6 Christian Questions...i Need To Know!

[Maureen]

cgrantreed, I encourage you to stick to the link I sent you. Also, look up the book An Understandable History of the Bible online. It is a clear explanation of how we got our Bible and how God PRESERVED it for us. With due respect to Maureen, all these multiple versions of Bibles are corruptions. The word used for virgin in Hebrew does NOT automatically mean young woman, but CAN mean virgin (the thought of the Hebrew was that young maidens WERE virgins), and, since the New Testament TELLS US what it is SUPPOSED to say, the KJV got it right. THe RSV did not. God knows what He is doing. Again, we as Christians can agree to disagree on some issues, but we do NOT disagree on God's plan of salvation, the True Gospel that Paul gave his life defending.

IMO, I think it's best for people to take in as much knowledge and information as possible and decide for themselves what is good.

M.

[newvid]

True, but I hate to see a searching soul all wrapped up in the confusion of the "bible debate". All these different "versions" caused so much confusion for me in my early Christian walk. It was like, how can THIS be God's PERFECT Word, if THIS one is so much different and says something 100% differnt (and in some passages there are actual DOCTRINAL differences between versions). I used to laugh when people tried to tell me an Old English version was God's preserved WORDS, till I actually humbled myself and allowed the Lord to teach me and SHOW me the truth, through the Spirit, and not through MAN'S "wisdom". ANyways, just MHO.

[rameumptom]

JoshuaFKon wrote:

Good Question, the Jews actually only had one “Temple” This was where the “presence” of God dwelt. When Jesus was crucified the curtain of the temple was ripped in two because God no longer dwelt in the temple. Also, Early Christians worshiped in houses.

Consider also what Paul said: “The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man,”

Actually, the Jews had more than one temple. After the Diaspora, many Jews fled to Egypt, where the priests with them built a temple at Elephantium. There is evidence that Samaritan Jews also had a temple in Samaria.

While Christians did meet in houses, they also had some early buildings, as well. One Pauline building in Ephesus that still stands and is curated by the Greek Orthodox, has two sections with an entrance on each end. These two halves are identical with seating and a baptismal font. The curators will tell you that one side was for all people, and the other side was only for members. Why have a baptismal font in a members-only chapel? It was for baptisms for the dead. Sorta reminiscent of LDS temples, eh?

Many scholars believe that Jesus' night in Gethsemane was actually in the cave of Gethsemane, where the oil press was located. Events that occurred in Mark's book about that night are somewhat reminiscent of LDS temple rites.

Remember, Paul continued to worship in the temple, as did the other apostles. If God was no longer in the temple after Jesus' crucifixion, then why continue to worship and serve there? Obviously, the apostles saw it as God's house - still.

Paul wrote about the temple in Hebrews. Other early Christians also discussed the temple and its use in Christianity, such as the Gospel of Phillip, where he states that the Holy of Holies was the place for the marriage chamber. Once again, reminiscent of LDS temple rites.

And Revelation tells us of the heavenly temple of God coming down to unite with the earthly temple. Jewish tradition is that the temple in Jerusalem will be rebuilt prior to the Coming of Messiah. Even many Christians believe that Biblical prophecy. If that is the case, then how can physical temples no longer be of use to God, when he is planning to provide new ones in the future?

Modern scholarship is beginning to reject the concept of one Jewish temple that was rejected at Jesus' death. The Biblical story and the archaeological record just does not agree with that concept.

[newvid]

on most counts, wrong. And, when I have more time this weekend, will explain why.

Peace

[rameumptom]

I recommend that instead of finding various versions of English translations, learning ancient Hebrew and Greek, and then getting even earlier translations that you can translate yourselves. I prefer the KJV, but have used other translations. This is one of the stickiest issues on the claim of sola scriptura, IMO. If the Bible is so complete and explanatory, why the need for so many translations?

While on my mission 25 years ago, in Bolivia, I ran across some missionaries from another Christian church. I had a nice chat with several of them, but then the last one grabbed me wanting to scripture bash. He had been a missionary for his Church in Bountiful, Utah for a few years. Anyway, he wanted to go into some of the more mundane LDS issues. He wanted to discuss, for example, God having a father. So (luckily I had my English scriptures), I opened my KJV to Revelation 1:5-6, which states that Jesus made us "kings and priests unto God and His Father...." This guy tried to say it was a bad translation, to which I replied, "do you believe in sola scriptura? Is the Bible God-breathed or not?" When he answered in the affirmative, I then told him he would have to then accept the KJV translation at its word, or would have to admit that the Bible is not perfect. He stuttered and stumbled, and as I continued on other points he had brought up, he quickly excused himself and left.

