 5,000 years! I guess God could have said it was enough at some point since they had ALL they needed in their time!!!

Why would the Lord call another Apostle to the ministry some 30 years after the crucifixion? After all 12 Apostles had been called, many already killed and the work was underway. Because it is His Church and the work rests on His Living word thru prophets and Apostles that bring correct teaching and doctrine and not on the understanding, acquired knowledge or the belief of men.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Islander

[Faded]

Soninme every single one of those scriptures lacks the one thing that would make your case for you. NONE of them say "Bible." They say "scriptures" or "the word of God." But they say nothing about "the Bible."

So you and other theologians assume that "Bible" is implied where it very well might not be. But is the correct assumption being made?

This is not me degrading, insulting nor speaking ill of the Bible, for it is light from God and a gift from Him. But what I am saying is that at no point does the Bible actually claim to be the only word of God.

And here is your real task. If it was God intent to cease direct revelation and scripture and leave behind a compilation of his revealed works behind to take the place of direct revelations -- where does the Bible foretell this?? Surely God would not do something of such magnitude without telling us that he was doing it, right?

If you CAN establish with absolute certainty that the Bible really is a closed record and that God forbids anymore scripture from coming forth, then:

A.) When did it happen?

B.) What was the last book of scripture God allowed to be written before forbidding that anymore should be written? (For this I can offer a head start. The best scholarly opinions and evidences point to the Gospel of John and 1st, 2nd and 3rd John to have been written at the latest date of all New Testament writings. One of those four is almost certainly the last writing by the Apostles, with 3rd John and the Gospel of John being the front-runners.)

Edited March 8, 2010 by Faded

[Faded]

Dead foundation? Our faith is not in the apostle Paul or Abraham or any angel, it's in the Person of Jesus Christ and His Word. The "foundation" is the teachings of the apostles and prophets. Just because a prophet or an apostle has died does that mean the Church is incomplete?

Actually, that would be the perfect description for it.

If the purpose of the Reformation is to return or recreate the Church as it existed in the times of the Apostles -- then you have to have living Apostles. They did. Jesus Christ built his Kingdom on Earth with living Apostles. So without them, it isn't his Church and Kingdom on Earth.

The Jews likewise cast great faith in long-dead men of God in order to excuse themselves in rejecting the message of Jesus Christ to them. But if they had still had prophets among them and if they were actually LISTENING to those prophets, then they would not have failed to recognize the Messiah. But they cast their lot with comfortable (albeit incorrect) traditions based upon what they thought ancient prophets intended -- and then they killed the very Son of God.

History tends to repeat itself because human nature hasn't changed since the fall of Adam. Modern Christianity rejects the message when God sends it NOW but they will accept the message of men 2000 years dead. Why do you suppose that is?

Edited March 8, 2010 by Faded

[Soninme]

Soninme said: "Or.........His word is complete. 2Timothy3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. Every means every, so what else do we need to know?

Therefore we have all we need and our commission is to take THAT message to all nations.

OK, but unless you are a Catholic Priest and a follower of the Universal Church, who was the first after the traditions and teachings of Peter, the Bishop of Rome and keeper of the keys of the Faith you are not authorized to teach or preach. For you are not ordained and schooled in the ancient languages and in the secrets of the sacrament of the Latin Rites.

Right? Not to deride but to point out that some make claims that would, on its face, invalidate your position.

I'm not a Catholic but we are "authorized" to be a witness to all nations by Jesus Who said "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, Math.28:19. this was said long before thier were Catholic priests.

You seem very keen to repeating what you have been taught rather than studying on your own and inquire as to our point of view. You are making the same mistake the Jewish people made when the Savior came. They had scripture from God, history and prophets.

Yes the Jews had scripture and Jesus said to them, "Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God? Mark 12:24.

They thought they needed no more prophets, truth or God's direct instruction

Really? They thought they had all they needed? Weren't they looking/waiting for the prophecied Messiah? Were their scriptures fulfilled before Christ came?

I guess God could have said it was enough at some point since they had ALL they needed in their time!!!

Apparently we need new instructions because the the Bible doesn't contain what it claims.

