Why 1600 Years For A Restoration?

[Jason]

very well then.

[srm]

Jason, I'm still waiting.

If Peter says that there will be a restitution of all things then it follows that all things were lost. Ergo; Doesn't it follow that there had to be a general apostasy and a restoration?

[Jason]

srm,

Did I miss a question somewhere? Could you please repeat it?

Thanks.

[srm]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 3 2004, 10:06 AM

srm,

Did I miss a question somewhere? Could you please repeat it?

Thanks.

Come on Jason, you could deduce the question. I'll correct it for you

[Ray]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@ Mar 2 2004, 06:01 PM

Frankly, Im using all the faith I have. And in trying not to take offense at your last post, I don't think you have any idea if I know God or not. That's between me and Christ.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought you had admitted that your beliefs are only supported by what makes sense to your own mind, with no Faith at all. Do you understand that Faith is an assurance of the truth from God? If you don’t have God’s assurance of the truth, then you don’t have any Faith, and your only reason for believing anything is that it makes sense to you. Can’t you at least admit the possibility that your own reasoning may be flawed? Just because you can find some reasoning to support a belief in something doesn’t mean that your reasoning is true. There are many ways to explain everything. How can you know what is true, without relying on God to assure you of the truth? If you’re relying on someone other than God, including yourself, you’re not living by Faith.

It’s so strange to me to see how you seem to think that you can get to know God only by what makes sense to you. Are you that way with other people too? Does your perception of me determine the person I am? How do you know that you correctly understand me, and that your thoughts about me aren’t biased by some misunderstanding? I could be a completely different person than the person you imagine. Either I know the truth about these things, or you know the truth, or neither one of us knows the truth and we both have some misunderstandings. How are we ever going to know who knows the truth? If you can get enough people to agree with you, will that make your beliefs true? I say we both should ask God, and let Him tell us what is true. Without His guidance, we’re only relying upon our own reasoning.

Btw, I’ve already asked Him, and He said that you're the one with some misunderstandings about Him and the things He has revealed through His servants.

[Jason]

srm,

you said: "If Peter says that there will be a restitution of all things then it follows that all things were lost. Ergo; Doesn't it follow that there had to be a general apostasy and a restoration?"

No. Since im assuming you're speaking about Acts 3:20, I would have to answer that restoring all things as they were doesn't mean that all things were lost. It may mean that some things have been lost and will be restored to their former position. The restitution or refreshment (depending on the version you use) scholars say refers to the world being like it was in the beginning. (IE. Garden of Eden) It has nothing to do with Smith's theory of apostasy.

Jason

[Jason]

Ray,

You said: "Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought you had admitted that your beliefs are only supported by what makes sense to your own mind, with no Faith at all."

You're wrong. I believe the Spirit enlightens peoples minds, not warm fuzzies their chest.

"Can’t you at least admit the possibility that your own reasoning may be flawed?"

I admit.

"Just because you can find some reasoning to support a belief in something doesn’t mean that your reasoning is true."

Okay.

"There are many ways to explain everything. How can you know what is true, without relying on God to assure you of the truth? If you’re relying on someone other than God, including yourself, you’re not living by Faith."

Man shall not live by Faith alone. I think that's the eleventh commandment. Im not trying to say that I don't have faith, I do. I rely heavily on it, but sometimes i need reason first and then faith. Other times, faith first, reason later.

"It’s so strange to me to see how you seem to think that you can get to know God only by what makes sense to you. Are you that way with other people too? Does your perception of me determine the person I am? How do you know that you correctly understand me, and that your thoughts about me aren’t biased by some misunderstanding?"

I don't. But I would do everything in my power to understand you first before I rushed to judgment outside of this artificial internet world.

"I could be a completely different person than the person you imagine. Either I know the truth about these things, or you know the truth, or neither one of us knows the truth and we both have some misunderstandings. How are we ever going to know who knows the truth?"