I believe the Bible to be inspired. But I also have done enough studying for decades to know that it is not God-breathed, word for word perfect. And this is one key reason why I'm excited and thankful to have living prophets and apostles to give guidance and more inspired teachings.

[newvid]

I truly feel for you not knowing you have the perfect WORDS of God to rely on and have to rely on "prophets" to determine God's truth for you. I, for one, have "more sure Word of Prophecy.

I am surprised a missionary would have such a hard time explaining the difference between stating GOD has a Father and the positions within the Godhead. The Bible says that when Jesus was BROUGHT INTO THE WORLD, God said I will BE AS a Father to you. When Jesus took on human form, the relationship became a Father/Son relationship. Jesus, THE WORD, the eternal second person of the Trinity was NOT created, but only His human body was. He has eternally existed in the Godhead AS God. In the relational aspects of the Trinity, it is right to refer to God the Father and God the Son, but it is not the same as me (a created being) being the father of my son (another created being).

NOw off to work!

[Maureen]

...It was like, how can THIS be God's PERFECT Word, if THIS one is so much different and says something 100% differnt (and in some passages there are actual DOCTRINAL differences between versions).

100% different you say! Can you find me some of those Bible version difference? I'm very curious.

M.

[rameumptom]

100% different you say! Can you find me some of those Bible version difference? I'm very curious.

M.

Well my KJV Revelation 1:5-6 says that Heavenly Father has a Father, but does not say it in some other versions. Such a critical change is disconcerting and a challenge to how one follows the Bible. I personally agree with the KJV, but most traditional Christians will not.

Psalms 82:6-9 says "what is man that you are mindful of him, for you have made him a little less than the angels (Greek)/gods (Hebrew)." Which is it? Are we less than the angels or the gods?

Some of the versions that are written by Calvinists will be translated to emphasize their view of the TULIP, while the NIV is written as to enhance ideas of saved by grace.

On the far side of things, we have the Jehovah's Witness Bible that actually drops out verses that were not in the Hebrew/Greek that was used in the translation.

and the Dead Sea Scrolls shows varying translations among the copies even found in the one site.

It also is dependent upon what copies are used to make the translation. Among the varying manuscripts and fragments of New Testament manuscripts that exist from the days of the apostles to the time of the Gutenberg Bible, we have more differences than there are words in the New Testament!

Some early versions of the Gospel of Luke emphasize that Jesus did not become the Christ/Savior until his baptism. Other early New Testament documents taught that Jesus was a mortal man that was taken over by Christ-God at baptism ("Today thou art begotten/chosen"), and the two were together until the crucifixion when Christ left Jesus alone ("My God, why hast thou forsaken me?").

I don't know about you, but there have been some major upheavals over the centuries on just what the New Testament has taught! And if the Bible is God-Breathed now, then it must have been God-Breathed then, as well.

[rameumptom]

I truly feel for you not knowing you have the perfect WORDS of God to rely on and have to rely on "prophets" to determine God's truth for you. I, for one, have "more sure Word of Prophecy.

I am surprised a missionary would have such a hard time explaining the difference between stating GOD has a Father and the positions within the Godhead. The Bible says that when Jesus was BROUGHT INTO THE WORLD, God said I will BE AS a Father to you. When Jesus took on human form, the relationship became a Father/Son relationship. Jesus, THE WORD, the eternal second person of the Trinity was NOT created, but only His human body was. He has eternally existed in the Godhead AS God. In the relational aspects of the Trinity, it is right to refer to God the Father and God the Son, but it is not the same as me (a created being) being the father of my son (another created being).

NOw off to work!

For me, the "Sure Word of Prophecy" is ongoing prophecy! Paul taught in Ephesians 4:11-14 that we continually need prophets and apostles so as not to be tossed to and fro by every wind of dogma/doctrine. And this was necessary until we all come to a unity of the faith. Amos taught that God reveals his secrets through his servants, the prophets. For me, having modern day prophets and apostles is as important as having the writings of ancient apostles and prophets, for Peter taught that the scriptures are not for private interpretation, but are to be interpreted as in days of old: by prophets. He warned of those who were wresting Paul's words unto their own destruction. Having living prophets enhances my understanding of ancient teachings, particularly those that have been lost. The Lord has definitely restored many plain and precious things through Joseph Smith and his successors that were lost anciently.