This is what I don't get; please tell me what the Bible is missing in regards to saving faith that your scriptures require today?

[Soninme]

Originally Posted by Soninme

Dead foundation? Our faith is not in the apostle Paul or Abraham or any angel, it's in the Person of Jesus Christ and His Word. The "foundation" is the teachings of the apostles and prophets. Just because a prophet or an apostle has died does that mean the Church is incomplete?

Actually, that would be the perfect description for it.

If the purpose of the Reformation is to return or recreate the Church as it existed in the times of the Apostles -- then you have to have living Apostles. They did. Jesus Christ built his Kingdom on Earth with living Apostles. So without them, it isn't his Church and Kingdom on Earth.

Why do the apostles have to be living in order for us to walk in the truth that they, by the Holy Spirit, proclaimed? What did they, or rather the Holy Spirit, miss?

The Jews likewise cast great faith in long-dead men of God in order to excuse themselves in rejecting the message of Jesus Christ to them. But if they had still had prophets among them and if they were actually LISTENING to those prophets, then they would not have failed to recognize the Messiah. But they cast their lot with comfortable (albeit incorrect) traditions based upon what they thought ancient prophets intended -- and then they killed the very Son of God.

History tends to repeat itself because human nature hasn't changed since the fall of Adam. Modern Christianity rejects the message when God sends it NOW but they will accept the message of men 2000 years dead. Why do you suppose that is

This is the message from men 2000 years dead.

Romans 10:9-10 That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

What is the new message today?

[rameumptom]

Seriously? 2Tim 3:16 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." God-breathed is from the Greek word "Theopneustos." Theo; meaning God and pneustos; meaning wind, spirit or breath.

Also translated "God inspired" or "inspired of God."

Rameumptom: Okay, it does say God breathed in the Greek. However, it means "inspired" and not "perfect" as many Christians insist today. However, please note that 2 Timothy is considered by most Bible scholars to be pseudepigraphic - not actually written by Paul (see below).

I could go on and on but I get the feeling from you the New Testament is not to be taken too seriously even though it claims to be from God.

Ram: I do take the NT seriously, and believe it to be inspired. I just do not pretend it to be perfect, as much of it has come to us second or third hand, some of it is pseudepigraphic, We have to take the NT in context, and not turn it into something it isn't: perfect. Paul admitted to weakness, and confronted Peter on weakness. They argued over issues like Gentile conversions, circumcision, etc. It is not a perfect document, especially when one considers that many of the writings were not written by the apostles (including the Gospels). Taking it seriously isn't an all-or-nothing issue. It is an issue of intense study and research, considering the writings of the best scholars out there.

What Bible scholars? We need to keep 2Tim 4: 3-4 in mind.

Ram: Once again, Paul didn't write 2 Tim. While I consider it to still be inspired, I do not consider it perfect. Later Christians sought to push their personal agenda into the scriptures by writing an epistle and putting Paul's name in it. While much of it is stuff Paul would have said (so it wouldn't look too much like a forgery), there are things he would not have said in it.

Thirteen New Testament letters claim to have been written by Paul under the leading of the Spirit Of Truth. If any of those thirteen aren't written by Paul, much more 1/2 as you claim, then a false spirit has done it and I should totally reject it, but; Heb.6:18 "it is impossible for God to lie".

"Inspired" but not "God-breathed"????????? What is the difference? Is it God's word or not?

Ram: Things can be inspired, even if not perfect. As I said, it isn't all or nothing. Here is what wikipedia says regarding this:

he Pauline epistles are the thirteen books in the New Testament traditionally attributed to, and explicitly ascribed to, Paul of Tarsus. Some consider the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews a fourteenth Pauline epistle.[1] Seven letters are generally classified as “undisputed”, expressing contemporary scholarly near consensus that they are the work of Paul: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Six additional letters bearing Paul's name do not currently enjoy the same academic consensus: Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus. The first three, called the "Deutero-Pauline Epistles," have no consensus on whether or not they are authentic letters of Paul. The latter three, the "Pastoral Epistles", are widely regarded as pseudepigrapha,[2] though certain scholars do consider them genuine.[3] There are two examples of pseudonymous letters written in Paul’s name apart from the alleged New Testament epistles.[4] Since the early centuries of the church, there has been debate concerning the authorship of the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews, and contemporary scholars reject Pauline authorship.[5]

