How Does LDS Church resolve conflicts with the Bible ???


CHowell
 Share

Recommended Posts

I wholeheartedly agree with Ramiumptum and Faded.

I also believe that most christian denominations today are wrongly assuming that they are the Body of Christ just because they believe in Him and believe they are saved because they believe.

The Body of Christ spoken of in the New Testiment is not just anyone who believes but more spacifically were those who had been baptized by authority for the remission of sin and had received the Holy Ghost by the Laying on of Hands by one who held the Melchizidek Priesthood and were thus numbered among the Church of Jesus Christ of Former-Day Saints.

This qualified them to be considered The Body of Christ. It was to these Saints in the various branches of The Church that the Apostles and Prophets were teaching the doctrine of Salvation in the New Testiment. The "Saints" had the gift of the Holy Ghost to help them understand the teachings being presented.

Anyone without that Gift and without ongoing revelation will not be sufficiently prepared to understand scripture. The conflicts today among most Christians is the result, and by the way is making the adversary very happy indeed.

When Joseph Smith prayed to God to find out which church to join, he was told to join none of them for they were all wrong and were teaching for commandments the "doctrines of men having a form of Godliness but denying the power thereof".

Traditional Christian doctrine, while containing some truth, will not bring anyone back to the Presence of God. The restoration of the lost truth was needed to accomplish that. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the way A loving Father in Heaven has prepared and which we must follow in order to return home to God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ.

Edited by darrel
paragraphing- punctuation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 402
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think the OP and so many others who look into The Restored Church of Jesus Christ run into the same problem. They are so filled up with traditions and beliefs that SEEM to contradict our message that they can't get past them. Most generally, those who have an easy time accepting the message of the Restored Gospel are already filled with doubts about the traditions that they've been taught, or they never really got very mentally invested into any particular belief set.

There is an object lesson originating in Zen Buddism, but it is commonly used by every world religion to illustrate the same point. Just for fun, here's a clip from "The Forbidden Kingdom" using the object lesson:

Jason: The cup is full. Stop it's full.

Lu Yan: Exactly. How can you fill your cup if it is already full. How can you learn kung fu when you already know so much ... Empty your cup.

This is one of many references to the same true story: "The Japanese master Nan-in gave audience to a professor of philosophy. Serving tea, Nan-in filled his visitor's cup, and kept pouring. The professor watched the overflow until he could restrain himself no longer: "Stop! The cup is over full, no more will go in." Nan-in said: "Like this cup, you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup." "

While I'm not about to start advocating Zen Buddism, the object lesson is still perfect. If we are to ever learn anything new from God, we have to set aside what we think we know and let God teach us.

Traditional Christianity and it's adherants are much the same: Their cups are already full with opinions and traditions. There is no room for anything new. So they reject the message of the Restored Gospel -- not because it is not true, but because accepting it would mean they must empty their cup and casting aside everything they think they know, in order to make room for something new. It is not something they have an easy time doing. This happens time and time again in history.

The best historical parallel is the Pharasees and Scribes during the life of Jesus Christ. Their cup was filled with a mixture of truth, false tradition and speculation. There was no room in their cup for the pure truth Christ brought to them. They were already too filled with their own opinions, teachings and ideas. There wasn't room for anything more. Then look at the Twelve Apostles and other disciples. Fishermen, physicians, tax collectors, carpenters. Virtually all Galileeans, who lived far away from the center of Jewish theology in Jerusalem. They were not overfull will what they passionately believed to be true. There was room for something new. And so they were able to accept God's Son and messenger when he came to them.

By sheer magnitude of so many voices decrying "Mormonism" as some insideous Satanic cult and brainwashing machine, I would venture to say that the majority of Latter Day Saints have come face to face with the possibility that everything they've been taught in this Church is false. I know I've experienced it. In addition, The Church of Jesus Christ has always taught us to seek a witness from God to confirm that what they have been taught is true. You cannot get a sure witness of the truth unless and until you leave the matter entirely in God's hands. You set aside all your traditions and rational arguments in favor of "Mormonism" and simply ask God if it is true. You have to "empty your cup" and leave it entirely up to God to answer the question.

It is by so doing that I know beyond all doubt that it is true. This Church is the same Church and Kingdom of God that existed in the time of the Apostles. It has been returned to us, whole and complete. And while I can't begin to claim to know the answer to every question, I know what I know, and God as my witness, I cannot be shaken from it.

I think many well-studied Traditional Christians fail to "empty their cup" before asking God if the message of the Restored Gospel is true. Though the OP has obviously lost interest in this thread, it is clear from his statements that this is the case with him. So full of traditional Protestant-Christian thinking that there was never any room for "Mormonism" to be true.

And the cup metaphor answers one of his questions:

I certainly would never make the mistake of thinking that I am God, nor would I believe that you should ever put any man above God in your life. What I am doing is challenging your understand and your interpretation because God my heavenly father has suggested to me that this isn't right. Now how can we both pray to God and get conflicting answers ?

How could God possibly tell him it was true, when he was already so absolutely sure it was all false?

Conflicting answers to prayers virtually always are the result of one party (or even both) not "emptying their cup" before thoroughly studying the matter with a completely open/unbiased mind and then inquiring of God. Clinging to what you think you know and deciding that you already know the answers ahead of time often leads us to manufacturing our own answers to prayers.

Edited by Faded
spelling corrections
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good comparison Faded. It reminds me of an old saying; "Some peoples minds are like concrete, all mixed up and settled".

These scriptures discribe some of the conditions to be found in the last days.

2 Tim. 3: 7

7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

• • •

2 Ne. 28: 4, 15

4 And they shall contend one with another; and their priests shall contend one with another, and they shall teach with their learning, and deny the Holy Ghost, which giveth utterance.

• • •

15 O the wise, and the learned, and the rich, that are puffed up in the pride of their hearts, and all those who preach false doctrines, and all those who commit whoredoms, and pervert the right way of the Lord, wo, wo, wo be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Soninme

2 Timothy3:13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

You bring that passage up a lot. What do you presume that it is telling you? It clearly is telling you something that I'm simply not getting.

I bring this passage up a lot because it is very clear (at least to me) that whatever Paul's definition of scripture was at that time (remember, what he said was God-breathed so it has to be true) was "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work". What I continually here from those in this forum is, it's not.

I am just quoting the scripture which you don't believe.

Should I assume Paul got it wrong?

I just don't see how it can be your way.

A brief analysis of this passage, when it was given and so forth, yields this information.

1.) The New Testament was not completely written yet when Paul wrote this, nor was it complied nor was it canonized yet.

2.) An honest analysis of this passage leads you to understand "the Scriptures" being referenced being the Old Testament. Properly understood, the entire Old Testament is what this passage says it is.