Sounds like the old paradigm shift. Is the picture of a young woman or an old one.....

"If you can get enough people to agree with you, will that make your beliefs true?"

Funny you say that. I hear argument used by Mormons all the time! (Our church is true because it's growing so fast, etc..)

"I say we both should ask God, and let Him tell us what is true. Without His guidance, we’re only relying upon our own reasoning."

I agree.

"Btw, I’ve already asked Him, and He said that you're the one with some misunderstandings about Him and the things He has revealed through His servants."

Oh yeah? Well I had Him over for a beer tonight and he said you're full of crap! B)

Jason

[Guest Spike]

Jason, you've joined another church? You're excommunicated - as of now. I'm going to have Peace write my revelations for me now.

[Jason]

Bat! er, um, I mean Spike! Forgive me, I have sinned!!!

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Spike@Mar 3 2004, 10:06 PM

Jason, you've joined another church? You're excommunicated - as of now. I'm going to have Peace write my revelations for me now.

Hey bat...I think you are ... in a little hot water for continuing to make new IDs.

[srm]

srm,

you said: "If Peter says that there will be a restitution of all things then it follows that all things were lost. Ergo; Doesn't it follow that there had to be a general apostasy and a restoration?"

No.  Since im assuming you're speaking about Acts 3:20, I would have to answer that restoring all things as they were doesn't mean that all things were lost.  It may mean that some things have been lost and will be restored to their former position. 

Come on now Jason. The Bible says all things but it really means some things?

The restitution or refreshment (depending on the version you use) scholars say refers to the world being like it was in the beginning.  (IE. Garden of Eden)  It has nothing to do with Smith's theory of apostasy. 

Jason

which scholars? I can provide some that say the opposite.

You said restitution or refreshment. Which version says refreshement?

I checked out the list of Bibles below and none of them say refreshment

Most say restoration (or a form thereof) or restitution. A couple say made new again, but none say refreshement.

New International Version

New American Standard Bible

The Message

Amplified Bible

New Living Translation

King James Version

New Life Version

English Standard Version

Contemporary English Version

New King James Version

21st Century King James Version

American Standard Version

Worldwide English (New Testament)

Young's Literal Translation

Darby Translation

Wycliffe New Testament

New International Version - UK

[Jason]

srm,

You said: "Come on now Jason. The Bible says all things but it really means some things?"

If you want to stretch it, all things would mean that nothing is left. You'd be the first person I know of to advocate that nothing of Christianity survived the "apostasy". Do you really want to take it to that extreme?

You asked? :"which scholars?"

I got this from my handy-dandy Dummelow One Volume Bible Commentary. Funny thing about this commentary, I bought it on the recommendation of Bruce R. McConkie! His New Testament Commentary listed this book as a "decent source" as I recall. It was edited by Dummelow, but it could have been any one of sixteen scholars who contributed to the New Testament section.

You said: "You said restitution or refreshment. Which version says refreshement?"

My Douay-Rheims version: "That when the times of refreshment shall come from the presence of the Lord, and he shall send him who hath been preached unto you, Jesus Christ."

Also the Living Bible: "Now change your mind and attitude to God and turn to him so he can cleanse away your sins and send you wonderful times of refreshment from the presence of the Lord."

Jason

[srm]

You said: "You said restitution or refreshment. Which version says refreshment?"

My Douay-Rheims version: "That when the times of refreshment shall come from the presence of the Lord, and he shall send him who hath been preached unto you, Jesus Christ." 

Also the Living Bible: "Now change your mind and attitude to God and turn to him so he can cleanse away your sins and send you wonderful times of refreshment from the presence of the Lord." 

Jason

Now Jason, you being deceptive.

Here is what the Douay-Rheims version says,

"19 Be penitent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.

20 That when the times of refreshment shall come from the presence of the Lord, and he shall send him who hath been preached unto you, Jesus Christ.