No one says the translations are God-breathed perfect. God didn't speak in King James english and yes translators are fallable and can make mistakes. The Bible claims its contents to be God-breathed to the one who authored it originally. Now of course we don't have the originals but people who know more about this than me say; the great abundance of manuscripts we have today are in 99% agreement with one another. Yes, there are some minor differences, as you said, but the vast majority of the biblical text is identical from one manuscript to another. Most of the differences are in punctuation, word endings, minor grammatical issues, word order, etc. – issues easily explainable as scribal mistakes. No important theological or biblical issue is thrown into doubt by any supposed error or contradiction. We can have absolute confidence that the Bible we have today is almost exactly identical to what the apostles and prophets wrote 2000+ years ago. Is it God's word or man's word?

Ram: Actually, no. They are very much in agreement for the most part. But that 99% ignores minor differences. However the 1% (and most scholars would place it closer to 10%) are major differences. Plus there are other issues: most of the OT is considered pseudepigraphical (not written by the original author). Isaiah was likely written by at least 2 people, if not 3. Daniel was probably written as late as the 2nd century BC. Most of Deuteronomy was written by the temple priests during King Josiah's reign. Were the people who wrote these, inspired? How do we really know? Or were they taking oral tradition and pushing their political views into it. Old Testament scholar Margaret Barker has written several books on how the Deuteronomists changed the temple rites and rewrote major things in the sacred writings (including Deuteronomy).

The Johannine Comma is an example of a major error that was purposely placed into the Bible by Christian scribes wishing to ""prove" the concept of Trinity against other beliefs. It is still found in the KJV. If the Bible is perfect and no major errors, how did it find its way into Bibles for over 1000 years?

Hebrews 1:1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

I'll quote this verse again; 2Timothy3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.Including the 2nd coming of Christ and the last days. Prophets and prophecy are for today but they cannot contradict what God has already revealed to us in His word.

Ram: Once again, Hebrews and 2 Tim were not written by Paul. However, I do believe it to be inspired. But there are various ways to interpret it. If we believe that Christ was the last to speak to us, why are we even discussing the epistles of Paul???? Shouldn't the Bible end with the Gospels? Why have prophets and apostles continue after the resurrection, if no other voice was needed. BTW, I mentioned Ephesians 2 and 4 the other day. What of Paul's insistence that apostles and prophets are still needed? Are you ignoring part of pseudo-Paul's writings, simply so you can interpret another pseudo-writing differently?

I agree that scripture is useful for correction, guidance, etc. LDS use it for these purposes all the time. I think we've mentioned that before, but your all-or-nothing insistence seems to have you ignoring that. We make two points: 1) the Bible is inspired, but not perfect. 2) Because the Bible is not perfect, and we live in a new age, we need prophets and apostles TODAY.

Dead foundation? Our faith is not in the apostle Paul or Abraham or any angel, it's in the Person of Jesus Christ and His Word. The "foundation" is the teachings of the apostles and prophets. Just because a prophet or an apostle has died does that mean the Church is incomplete?

Ram: Paul does not reference the teachings of dead prophets and apostles, but LIVING ones. John the Revelator also shows there will be prophets in the last days. Either you interpret Paul wrong, or you are calling John a liar. We receive salvation through Christ, not because there are no more prophets and apostles to guide us (and be a living foundation), but because he is replacing animal sacrifice with the perfect sacrifice. Paul tells us that we need apostles and prophets UNTIL we all come to the unity of the faith. That hasn't happened yet. Prophets are needed to prevent people from taking the scriptures and creating false doctrines. Even after Christ's death and resurrection, there were apostles and prophets. Why have them if Christ already established the foundation?

Or.........His word is complete. 2Timothy3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. Every means every, so what else do we need to know?

Therefore we have all we need and our commission is to take THAT message to all nations.