For sure I believe Paul was at least referencing the Old Testament. But scripture interprets scripture;

2 Peter 3:15 "as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures". Peter believed Paul's writings were scripture.

Gal 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.

1 Cor. 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.

13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16 For “who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

Do you believe Paul was lying?

Of course you don't. You say you believe the New Testament is from God. But this is what makes no sense to me, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 evidently according to you, doesn't mean what it says.

Even if we include the OT and the NT as the "scriptures" Paul was talking about, you still will tell me over and again "it's not enough". That why I ask; Should I believe the Bible or you?

Enough is clearly missing to make the current "Body of Christ" a mass of arguments, dissensions, disagreement and general chaos -- in complete contradiction to how the Body of Christ of the New Testament was described. So clearly the Bible all by itself does not have sufficient information to create the Church of Jesus Christ that existed in the days of the Apostles. It provides great insights into what that Church looked like and how it functioned, but all attempts to recreate it from the Bible alone have been unsuccessful.

Once again in stark contrast to your teaching, Paul said otherwise. Why do you blame the scriptures for having those that don't believe them? Also don't forget Peter as was quoted above; "untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction". Why is this the Bibles' fault? It was foretold!

Who should I believe?

Also there are essential doctrines where Christians are unified, that is what distinguishes them from non Christians, just as you would say, "all true LDS are unified" and there are non essential doctrines where honest believers can differ in regards to their maturity. I see this on this website as well as others and I chalk it up to human nature.

Why? Because too much is left to speculation without concrete facts.

Again, please, what teaching did you get from the BoM and others that was left out of the Bible?

More importantly, recreating The Church of Jesus Christ perfectly requires nothing less than direct revelation from God and a renewing of the Apostolic authority that neither Catholicism nor Protestantism can legitimately lay claim to.

Recreating!!!!! ????:eek: Ahh so the gates of Hell really did prevail against Christs church. (Math. 16:18)

Who should I believe?

And of course, at the point when Paul wrote that passage, about 1/3 of the New Testament was missing -- since it hadn't been written yet. So as of this writing to Timothy, there was quite of bit of scripture that certainly was missing.

Evidently, according to you, there had to be something seriously missing. Does this mean what Paul said in 2 Tim. was wrong? If not then what does 2 Tim. 3:16-17 mean?

I finally got my answer

Here's my dilemma;

Should I believe what the Bible says or should I believe those whom I have quoted?

2 Peter 3:14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.

Once again, I completely agree with the scripture. I'm not sure what you're getting out of it that I'm not seeing.

I would entirely agree that many New Testament passages are twisted and turned to suit the reader's whims and fancies. Many passages are understood to mean things that they logically couldn't have possibly have been intended to mean. A lot of reading into them happens. The readers frequently fail to keep New Testament writers' words in context of who they are speaking to and what the circumstances are.

Yes, it is not the Bible's fault that it's mis-interpreted. This verse tells us it has happened before and it will happen again and again.

The pertinent question is this: Who is correctly understanding the passages and who is twisting them to mean something they were never intended to mean, and how do you tell the difference?

Great question, to which the Bible gives us the answer; 2 Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. James 1:18 In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures. Acts 17:11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

1 Cor. 14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

1 John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

See Deut 18:18-22.

John 17:17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.

Look at the chaotic mess that so many people call "The Body of Christ." You could hardly make a better argument for God sending somebody like Moses, Abraham or Noah to the world today. It is clear that this disunified Christendom was and is in need of guidance and direction. There is hardly a denomination that is not in disagreement within itself about many core teachings of Christ, what they mean and how they are to be understood. It seems perfectly logical for God to send Apostles and Prophets once more to straighten out these centuries old conflicts and to establish once and for all what God's messengers truly intended and taught to us all those centuries ago. And as Rameumptom correctly points out, it is God's way to send his LIVING messengers into the world. He always did it that way in the Old Testament times. He did it that way in the New Testament times. God never changes, he's said so many times. So what makes modern Christianity exempt from the need of guidance by living prophets and apostles? How are they so different?

Ya, because we don't study our Bibles and we believe the Bible is

often unclear, incomplete, contradictory, or even wrong on some issues,

please send us someone to tell us what we are suppose to believe. :rolleyes:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soninme, with all due respect, you're misapprehending the LDS position.

Let me give you an example: All pennies are coins, but not all coins are pennies.

Similarly, the LDS maintain that all the Bible is scripture, but not all scripture is in the Bible.

You have cited many scriptures showing that the Bible is scripture until you're blue in the face, and there's not a single Mormon who will take issue with you.

But you've not yet posted anything biblical that counters the Mormon belief that there is scripture outside the Bible.

Again, please, what teaching did you get from the BoM and others that was left out of the Bible?

You really think that all Mormon theology is rooted in a solid biblical foundation? I'm flattered. :D

But, seriously: Try here for a start.

Ya, because we don't study our Bibles and we believe the Bible is

Quote:

often unclear, incomplete, contradictory, or even wrong on some issues,

please send us someone to tell us what we are suppose to believe.

It's a staple of theological and legal discourse, that if everyone just read the books right--they'd agree with me. That tactic doesn't persuade anyone in the law, and it won't persuade anyone here.

I think lots of Mormons are uncomfortable dwelling on Biblical inconsistencies and compiling a list thereof--because we love the Bible, and I think most of us prefer to take it at face value wherever possible. But if you'd like to see some lists of intra-Biblical contradictions (mostly compiled by secularists), feel free to google the term "bible contradicts itself". I agree with you that many of those contradictions can be reconciled relatively easily. But not all of them can. A couple of examples:

--Genesis 1-2 contains differing sequences for the creations of various plants/animals.

--The New Testament contains two different accounts of the fate of the money paid to Judas Iscariot.

--The New Testament contains two different genealogies for Jesus Christ.

--Exodus 33:11 says Moses saw God; in John 1:18 Jesus is quoted as saying no one has seen God.

Now, you can add elements to the story to square away any of these contradictions. But textually--you can't do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sonime -

Do you accept the Clementine Epistle to the Corinthian Believers as "Scripture" according to what you have stated in your recent post?

If you are not familiar with this, historical analysis has concluded that the Early Christian church included the Clementine Epistle (1 Clement) in their readings and acceptance of Scriptural Authority:

This Epistle was held in very great esteem by the early Church. The account given of it by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., iii. 16) is as follows: “There is one acknowledged Epistle of this Clement (whom he has just identified with the friend of St. Paul), great and admirable, which he wrote in the name of the Church of Rome to the Church at Corinth, sedition having then arisen in the latter Church. We are aware that this Epistle has been publicly read in very many churches both in old times, and also in our own day.” The Epistle before us thus appears to have been read in numerous churches, as being almost on a level with the canonical writings. And its place in the Alexandrian ms., immediately after the inspired books, is in harmony with the position thus assigned it in the primitive Church. There does indeed appear a great difference between it and

the inspired writings in many respects, such as the fanciful use sometimes made of Old-Testament statements, the fabulous stories which are accepted by its author, and the general diffuseness and feebleness of style by which it is distinguished. But the high tone of evangelical truth which pervades it, the simple and earnest appeals which it makes to the heart and conscience, and the anxiety which its writer so constantly shows to promote the best interests of the Church of Christ, still impart an undying charm to this precious relic of later apostolic times.