21 Whom heaven indeed must receive, until the times of the restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of his holy prophets, from the beginning of the world."

Note that we are discussing the word restitution or restoration in verse 21. You claimed that in the Douay-Rheims version it uses refreshment instead of restitution or restoration. However, the passage from Douay-Rheims above clearly shows that you are being deceptive. Refreshment (or a form thereof) is found in the KJV and many other versions but in verse 19 not 21 (the one being discussed). In fact notice that in your version (Douay-Rheims) it also uses restitution in verse 21. I can't find The living Bible online (can you provide a link) but I'll bet you're being deceptive about that one too.

[Jason]

srm,

Deceptive? I didn't realize the word was so important to you. Frankly I don't give a darn whether the word used is refreshment or restitution! You're the one making a big deal out of it. And I don't have a link for the Living Bible. But if you live near a used book store, you can probably pick one up for five bucks. Mine's in an ugly green vinyl cover published by Tyndale.

Sheesh.

J

[srm]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 5 2004, 10:44 AM

srm,

Deceptive? I didn't realize the word was so important to you. Frankly I don't give a darn whether the word used is refreshment or restitution! You're the one making a big deal out of it. And I don't have a link for the Living Bible. But if you live near a used book store, you can probably pick one up for five bucks. Mine's in an ugly green vinyl cover published by Tyndale.

Sheesh.

J

Jason, You are the one that made it an issue. you said,

The restitution or refreshment (depending on the version you use) scholars say refers to the world being like it was in the beginning.  (IE. Garden of Eden)  It has nothing to do with Smith's theory of apostasy. 

I provided a long list of versions none of which use refreshment rather for the most part use restoration or restitution and I asked for which version says refreshement.

rather than say that you were mistaken...you slipped a different verse in hoping...I imagine, that we would not notice. Yes, my friend, that is deceptive. Is your verse from the living Bible also verse 19? Anyway, jason, I can understand how you could interpret that verse as you do...I only hope that you can accept the fact that there are various interpretations...and mine has validity too.

[Jason]

srm,

In spite of what you want to think, I was not trying to be deceptive. Furthermore, MY version of Douay-Rheims lists the word refreshment where I said it was. You're version (Im assuming an e-version) probably corrected the verse variations. What you ignorantly don't know is that the original Douay-Rheims numbers verses differently in many parts of the Old and New Testaments. (Besides having the Deutrocannonical books.)

Furthermore, whether or not Refreshment is the word of choice, it was still understood to mean a return to the original pristine days of Eden. I will admit that your understanding could have validity if you'll get off my case already.

Jason

[srm]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 5 2004, 01:12 PM

Jason, since you said,

I will admit that your understanding could have validity if you'll get off my case already.

Are you ready to retract your statements,

Nothing in the Bible indicates a general apostasy.

And

I find no basis to support the theory that there was an Apostasy.

[Jason]

srm,

Um, no. Im willing to give you the fact that there's an extremely slim possiblilty that "restitution" could possibly mean something else besides returning to an "eden" state. That still doesn't mean it implies an apostasy of any kind.

Jason

[Guest Starsky]

There was an apostasy...have you done any real studying on this subject? The protestants even believe there was an apostasy ....thus the 95 points nailed to the doors of the catholic cathedral by Martin Luther.

[Jason]

Please, Peace, enlighten us with your vast knowledge of history.......

[porterrockwell]

Originally posted by Peace@Mar 5 2004, 10:20 PM

There was an apostasy...have you done any real studying on this subject? The protestants even believe there was an apostasy ....thus the 92 points nailed to the doors of the catholic cathedral by Martin Luther.