Ram: Yeah, yeah, I know. Second Timothy, blah, blah, blah. Try a few other verses. There are, after all hundreds of verses in the Bible. Some are even actually written by Paul. God's word is not complete. If it is, then John the Revelator is a liar. And this would mean that God is a changing God. God has always sent prophets to mankind. If he no longer sends them, God has changed his pattern and his ways.

[rameumptom]

I'm not a Catholic but we are "authorized" to be a witness to all nations by Jesus Who said "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, Math.28:19. this was said long before thier were Catholic priests.

Ram: But it was said specifically to the apostles, not to you. You are taking a verse and personalizing it. That is not necessarily bad, but you are doing what is called "eisegesis", making the scripture fit your belief. Christ told us in the Gospel of John 15:16, "you have not chosen me, but I have chosen you and ordained you...." Ordination by authority was clearly necessary, as the 11 apostles ordained Judas' replacement, and Paul insisted that baptisms and healings done without proper authority were not right (Acts 19). Peter was able to give the Holy Ghost through laying on of hands, but others did not have the authority (Acts 8), such as Simon Magus.

BTW, the Catholics would disagree with you. They believe that Peter was their first Pope and ordained his successor, leading to an unbroken line of Popes (who ordained bishops and priests). They definitely have a better authority line than any Church that broke away from them.

This is what I don't get; please tell me what the Bible is missing in regards to saving faith that your scriptures require today?

The Bible gives us much truth and insight. But it is incomplete, because all ages need prophets and apostles to give continual guidance. What does the Bible say about many of the issues occurring today? When two Christian nations go to war against each other on religious grounds, which one has God on its side? Who can warn us of upcoming disasters and destructions, such as Noah warned of the Flood, or Joseph warned of the 7 years of drought? What if God wishes to tell us more? Amos 3:7 states he only reveals his secrets through his servants, the prophets. With no prophets, can God no longer tell us anything? And what of the 2 prophets in Armageddon that the Revelator tells us about? Why are they really needed, if, according to your interpretation of the Bible, they aren't needed any longer?

There are things that were kept out of the Bible. Dozens of books, both Old and New Testament, that are not in our Bible today. The Dead Sea Scrolls have dozens of inspired books not in our Bible. The Book of Enoch, Shepherd of Hermas and many others, not in the Bible. The Bible actually mentions many books which are not in them. We even can read about an epistle that Paul sent, which is not in our Bible, but it was important enough to pass around.

If God is unchanging, wouldn't he send us modern prophets to guide us through today's struggles? I believe so.

[Faded]

When Joseph Smith was born, Christianity was deeply buried in it's own Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . So much time and attention had been poured into reaffirming and proving a long list of "absolute truths" while denying any and all evidence that contradicted their "absolute truths."

A perfect example of Cognitive dissonance and it's impact on Christendom is the Geocentric model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia of the universe. Remember when all the experts refused to believe that the Earth was not the center of the universe? What most people don't realize is the great lengths that scientists of that era went to, desperately trying to cling to their accepted "absolute truth" that the Earth really was the center of the universe.

The most obvious problem with the Geocentric Model of the Universe is the planets. If observed and tracked over a lengthy period of time, the planets do not move across the sky in a straight line.

They do this:

The solution? Well, since the Geocentric Universe was absolute truth, clearly there MUST be an answer.

And here's what they came up with:

Not only did each planet revolve around the Earth, but they also revolved around an invisible point in space as well! This was why the planets zigzagged across the sky! It all made sense! So Christendom's "absolute truth" was saved, and the apparent contradiction to their truth was explained away.

Of course it was a whole pack of lies and nonsense!! But this is the perfect example of how far traditional Christian orthodoxy has gone to defend their notions of absolute truth in the past. The evidence against a Geocentric Universe is so great that most (but not all sadly) Christian scholars have abandoned their defense of it.

Traditional Christianity just can't fathom that the Trinity could be wrong. The Protestants in particular cannot fathom that the Bible might have any flaws or imperfections whatsoever and the notion that it does not contain every scrap of God's truth that we need is just unfathomable to them. God sends new messengers and restores truth, but the traditionally-minded Christian cannot accept God's message when they hear it. Anything that contradicts their notions of "absolute truth" must be disregarded, or even despised outright. It is very sad to see, but it's human nature of course.