Care to explain, that if the 66 Books of the Bible is complete and authoritative, without error, missing books, or contradictions, why the Early Christian believers held 1 Clement in high regards, read from it, taught from it, and accepted it as coming from apostolic authority?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bring this passage up a lot because it is very clear (at least to me) that whatever Paul's definition of scripture was at that time (remember, what he said was God-breathed so it has to be true) was "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work". What I continually here from those in this forum is, it's not.

I am just quoting the scripture which you don't believe.

Should I assume Paul got it wrong?

I just don't see how it can be your way.

The 2nd Timothy tells us what scripture is and why it is useful. What I'm seeing is you reading something more into it. Yes all things that are worthy of being called Scripture are profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. The primary purpose for studying the Scriptures is indeed to be thoroughly equipped for every good work. None of this contradicts our understanding and teachings in any way. It only becomes contradictory when you read more into it.

What the passage doesn't say is that the Bible is the only scripture that ever was and ever will be. It never says that all you need is Scripture. It never says nor implies that all that can be had from God is contained in the Bible, nor that it is contained in any Scriptures. The passage makes no claim that the Biblical record would never be corrupted by errors -- whether accidental or intentional.

We believe that the Biblical record was perfect when it was came from the pen of the original writers. We believe that the Bible is mostly correct, but that there are some errors. I don't choose to focus too much on those errors -- but those that do are simply trying to make the case that it takes more than just a slightly imperfect Bible to build God's Church and Kingdom on Earth.

Is the Bible perfect? Well, the Protestant theory goes like this: "It would have never been corrupted because God would have never let such a thing happen to his Word."

News flash for you: we already have proof that it just didn't happen like that.

There are differences between the oldest texts we have. The Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, Peshitta, Vulgate, Masoretic Text, Samarian Pentateuch and Targum don't match 100% of the time. There are significant differences in many cases.

Commenting on the many texts that the New Testament derives from, texual scholar Bart Ehrman said, "It is true, of course, that the New Testament is abundantly attested in the manuscripts produced through the ages, but most of these manuscripts are many centuries removed from the originals, and none of them perfectly accurate. They all contain mistakes - altogether many thousands of mistakes. It is not an easy task to reconstruct the original words of the New Testament..."

Almost any expert can tell you that when the NIV was written, the writers felt they were able to make a better Bible than the King James Version -- mostly because of new discoveries that they felt enabled them to more accurately reflect the true text of the original Old and New Testament.

You can find plenty of info in this Wikipedia article: Biblical Manuscripts. Or just do your own research. The fact is, there is considerable debate about what the exact text of the Old and New Testament was originally.

So the theory that you're clinging to doesn't stand up to reality. God did not prevent error from creeping into Biblical texts by transcribers. Very often, two texts of the same book of the Bible will have significant differences, despite both being from reputable sources and from about the same historic period.

It is my opinion that the level of preservation of the Old and New Testament is nothing short of miraculous, but it's just not 100% perfect. If it was perfect and God prevented any errors in copying and transcription, then all the texts would be exactly identical -- and that simply isn't the case.

In the end, I don't dwell on the slight imperfections that the Bible may have picked up over the years. I think it's been oversold by many that have posted in this thread, and as a Church we're not quite as keen as they make out to point out Biblical imperfections.

The Bible doesn't need to be perfect if you have living Prophets and Apostles to guide Christ's Church. And that's where it's all leading. Having a book written by Apostles and Prophets 2000+ years ago is nice and all, but having living Apostles and Prophets to lead and guide you in addition to those ancient records is vastly better.

Just like the ancient Apostles before them, Prophets and Apostles today draw heavily from the ancient scriptures (the Bible being one) for their direction to the Church. To say that we ignore the Bible or do not teach from it is nonsense. But we do feel it is not our only source of information from God.

Consider this for a moment. When a modern day Apostle and Prophet reveals that God did NOT harden Pharoh's heart in the time of the Exodus, but that Pharoh hardened his own heart, my faith and trust in God increase greatly. That feature of Exodus had always bothered me a lot. If God hardened Pharoh's heart to prevent Pharoh from letting Israel go, then God was playing the part of a cruel torturer. He is forcing the whole of Egypt to suffer greater and greater plagues and forcing their leader to disregard logic, and keep all of Egypt in the cookpot to suffer greater and greater plagues. But if it was Pharoh who hardened his own heart, then the notion of God cruelly tormenting the Egyptians is dispelled. Instead, we find a very, very stubborn man in the person of Pharoh. By his own incredible stubbornness, he brings one catastrophe after another down on Egypt. He was not being forced to do it all against his will, but is pitting his will against God's will. This modern day revelation correcting a long standing transcriptional mistake goes a long ways towards improving my good opinion of my God and the God of Israel.

That is just one example why having living Apostles and Prophets is a very good thing.

Edited by Faded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh so the gates of Hell really did prevail against Christs church. (Math. 16:18)

Who should I believe?

I'm going to have to respond piecemeal if at all to your post, so bear with me. You bring up and interesting point with this passage:

Matthew 16:13-19

13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Christ asked his Apostles who they thought he was. Simon answers for them saying, "You are the Messiah and the Son of God." Jesus commends Simon and tells him that God the Father had revealed the truth to him.

And herein is the key of the scripture. Revelation. What will Christ build his Church on? Well, what just happened in the prior verses? God revealed the truth to Jesus chosen leaders amongst his disciples. Then Christ gives Simon a new name -- Peter (meaning small rock or pepple.)

When he says "Upon this rock..." another word is used: Cephas (meaing large stone outcrop.) So what is the foundation Christ is talking about? It is two things: Christ Himself and revelation from God. So what happens when the Church and Kingdom of God are built upon revelation from God to his chosen Apostolic leaders? The gates of hell will not prevail against it. What does that mean exactly? That both individually and collectively as Christ's Church, you will not be overcome by the forces of evil if you are built upon the foundation of Jesus Christ and revelation from God. Does that mean that evil people won't kill you? Certainly not. It means that in the end, you will not be overcome by the forces of evil, but will inherit eternal life.

What happens when the Church ceases to receive revelation from God? The closing of the canon, the last written words by Apostles, the lack on any new scriptures; It all adds up to the same thing. Revelation ceased. Without the foundational element of revelation you also aren't built on Christ. What you have left isn't God's Church and Kingdom on Earth anymore. What remains is only a memory of that Church and Kingdom of God, but not the real thing. How can it be God's if he isn't guiding it anymore?