Really, I can't find a Protestant that will admit that there was one. Maybe they only do when they aren't talking to Mormons. The fact is, if there is an Apostasy, then the Catholic Church is crap out of luck, so they have to hang on to denying that there was one. If there was an Apostasy then one must show where Restoration of authority took place, and one must acknowledge that all was lost and show a feasable time when that happened. So I guess the key to "proof" is to that of an Apostasy. Although, one thing gets me. If we brought historical proof of the BOM, proof of the Apostasy, that was sufficient by your "standards", the simple fact is you and all the other nay-sayers wouldn't believe. Also, with that kind of reasoning, there would have been one point in the timeline where you would have denied the Bible to be legit. That is what kills me about all these "mainstreamers" their reasoning plays to an off note. Jason, if I told you to take away all historical, physical evidence that Bible was legit or Jesus Christ walked the Earth, how would you know the Bible to be true, or the Lord Jesus Christ to be your Savior?

[Guest Starsky]

The Ninety–Five Theses

Martin Luther

On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther nailed this protest against the sale of indulgences to the church door of Wittenberg, inadvertently beginning the Protestant Reformation.

MARTIN LUTHER, the leader of the Protestant Reformation, was born at Eisleben, Prussian Saxony, November 10, 1483. He studied jurisprudence at the University of Erfurt, where he later lectured on physics and ethics. In 1505 he entered the Augustinian monastery at Erfurt; two years later was ordained priest; and in 1508 became professor of philosophy at the University of Wittenberg. 1

The starting-point of Luther’s career as a reformer was his posting on the church door of Wittenberg the Ninety-five Theses on October 31, 1517. These formed a passionate statement of the true nature of penitence, and a protest against the sale of indulgences. In issuing the Theses, Luther expected the support of his ecclesiastical superiors; and it was only after three years of controversy, during which he refused a summons to Rome, that he proceeded to publish those works that brought about his expulsion from the Church. 2

The year 1520 saw the publication of the three great documents which laid down the fundamental principles of the Reformation. In the “Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation,” Luther attacked the corruptions of the Church and the abuses of its authority, and asserted the right of the layman to spiritual independence. In “Concerning Christian Liberty,” he expounded the doctrine of justification by faith, and gave a complete presentation of his theological position. In the “Babylonish Captivity of the Church,” he criticized the sacramental system, and set up the Scriptures as the supreme authority in religion. 3

In the midst of this activity came his formal excommunication, and his renunciation of allegiance to the Pope. He was proscribed by the Emperor Charles V and taken into the protection of prison in the Wartburg by the friendly Elector of Saxony, where he translated the New Testament. The complete translation of the Bible, issued in 1534, marks the establishment of the modern literary language of Germany. 4

The rest of Luther’s life was occupied with a vast amount of literary and controversial activity. He died at Eisleben, February 18, 1546. 5

[Behunin]

Peace, I appreciate your knowledge. I feel you do have vast knowledge, religion AND history. Your post on Martin Luther was very interesting, and now I am going to research Martin Luther more because of your post. Thank you. :)

[Jason]

Porter,

I don't need the Bible, I have God's representative on the earth to guide me. You know, the guy you so recklessly damned to hell. Luckly, Catholics believe that good people of any denomination will go to heaven, (yeah they believe that...) without even a physical baptism! Of course, unless you repent......

Peace,

You forgot some of the other things about Martin Luther. Like how he rejected wholesale much of the Bible, and my personal favorite, he promoted polygamy......

J

[Cal]

Actually, God had to wait for there to be a potato famine in the British Isles.

A large portion of the first converts came from England seeking relief from the oppressive economic conditions and a shot at a better life. I know this to be the case in my own direct ancestry. My great-great-great-great Grandfather came to Nauvoo in late 1830's. In letters, which our family still has to this day, his wife wrote back to England about how great is was to have enough food to eat and shelter. She made a few passing comments about the Church. It was clear from the content of her letters that she was mostly concerned about physical survival. Apparently Nauvoo was a better place than Tunstall, Stafordshire, England. (I have no doubt she had religious convictions too--it was just interesting to read that most of what concerned her was economics, not religion, if the content of her letters was any indication.)