Edited March 14, 2010 by Faded

[Soninme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soninme

Seriously? 2Tim 3:16 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." God-breathed is from the Greek word "Theopneustos." Theo; meaning God and pneustos; meaning wind, spirit or breath.

Also translated "God inspired" or "inspired of God."

Rameumptom: Okay, it does say God breathed in the Greek. However, it means "inspired" and not "perfect" as many Christians insist today. However, please note that 2 Timothy is considered by most Bible scholars to be pseudepigraphic - not actually written by Paul (see below).

Wow! God-breathed doesn't mean perfect?

When God does something do you expect mediocrity? Not me.

Ram: I do take the NT seriously, and believe it to be inspired. I just do not pretend it to be perfect, as much of it has come to us second or third hand, some of it is pseudepigraphic, We have to take the NT in context, and not turn it into something it isn't: perfect. Paul admitted to weakness, and confronted Peter on weakness. They argued over issues like Gentile conversions, circumcision, etc. It is not a perfect document, especially when one considers that many of the writings were not written by the apostles (including the Gospels). Taking it seriously isn't an all-or-nothing issue. It is an issue of intense study and research, considering the writings of the best scholars out there

Quote:

What Bible scholars? We need to keep 2Tim 4: 3-4 in mind.

Ram: Once again, Paul didn't write 2 Tim. While I consider it to still be inspired, I do not consider it perfect. Later Christians sought to push their personal agenda into the scriptures by writing an epistle and putting Paul's name in it. While much of it is stuff Paul would have said (so it wouldn't look too much like a forgery), there are things he would not have said in it.

Does this really make any sense?

Who then inspired 1st and 2nd Timothy? We have three options as I see it.

1. God ; And if so then it is the word of God and perfect.

2. Man ; And if so then its on a level with other philosophies like the Dali lama. whoopie!

3. Demons ; And if so then throw it out!

If later Christians "pushed their agenda" by writting Timothy then it is a lie and should be rejected. What does the Lord say about lying? About bearing false witness? Did they help out the Holy Spirit and write it because He forgot to inspire Paul to write it? Do you really believe this hooey?

Ram: Once again, Hebrews and 2 Tim were not written by Paul. However, I do believe it to be inspired. But there are various ways to interpret it. If we believe that Christ was the last to speak to us, why are we even discussing the epistles of Paul???? Shouldn't the Bible end with the Gospels? Why have prophets and apostles continue after the resurrection, if no other voice was needed. BTW, I mentioned Ephesians 2 and 4 the other day. What of Paul's insistence that apostles and prophets are still needed? Are you ignoring part of pseudo-Paul's writings, simply so you can interpret another pseudo-writing differently?

Pseudo-Paul's writings??

Pseudo doesn't mean inspired, it means lying or false.

Now I understand what you think of much of the Bible. So much for the Holy Bible.

Do all LDS believe this?

If so then I'm done.

[rameumptom]

Wow! God-breathed doesn't mean perfect?

When God does something do you expect mediocrity? Not me.

Does this really make any sense?

Who then inspired 1st and 2nd Timothy? We have three options as I see it.

1. God ; And if so then it is the word of God and perfect.

2. Man ; And if so then its on a level with other philosophies like the Dali lama. whoopie!

3. Demons ; And if so then throw it out!

If later Christians "pushed their agenda" by writting Timothy then it is a lie and should be rejected. What does the Lord say about lying? About bearing false witness? Did they help out the Holy Spirit and write it because He forgot to inspire Paul to write it? Do you really believe this hooey?

Pseudo-Paul's writings??

Pseudo doesn't mean inspired, it means lying or false.

Now I understand what you think of much of the Bible. So much for the Holy Bible.

Do all LDS believe this?

If so then I'm done.

God gave Israel the Mosaic Law. Was it perfect? Or did God do something "mediocre"? Was it perfect and good enough for all eternity, or did Jesus come and give a higher law to replace the Mosaic law?