What this passage doesn't say is, "The Church of Christ will never fall away from the truth."

In the end, God knows what he is doing. When Moses led Israel out of Egypt into the wilderness, Moses wanted to reveal a fullness to them. Israel wasn't ready for it, so they got something less from God. Early Christianity received the fullness, but they lost that fullness. Apparently they were not ready or willing to receive a fullness of what God wanted to give them, so God gave them something less. A lessening of the fullness of Christianity did not thwart the works of God anymore than ancient Israel's rebellions in the wilderness did. It worked to accomplish His will. Knowledge of God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost reaches to every corner of the globe, and this happened via the hands of a lesser incomplete version of his Church.

The Protestant Reformation happened and Christendom began waking up for it's long slumber of ignorance. The Bible was published in every language and swept across the world. Why did God lead men to rebel and start to question the Catholic Church? Because it was not the original Church and Kingdom of God, but only a poor copy of the real thing. And as the Reformers read the Bible and realized that the Roman Catholic Church was vastly different from the Church described in the Scriptures. Why did God lead them to realize all of this? Why would he lead them to question their mother Church? Because they needed to know that Christendom had lost it's way and strayed far from what God instructed. Because God wanted them to see with their own eyes what was missing and what had been lost. Only by knowing something is lost can you search for it and try to get it back.

Quite simply, He was preparing the world for the return of His Church and Kingdom in it's fullness. Because the knowledge of God and Christ is has reached everywhere in the world, the Restored Church and Kingdom of God could be built and would not be lost this time.

Now the Peter=pebble or small rock reference has significance to us in the restored Church of Jesus Christ. This almost certainly has reference to the a stone like unto the Urim and Thummim -- the use of which constitutes seers in ancient times and is mentioned in the Revelation of John. It is also mentioned in the Exodus as being part of the clothing of Aaron and presumably all subsequent High Priests. So Simon has "Peter" added to his name signifying, "Simon, prophet and seer." And the verse tells us, "You are a prophet, seer and revelator, and it is upon this foundation of revelation whereupon my Church shall be built. And because of this foundation of continual revelation, the gates of hell will not prevail against it." And the keys of the kingdom were entrusted to Simon Peter.

When God undertook to restore his Church and Kingdom, he did send Simon Peter along with James and John to restore the Apostolic and Priesthood authority. So in a very real sense, this Church and Kingdom is built upon the foundation laid by Peter. The keys were passed on to living Prophets and Apostles. Our General Authorities have them today.

please send us someone to tell us what we are suppose to believe.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what Apostles and Prophets do? So yes, God did send someone to tell you what to believe in. It's up to you whether you listen to God's messengers or cast stones at them like they did Stephen. God will not force you to listen. Edited by Faded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recreating!!!!! ????:eek: Ahh so the gates of Hell really did prevail against Christs church. (Math. 16:18)

What exactly was Jesus saying in this scriptural passage?

This is an analysis of this verse, given by a poster on another forum, which I think lays out the meaning very well:

" Many of our fellow Christians have great difficulty accepting the concept of a great or total apostasy of the church. They look to Matthew 16:13-18 as proof that Christ’s church could not go into total apostasy. They believe that if an apostasy took place then the gates of hell has prevailed against the church.

“When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, Who do people say that the Son of Man is? They replied, Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets. He said to them, But who do you say that I am? Simon Peter said in reply, You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:13-18)

The first mistake made is when they fail to realize is the word translated as hell comes from the Greek word “Hades” which means place of departed souls. It is not derived from the Greek word “Gehenna” which means place of everlasting punishment. They err in confusing the two terms.

“Hell. In the Old Testament, this is the word generally, and unfortunately, used by our translators to render the Hebrew, Sheol. It really means the place of the dead, the unseen world, without deciding whether it be the place of misery or of happiness … In the New Testament, "hell" is the translation of two words, Hades and Gehenna. The word Hades, like Sheol sometimes means merely "the grave", Act_2:31; 1Co_15:55; Rev_20:13, or in general, "the unseen world". It is in this sense that the creeds say of our Lord, "He went down into hell," meaning the state of the dead in general, without any restriction of happiness or misery” (F.N. Peloubet, D.D., ed., “Peloubet’s Bible Dictionary”, Philadelphia, PA: The John C. Winston Company, [1947], pg. 247 )

What Christ was saying is that the gates will be opened allowing the souls of our departed dead to exit. As will be illustrated in a few moments, Christ will take the keys and opened the gates and let the dead return to life in the Kingdom of God our Father.

““86 ᾅδης hadēs hah'-dace From G1 (as a negative particle) and 1492; properly unseen, i.e., “Hades” or the place (state) of departed souls: - grave, hell.” (James Strong, “Strong’s Dictionary of the Greek Testament”, Nashville: Crusade Bible Publishers, Inc., [no date], pg. 8 )

1067 γέεννα geenna gheh'-en-nah of Hebrew origin ([1516] and [H2011]); valley of (the son of) Hinnom; gehenna (or Ge-Hinnom), a valley of Jerusalem, used (figuratively) as a name for the place (or state) of everlasting punishment: - hell.” (James Strong, “Strong’s Dictionary of the Greek Testament”, Nashville: Crusade Bible Publishers, Inc., [no date], pg. 20)

The second mistake made is when they fail to realize that gates are stationary. They cannot attack; they can only be defended.

“May his towns be protected with iron gates, And may he always live secure.” (Deuteronomy 33:25)

And because gates are the weakest part of a fortification, they are heavily defended.

“And he commanded them, saying, This is the thing that ye shall do; A third part of you that enter in on the sabbath shall even be keepers of the watch of the king's house; And a third part shall be at the gate of Sur; and a third part at the gate behind the guard: so shall ye keep the watch of the house, that it be not broken down. And two parts of all you that go forth on the sabbath, even they shall keep the watch of the house of the LORD about the king." (2 Kings 11:5-7)

Sometimes, as heavily guarded as they are, gates are still not adequate to withstand the determination of a single servant of the Lord. The gates of the Philistines city of Gaza did not prevail against Samson. This is an exceptional example, of what Christ meant.

“And it was told the Gazites, saying, Samson is come hither. And they compassed him in, and laid wait for him all night in the gate of the city, and were quiet all the night, saying, In the morning, when it is day, we shall kill him. And Samson lay till midnight, and arose at midnight, and took the doors of the gate of the city, and the two posts, and went away with them, bar and all, and put them upon his shoulders, and carried them up to the top of an hill that is before Hebron.” (Judges 16:2-3)

Normally, for the gates to fall they would need to come under repeated attacks. Between attacks there would be times where the attacker fell back and regrouped. It was during such a regrouping that King David was told that Uriah the Hittite was dead.

“Then Joab sent and told David all the things concerning the war; And charged the messenger, saying, When thou hast made an end of telling the matters of the war unto the king, And if so be that the king's wrath arise, and he say unto thee, Wherefore approached ye so nigh unto the city when ye did fight? knew ye not that they would shoot from the wall? Who smote Abimelech the son of Jerubbesheth? did not a woman cast a piece of a millstone upon him from the wall, that he died in Thebez? why went ye nigh the wall? then say thou, Thy servant Uriah the Hittite is dead also. So the messenger went, and came and shewed David all that Joab had sent him for. And the messenger said unto David, Surely the men prevailed against us, and came out unto us into the field, and we were upon them even unto the entering of the gate. And the shooters shot from off the wall upon thy servants; and some of the king's servants be dead, and thy servant Uriah the Hittite is dead also.” (2 Samuel 11:18-24)

To conquer a city the attacking army sometimes tried to burn the gates. This was easier than breaking down or scaling walls.

“Thus saith the LORD of hosts; The broad walls of Babylon shall be utterly broken, and her high gates shall be burned with fire; and the people shall labour in vain, and the folk in the fire, and they shall be weary.” (Jeremiah 51:58)

The gates sometime were felt to be so impregnable that only the promise of God’s help made it worthwhile to attack them. Look at the promise made to king Cyrus founder of the Persian Empire.

“Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut; I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron” (Isaiah 45:1-2)

Such is the promise made to Peter in Matthew 16:17-18. Jesus buttressed the principle of revelation in these verses. John had a testimony of the divinity of Jesus Christ, not because of his own studies or from the influences of other people but because God had revealed to him. Like the promise to King Cyrus, Jesus promised his church would be built upon this principle of revelation and the gates of hell will be destroyed because of it.

“And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:17-18)

After his death and subsequent resurrection, Jesus revealed to John that He, Christ, now had the keys to the gates of hell.

“I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of eath.” (Revelation 1:18)

“I'm Alive. I died, but I came to life, and my life is now forever. See these keys in my hand? They open and lock Death's doors, they open and lock Hell's gates.” (Revelation 1:18-The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language)

Through modern revelation we know that it is the members of the church who will enter Hades to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and liberate the spirits of men held captive.

“And as I wondered, my eyes were opened, and my understanding quickened, and I perceived that the Lord went not in person among the wicked and the disobedient who had rejected the truth, to teach them; But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead. And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel.” (Doctrine and Covenants 138:29-31)

So, when it is the appropriate time, the gates of hell will not prevail. Like the sea and death, hell will be unlocked and forced to give up its dead.

“And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.” (Revelation 20:13)

And the sea gave up the dead, the [ones] in it, and death and the realm of the dead [Gr. hades] gave up the dead, the [ones] in them. And they were judged, each one according to their works.” (Revelation 20:13-ALT)

(Upon This Rock Will I Build My Church - Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soninme, with all due respect, you're misapprehending the LDS position.

I truly am not wanting to keep beating this horse but I admit, I am having much difficulty understanding the LDS view of the Bible, here's another reason why;

You really think that all Mormon theology is rooted in a solid biblical foundation? I'm flattered.

But, seriously: Try here for a start.

Thanks for your honesty. Your comment and link though are different than this;

"In all my teachings, I have taught the gospel from the Old and New Testaments. I have found therein every doctrine and the proof of every doctrine the Latter-Day Saints believe in" (Bringham Young. Ludlow, p.346).

It's a staple of theological and legal discourse, that if everyone just read the books right--they'd agree with me. That tactic doesn't persuade anyone in the law, and it won't persuade anyone here.

Interesting that you brought up law. Suppose a witness took the stand and his testimony was found to be;

no sufficient explanation

and

inconsistent

and

incomplete information.

also

unclear, incomplete, contradictory, or even wrong on some issues,

What do you honestly believe the judge and jury's opinion would be of that witness?

Mine would honestly be; "What good is that testimony, throw it out" "can't trust it"

Why would God tell us to "study" and "rightly divide" (2 Tim 2:15 ) "search daily" (Acts 17:11) "meditate day and night" (Psalms 1:2) on His word if He had no intention or ability to preserve it? Remember what Jesus thought of the Tanakh, (Old Testament) no mention of copying errors. New Testament writers, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, quoting the Septuagint (Greek translation of Hebrew scriptures) with no mention of correcting a "bad translation".

So ya, I'm misapprehending how to say I "love the Bible" out of one side of my mouth yet somehow square all the "inconsistencies , contradictions and errors" out of the other side.

In all my years as a Christian, the only ones I've heard with this view of the Bible are athiests, agnostics and others who don't believe it.

I think lots of Mormons are uncomfortable dwelling on Biblical inconsistencies and compiling a list thereof--because we love the Bible, and I think most of us prefer to take it at face value wherever possible. But if you'd like to see some lists of intra-Biblical contradictions (mostly compiled by secularists), feel free to google the term "bible contradicts itself". I agree with you that many of those contradictions can be reconciled relatively easily. But not all of them can. A couple of examples:

--Genesis 1-2 contains differing sequences for the creations of various plants/animals.

--The New Testament contains two different accounts of the fate of the money paid to Judas Iscariot.

--The New Testament contains two different genealogies for Jesus Christ.

--Exodus 33:11 says Moses saw God; in John 1:18 Jesus is quoted as saying no one has seen God.

Now, you can add elements to the story to square away any of these contradictions. But textually--you can't do it

Just a Guy, I hope that didn't make you too uncomfortable.

Those are too easy.

I will call your contradictions google and raise you this. Genesis - Deuteronomy | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry :)

Thanks for putting up with me so far.

Edited by Soninme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Care to explain, that if the 66 Books of the Bible is complete and authoritative, without error, missing books, or contradictions, why the Early Christian believers held 1 Clement in high regards, read from it, taught from it, and accepted it as coming from apostolic authority?

I highly regard the teachings of John MacAurthor, Charles Spurgeon, my pastor and many others.

Who do you believe Paul was talking to in 2 Tim 3:16-17 and did that message do him/them any good?

There are differences between the oldest texts we have. The Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, Peshitta, Vulgate, Masoretic Text, Samarian Pentateuch and Targum don't match 100% of the time. There are significant differences in many cases.

Faded

Do you have examples of "significant differences"? Such as the nature of God or salvation?

I have read otherwise.

Or are you talking about word order, punctuation, spelling etc..

Edited by Soninme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fly,

Respectfully, I couldn't disagree more.

Through modern revelation we know that it is the members of the church who will enter Hades to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and liberate the spirits of men held captive.

No one going to Hades is coming out.

Luke 16:22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24 “Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment.

As believers Paul said 2 Cor. 5:8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.