We believe God teaches man truth, to the level of truth they are ready to receive - even if imperfect. That is why Moses gave the Mosaic Law, and not the full gospel of Christ to Israel. They were rebellious and unprepared for the fulness of the gospel, and so God gave them something less perfect, but better than what they were doing in Egypt.

All LDS should believe this, as one of our articles of faith states, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God insofar as it is translated correctly."

So, I guess you are done. Hopefully one day you will come to know how God truly works, by looking at all issues in the Bible, by seeing the inconsistencies and problems with it; and then seeing how it still is inspired IN SPITE of man's weakness.

[Dymmesdale]

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.

[Soninme]

God gave Israel the Mosaic Law. Was it perfect? Or did God do something "mediocre"?

Ummm.......Psalm19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple.

8 The precepts of the LORD are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the LORD are radiant, giving light to the eyes.

9 The fear of the LORD is pure, enduring forever. The ordinances of the LORD are sure and altogether righteous.

10 They are more precious than gold, than much pure gold; they are sweeter than honey, than honey from the comb.

11 By them is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward.

Was it perfect and good enough for all eternity, or did Jesus come and give a higher law to replace the Mosaic law?

Deut32:4 He is the Rock, His work is perfect; For all His ways are justice, A God of truth and without injustice; Righteous and upright is He.

2Samuel 22:31 As for God, His way is perfect; The word of the Lord is proven; He is a shield to all who trust in Him.

32 "For who is God, except the Lord? And who is a rock, except our God?

33 God is my strength and power, And He makes my way perfect.

Deut. 18:18 I will raise up for them a Prophet (Jesus Christ) like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him.

Romans 5:13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world, but there is no accounting for sin when there is no law.

Romans 7:12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous, and good. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual – but I am unspiritual, sold into slavery to sin.

Romans 8:2 For the law of the life-giving Spirit in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death. 3 For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the righteous requirement of the law may be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Galatians 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.

22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed.

24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

We believe God teaches man truth, to the level of truth they are ready to receive - even if imperfect. That is why Moses gave the Mosaic Law, and not the full gospel of Christ to Israel. They were rebellious and unprepared for the fulness of the gospel, and so God gave them something less perfect, but better than what they were doing in Egypt.

Matthew 7:13 "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.

14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

All LDS should believe this, as one of our articles of faith states, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God insofar as it is translated correctly."

So, I guess you are done. Hopefully one day you will come to know how God truly works, by looking at all issues in the Bible, by seeing the inconsistencies and problems with it; and then seeing how it still is inspired IN SPITE of man's weakness.

uh huh..... yawn....

Soooooooo you believe it.... but just can't trust it... cuz it is "psuedo" right???

Yet still inspired; whatever that means.

[rameumptom]

So, if the Law of Moses was perfect, why did Jesus have to fulfill it? Why was circumcision an "everlasting covenant" but we no longer have to be circumcised? Why do Christians eat pork and other forbidden foods, if Moses was correct? If the Mosaic Law was perfect, why would circumcision and the dietary commands continue for a time among Christians AFTER Jesus' death, but only be changed once the gospel went to the Gentiles? Why would Peter receive the vision leading him to Cornelius that unclean meats were suddenly clean, if Moses' Law was "perfect"?

Either the words "eternal covenant" and "perfect" mean something different in English, or the Mosaic Law was NOT perfect, but an imperfect "schoolmaster leading us to Christ" as Paul would say it.

[Dymmesdale]

So, if the Law of Moses was perfect, why did Jesus have to fulfill it? Why was circumcision an "everlasting covenant" but we no longer have to be circumcised? Why do Christians eat pork and other forbidden foods, if Moses was correct? If the Mosaic Law was perfect, why would circumcision and the dietary commands continue for a time among Christians AFTER Jesus' death, but only be changed once the gospel went to the Gentiles? Why would Peter receive the vision leading him to Cornelius that unclean meats were suddenly clean, if Moses' Law was "perfect"?

Either the words "eternal covenant" and "perfect" mean something different in English, or the Mosaic Law was NOT perfect, but an imperfect "schoolmaster leading us to Christ" as Paul would say it.

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.