John 3:18 “He who believes in Him (Jesus) is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I highly regard the teachings of John MacAurthor, Charles Spurgeon, my pastor and many others.

Who do you believe Paul was talking to in 2 Tim 3:16-17 and did that message do him/them any good?

That is not the issue. I asked you specifically why 1 Clement is no longer part of the 66 Canonical Books when it originally was considered just as much "Scriptural Authority" as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, et all.

Try again.

Faded

Do you have examples of "significant differences"? Such as the nature of God or salvation?

I have read otherwise.

Or are you talking about word order, punctuation, spelling etc..

Ah here is one for you:

Deuteronomy 32:8-9 as it is handed down in the Masoretic Text. This was changed from a "polytheistic" reference to that of a more "monotheistic". The context does not allow for the change, nor does the historical contextuality of the text allow for the way it currently reads. Scholars have determined that these two verses where changed in an attempt to rid the mention of the "Sons of God" being a literal interpretation of a Council of Gods.

Moses' farewell song in Deuteronomy 32:1-43 is one of the more intriguing portions of Deuteronomy, and has received a good deal of attention among scholars, primarily for its poetic features, archaic orthography and morphology, and text-critical problems.1 Among the textual variants present in the Song of Moses, one in Deut. 32:8 stands out as particularly fascinating. The verse is rendered as follows in the NASB:

“When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel.”

Controversy over the text of this verse concerns the last phrase, “according to the number of the sons of Israel,” which reflects the reading of the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible (hereafter, MT), l)r#oy ynb. The MT reading is also reflected in several later revisions of the Septuagint (hereafter, LXX): a manuscript of Aquila (Codex X), Symmachus (also Codex X), and Theodotion.2 Most witnesses to the LXX in verse 8, however, read a1ggelw=n qeou= , which is interpretive.3 Several also read ui9w=n qeou= .4 Both of these Greek renderings presuppose a Hebrew text of either Myhl) ynb or Myl) ynb. These Hebrew phrases underlying a1ggelw=n qeou= and ui9w=n qeou= are attested in two manuscripts from Qumran,5 and by one (conflated) manuscript of Aquila.6

The debate over which text is to be preferred is more than a fraternal spat among textual critics. The notion that the nations of the world were geographically partitioned and owe their terrestrial identity to the sovereign God takes the reader back to the Table of Nations in Genesis 10-11, and two details there regarding God's apportionment of the earth that are important for the context of the textual debate in Deuteronomy 32:8. First, the Table of Nations catalogs seventy nations, but Israel is not included in the inventory.7 Second, the use of the same Hebrew root (drp) in both passages to describe the "separation" of humankind and the nations substantiates the long-recognized observation of scholars that Genesis 10-11 are the backdrop to the statement in Deut. 32:8.8 Israel alone is Yahweh’s portion and so is not numbered among the seventy other nations. The referent of the number seventy, the "sons of Israel" (in MT), initially seemed understandable enough, for both Gen 46:27 and Exo. 1:5 state that 70 members of Jacob's family went down to Egypt in the days of Joseph.9 Little thought was given, however, to the logic of the correlation: How is it that the number of the pagan nations was determined in relation to an entity (Israel) or individuals (Jacob and his household) that did not yet exist? Even if one contends that the correlation was in the mind of God prior to Israel's existence and only recorded much later, what possible point would there be behind connecting the pagan Gentile nations numerically with the children of promise? On the other hand, what could possibly be meant by the textual option that created a correspondence between the number of the nations in Genesis 10-11 and heavenly beings?

Literary and conceptual parallels discovered in the literature of Ugarit, however, have provided a more coherent explanation for the number 70 in Deuteronomy 32:8 - and have furnished powerful ammunition to textual scholars who argued against the "sons of Israel" reading in MT. Ugaritic mythology plainly states that the head of its pantheon, El (who, like the God of the Bible, is also referred to as El Elyon, the "Most High") fathered 70 sons,10 thereby setting the number of the "sons of El" (Ugaritic, bn )il ). An unmistakable linguistic parallel with the Hebrew text underlying the LXX reading was thus discovered, one which prompted many scholars to accept the LXX reading on logical and philological grounds: God (El Elyon in Deut. 32:8) divided the earth according to the number of heavenly beings who already existed from the time of creation.11 The coherence of this explanation notwithstanding, some commentators resist the LXX reading, at least in part because they fear that an acceptance of the Myhl) /Myl) ynb (bny )lym / )lhym ) readings (both of which may be translated “sons of gods”) somehow requires assent to the notion that Yahweh is the author of polytheism. This apprehension thus prompts text-critical defenses of MT in Deuteronomy 32:8, such as that of David L. Stevens.12

This author contends that the choice of MT in Deuteronomy 32:8 is based on a misunderstanding of both the textual history of the Hebrew Bible and text-critical methodology, prejudiced evaluation of non-MT texts, and an unfounded concern that departure from the MT reading results in “Israelite polytheism.” The primary goal of the present article is to show that understanding "sons of God" as the correct reading in Deuteronomy 32:8 in no way requires one to view Israelite religion as polytheistic. Toward that end, some selected comments on the text-critical issues are necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fly,

Respectfully, I couldn't disagree more.

No one going to Hades is coming out.

This is ironic, because if that is true, the gates of hell have definately prevailed.

Luke 16:22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24 “Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment.

As believers Paul said 2 Cor. 5:8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.

John 3:18 “He who believes in Him (Jesus) is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

King David tells us that it is possible to leave hell:

Psalms 16

10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not the issue. I asked you specifically why 1 Clement is no longer part of the 66 Canonical Books when it originally was considered just as much "Scriptural Authority" as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, et all.

Try again.

When was it ever part of the 66?

What "Scriptural Authority" would you say he was using when speaking of the phoenix?

Who do you believe Paul was talking to in 2 Tim 3:16-17 and did that message do him/them any good?

.

Deuteronomy 32:8-9 as it is handed down in the Masoretic Text. This was changed from a "polytheistic" reference to that of a more "monotheistic". The context does not allow for the change, nor does the historical contextuality of the text allow for the way it currently reads. Scholars have determined that these two verses where changed in an attempt to rid the mention of the "Sons of God" being a literal interpretation of a Council of Gods.

Gotta love them "scholars" :rolleyes:

Are you a Polytheist?

Does "sons of God" HAVE to mean literal children, or is it possible, even just a little, that it could mean "sons by creation" (made)? Which could also be rendered "sons of Adam" or "sons of Israel".

Did Jesus believe in multiple gods?

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.' 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

I'm gonna stick with Jesus:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

King David tells us that it is possible to leave hell:

Psalms 16

10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Fly,

please let me clarify, in Luke 16:22-26, Jesus said the rich man and Lazarus both went to the place of the dead (Hades). The righteous and the wicked are separated by a "great gulf fixed". The blessed dead are in that part of Hades called "Abraham's bosom" (Luke 16:22) or "paradise" (Luke 23:43) (those of the faith of Abraham, which would include David). This was before Christs' resurrection. They were not permitted to enter into the presence of God in heaven until after the atonement. Jesus, upon His death, descended to Abraham's bosom, proclaimed the gospel, and then led its residents into heaven.

Paul said in 2 Cor. 5:8 "We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord". Also see Phil 1:21-23. Those who were in Hades (the place of torment for those without faith) will be thrown into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:11-15) These are the final, eternal destinations of all people—based entirely on whether or not a person trusted in Jesus Christ for salvation at the time of ones death. (Hebrews 9:27)

So yes, David didn't stay in the grave (Sheol, Hades, Hell) but after the resurrection your spirit either goes into the Lord's presence forever or out of it forever.

This is ironic, because if that is true, the gates of hell have definately prevailed.

No one affiliated with the true church will be in Hell.

The gates of Hell only let souls in, not out.

The gates of Hell (the power of Satan or of unbelievers) shall not prevail (overcome) the church. Ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fly,

please let me clarify, in Luke 16:22-26, Jesus said the rich man and Lazarus both went to the place of the dead (Hades). The righteous and the wicked are separated by a "great gulf fixed". The blessed dead are in that part of Hades called "Abraham's bosom" (Luke 16:22) or "paradise" (Luke 23:43) (those of the faith of Abraham, which would include David). This was before Christs' resurrection. They were not permitted to enter into the presence of God in heaven until after the atonement. Jesus, upon His death, descended to Abraham's bosom, proclaimed the gospel, and then led its residents into heaven.

Paul said in 2 Cor. 5:8 "We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord". Also see Phil 1:21-23. Those who were in Hades (the place of torment for those without faith) will be thrown into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:11-15) These are the final, eternal destinations of all people—based entirely on whether or not a person trusted in Jesus Christ for salvation at the time of ones death. (Hebrews 9:27)

So yes, David didn't stay in the grave (Sheol, Hades, Hell) but after the resurrection your spirit either goes into the Lord's presence forever or out of it forever.

Well I can see how that interpretation can be arrived at, but Abraham's Bosom or Paradise is not Heaven or the presence of God.

Remember that Christ told the thief on the cross that today thou shalt be with me in Paradise, however 3 days later upon His resurrection, He clearly states He has not yet ascended to His Father. So where He went in those 3 days that is called Paradise, but is not the presence of the Father.

The place He went to, Paradise/Abraham's Bosom/Hades/Spirit Prison, is a temporary place where those who die go to to await final judgment. While they are there, for those who were good, whether they were Jewish or not, or a believer or not, it would be a Paradise and would be taught the gospel. For those who were wicked, it will be a prison of sorts or a hell. They too will be taugth the gospel.

Your outlook on someone going to hell or not based on if they trusted in Jesus by the time of their death seems quite harsh, since there have been millions if not billions of people who have lived on this earth without ever having an opportunity to even hear the name of Jesus let alone trust in Him...that just doesn't make any sense.

No one affiliated with the true church will be in Hell.

I beg to differ. Just because someone is affiliated with the true church does not mean they are righteous(Judas).

The gates of Hell only let souls in, not out.

The gates of Hell (the power of Satan or of unbelievers) shall not prevail (overcome) the church. Ever.

The gates of hell, or death, shall not prevail, because the atonement of Christ has overcome death, both physical and spiritual.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I can see how that interpretation can be arrived at, but Abraham's Bosom or Paradise is not Heaven or the presence of God.

After the resurrection the souls of those (who put their trust in the Savior) in the part of Hades that was Abrahams bosom or Paradise, according to 2 Cor. 5:8 and Phil. 1:21-23 and Rev. 6:9 are now in the presence of God. Do you have teaching that shows otherwise?

Remember that Christ told the thief on the cross that today thou shalt be with me in Paradise, however 3 days later upon His resurrection, He clearly states He has not yet ascended to His Father. So where He went in those 3 days that is called Paradise, but is not the presence of the Father.

Yes it seems for 3 days He was in Paradise, then was resurrected, Paradise then is taken into God's presence.

Now Christ, being God, is omnipresent, so even though He is showing His resurrected humanity to the disciples, in His divinity He is everywhere.

For those who were wicked, it will be a prison of sorts or a hell. They too will be taugth the gospel.

Your outlook on someone going to hell or not based on if they trusted in Jesus by the time of their death seems quite harsh, since there have been millions if not billions of people who have lived on this earth without ever having an opportunity to even hear the name of Jesus let alone trust in Him...that just doesn't make any sense.

To clarify, children or those incapable of understanding, I believe God will not hold accountable. Although just because someone hasn't heard the name Jesus doesn't mean they don't need to respond in faith to the revelation that they have been given. Romans chapter one says God has given us knowledge of Him, even "made it plain" "so that men are WITHOUT excuse". This doesn't sound like they never had opportunity;

Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

.

How much more us, who have been given so much more knowledge of Him, need to be faithful with His word and to take His gospel to all nations.

Like 12:48 For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.

We have gone way off topic though.

Edited by Soninme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After the resurrection the souls of those (who put their trust in the Savior) in the part of Hades that was Abrahams bosom or Paradise, according to 2 Cor. 5:8 and Phil. 1:21-23 and Rev. 6:9 are now in the presence of God. Do you have teaching that shows otherwise?

I looked up those references but am not seeing how you connected the dots to arrive at your conclusion. Perhaps your foundation of understanding is different than mine so that I don't follow your reasoning?

Revelation 20 gives the timeframe in which the dead shall be released from Paradise or Hell.

Yes it seems for 3 days He was in Paradise, then was resurrected, Paradise then is taken into God's presence.

Now Christ, being God, is omnipresent, so even though He is showing His resurrected humanity to the disciples, in His divinity He is everywhere.

I am unable to find a reference that states or implies that Paradise has been taken into God's presence.

To clarify, children or those incapable of understanding, I believe God will not hold accountable. Although just because someone hasn't heard the name Jesus doesn't mean they don't need to respond in faith to the revelation that they have been given. Romans chapter one says God has given us knowledge of Him, even "made it plain" "so that men are WITHOUT excuse". This doesn't sound like they never had opportunity;

Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, <snip>

You make it sound as if everyone is born with an instinctive knowledge or understanding of Christ - to which I disagree. I think you take these verses out of context, because in verse 18, it is very clear who he it talking about: those men "who hold the truth in unrighteousness". Obviously those that have never heard the truth would not be included in there.

We do believe that all who are born on earth have been given the "light of Christ", which is the ability to discern good from evil. Some may call this one's concience, but that is for another topic.

We have gone way off topic though.

I agree, we have gone way off topic so I will leave it at that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your honesty. Your comment and link though are different than this;

"In all my teachings, I have taught the gospel from the Old and New Testaments. I have found therein every doctrine and the proof of every doctrine the Latter-Day Saints believe in" (Bringham Young. Ludlow, p.346).

You mean, Brigham Young said something I disagree with? I'm shocked--shocked, I tell you!

Interesting that you brought up law. Suppose a witness took the stand and his testimony was found to be; and and also What do you honestly believe the judge and jury's opinion would be of that witness?

It's a staple of forensic investigations (and historical analysis, in point of fact) that the more witnesses you get, the more differences will arise in their testimony. Courts don't labor under the delusion that all witness accounts will be 100% consistent, though defense lawyers try to tell juries that they should (defense lawyers love cases where there were lots of witnesses, for that very reason--easy to find trivial differences and use them to poke holes in the prosecution's case). Ultimately investigators, judges, and jurors have to decide which differences are material and which aren't.

Mine would honestly be; "What good is that testimony, throw it out" "can't trust it"

Why would God tell us to "study" and "rightly divide" (2 Tim 2:15 ) "search daily" (Acts 17:11) "meditate day and night" (Psalms 1:2) on His word if He had no intention or ability to preserve it?

Why do you need to "rightly divide" what you read in the Bible, if it's all 100% accurate in the most literal sense?

Remember what Jesus thought of the Tanakh, (Old Testament) no mention of copying errors. New Testament writers, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, quoting the Septuagint (Greek translation of Hebrew scriptures) with no mention of correcting a "bad translation".

All of which dances around the fundamental truth that the texts, in several key respects, don't line up. Asserting that Jesus doesn't care, is not the same thing as asserting that the texts are identical.

So ya, I'm misapprehending how to say I "love the Bible" out of one side of my mouth yet somehow square all the "inconsistencies , contradictions and errors" out of the other side.

In all my years as a Christian, the only ones I've heard with this view of the Bible are athiests, agnostics and others who don't believe it.

My wife wouldn't say I'm perfect, but (I flatter myself) she seems sincere when she says she loves me.

As for the "atheists, agnostics, and others who don't beleive" bit--Aside from the fact that you're flirting with ad hominem: Yes, once you've excluded from the realm of "Christianity" anyone who doesn't accept Biblical inerrancy, your list of Christians who reject Biblical inerrancy is going to be pretty small.

Just a Guy, I hope that didn't make you too uncomfortable.

Those are too easy.

I will call your contradictions google and raise you this. Genesis - Deuteronomy | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry :)

Thanks for putting up with me so far.

No problem. But let's not get into a link war. If you can reconcile the particular incidents I cited based solely on the text (not bringing in any externalities) please do it here.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean, Brigham Young said something I disagree with? I'm shocked--shocked, I tell you!

Sorry my mistake. I thought he was considered a prophet and thus incapable of writing falsehoods. I too think he was wrong a lot.

Ultimately investigators, judges, and jurors have to decide which differences are material and which aren't.

I agree. My point was it's an easy decision when I believe the the witness contradicts and makes many errors.

Why do you need to "rightly divide" what you read in the Bible, if it's all 100% accurate in the most literal sense?

Because God warned us there would be those who would take His true word (part or all of it) and twist it. 2 Peter 3:15 "and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures". Just because "some things hard to understand" for sure doesn't mean it's wrong.

17 "You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked"

That's a pretty clear warning of what some will do to God's word. So we would be wise to "rightly divide the word of truth"

All of which dances around the fundamental truth that the texts, in several key respects, don't line up. Asserting that Jesus doesn't care, is not the same thing as asserting that the texts are identical.

Well He sure cared when those tried to add tradition to His word; Mark 7:13 "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. Again, did Jesus think the scriptures "didn't line up"?

As for the "atheists, agnostics, and others who don't beleive" bit--Aside from the fact that you're flirting with ad hominem: Yes, once you've excluded from the realm of "Christianity" anyone who doesn't accept Biblical inerrancy, your list of Christians who reject Biblical inerrancy is going to be pretty small.

I just think our view of the scriptures should be the same as Jesus, the prophets and the apostles.

John 17:17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.

Psalms 138:2 I will worship toward Your holy temple,

And praise Your name

For Your lovingkindness and Your truth;

For You have magnified Your word above all Your name.

2 Timothy 3:16-17. I would quote it again but.....

No problem. But let's not get into a link war. If you can reconcile the particular incidents I cited based solely on the text (not bringing in any externalities) please do it here.

It would take up a lot of time and space on this board to answer all your objections and these guys would do it much better than I and even if I did then for sure there would be more objections and more verses so it would likely be never ending. This site answers hundreds of supposed problems/contradictions from Genesis to Revelation.

Yours are in there.

God bless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry my mistake. I thought he was considered a prophet and thus incapable of writing falsehoods. I too think he was wrong a lot.

I, for one, will not say that Brigham Young was wrong, as all of LDS doctrine can be found in the Bible whether in whole or in part, but it took a restoration for the correct meaning to be found.

Because God warned us there would be those who would take His true word (part or all of it) and twist it. 2 Peter 3:15 "and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures". Just because "some things hard to understand" for sure doesn't mean it's wrong.

17 "You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked"

That's a pretty clear warning of what some will do to God's word. So we would be wise to "rightly divide the word of truth"

God did warn us, as did the apostles, because it was already happening. A rift was forming and the further away from the death of the savior, the greater the rift became.

Well He sure cared when those tried to add tradition to His word; Mark 7:13 "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. Again, did Jesus think the scriptures "didn't line up"?

Well I don't know how you understand this passage, but Jesus was absolutely stating that the scriptures did not line up with how the religous leaders were teaching them. The scriptures stated one thing but the Saducees and Pharisees had taken the word of God and interjected their own understandings/traditions. Remember, there had not been a prophet for hundreds of years so they had wandered away from the true meaning of the scriptures.

I just think our view of the scriptures should be the same as Jesus, the prophets and the apostles.

John 17:17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.

Psalms 138:2 I will worship toward Your holy temple,

And praise Your name

For Your lovingkindness and Your truth;

For You have magnified Your word above all Your name.

2 Timothy 3:16-17. I would quote it again but.....

All scripture is indeed given by inspiration, but that did not stop the prevailing religious leaders from altering their meaning...just as had been done after the death of the apostles.

It would take up a lot of time and space on this board to answer all your objections and these guys would do it much better than I and even if I did then for sure there would be more objections and more verses so it would likely be never ending. This site answers hundreds of supposed problems/contradictions from Genesis to Revelation.

Yours are in there.

God bless.

I am not sure how well you know the organization that you have linked to for answers to questions about discrepancies in the Bible, but I have read through that link and most if not all "answers" don't really add up. They either guess or simply do not fully address the discrepancy they were trying to answer. There are simply too many holes to consider them as answers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share