Remember, the Christian church rejected continual revelation on any level, with the establishment of the Bible. There were so many Gnostic Christians and others claiming revelation that the proto-orthodox Church had no choice but to canonize the scriptures they felt were authentic, reject the rest, and then place the entire revelatory experience in stasis. How does the Reformation, which occurred a millennium after the Bible was formulated, suddenly bring about a revelatory change for the "sure word of prophecy?" Only a restoration, as has happened many times in Biblical times via a prophet can bring about such an event.

Biblical scholars tell us of a divine council, where El Elyon was the head and Jehovah was one of the divine sons. Many scholars equate Jehovah, the Great Angel/Messiah, with Jesus (see Margaret Barker's the Great Angel). So, we have two separate beings, Elohim and Jehovah, and one of them becomes Jesus. This teaching was well accepted by both the early Hebrews and the early Christians, who also viewed Jesus as the Messiah/Jehovah.

Now, can you show me in the Bible where it says that Jesus has "eternally existed in the Godhead AS God"? Second, can you define eternal? And what verse states that God said, "I will be AS a Father unto you?" In Hebrews, Paul says that God is the "father of our spirits", Jeremiah was called to be a prophet before he was in his mother's womb, and Job was asked about the day when the sons of god (bene elohim) shouted for joy.

[Maureen]

Well my KJV Revelation 1:5-6 says that Heavenly Father has a Father, but does not say it in some other versions. Such a critical change is disconcerting and a challenge to how one follows the Bible. I personally agree with the KJV, but most traditional Christians will not.

I guess I can see how you could interpret it that way but, I believe Father is referring Jesus' Father, not, as you believe Heavenly Father's. I checked about 9 other versions and they pretty much say the same thing.

BibleGateway.com - Passage*Lookup: Revelation 1:5-6;

M.

[Guest Malcolm]

Maureen:

If one approaches the scriptures without preconceived notions and ideas or without prior inductrination it is easy to discern that Jesus was Jehovah of the OT. That he acted by the authority of the Father (a separate entity) and all things that he did were following the commandment of the Eternal Father.

Follow closely Isaiah 43 and substitute Lord for Jehovah, which is what actually appears in Hebrew and Spanish, by the way. Jehovah is the creator, the redeemer, The Holy One of israel, the Savior, the one that blotteth out our transgressions. Then Ch 53 is the most transparent revelation in the OT about the crucifixion. There is no question that it is Jesus the Messiah the prophet is referring to.

If Jesus is Jehovah then The Father that He mentions 50+ times in the Gospels and often prayed to, the one that spoke from heaven during his baptism, and during the transfiguration, the one that sent an angel to comfort Jesus at Gethsemane HAS to be The Eternal Father, Elohim, The GOD of the eternities and Father of ALL spirits.

Let go for a second of what you have been told and read the gospel. See in your mind's eye John the Baptist and his cousin Jesus chest deep in the water. See what happens.

Malcolm

[Maureen]

Let go for a second of what you have been told and read the gospel. See in your mind's eye John the Baptist and his cousin Jesus chest deep in the water. See what happens.

That's very presumptuous of you Malcolm to think I have not already studied for myself, because that would be wrong. I have come to a firm belief of God through study and a witness of the Holy Spirit.

M.

[Guest Malcolm]

My apologies. I had no intention to offend you and much less question your knowledge of the scriptures or relationship with God. I was just offering an experiment to revisit the gospels from a fresh perspective. Anyone that has written an essay knows that after you read it 3-4 times you can no longer spot your own typos. Existing knowledge gets in the way of new knowledge and insight. If we think we already know we no longer question it or take the time to explore the assumptions we have made about what we think we know.

That is why we read the scriptures again and again and we continually discover new insights and nuggets of wisdom. How come? Well, different mood, different state of mind, changing life conditions, new information, in summary; personal revelation.

[newvid]

For me, the "Sure Word of Prophecy" is ongoing prophecy! Paul taught in Ephesians 4:11-14 that we continually need prophets and apostles so as not to be tossed to and fro by every wind of dogma/doctrine. And this was necessary until we all come to a unity of the faith. Amos taught that God reveals his secrets through his servants, the prophets. For me, having modern day prophets and apostles is as important as having the writings of ancient apostles and prophets, for Peter taught that the scriptures are not for private interpretation, but are to be interpreted as in days of old: by prophets. He warned of those who were wresting Paul's words unto their own destruction. Having living prophets enhances my understanding of ancient teachings, particularly those that have been lost. The Lord has definitely restored many plain and precious things through Joseph Smith and his successors that were lost anciently.

Remember, the Christian church rejected continual revelation on any level, with the establishment of the Bible. There were so many Gnostic Christians and others claiming revelation that the proto-orthodox Church had no choice but to canonize the scriptures they felt were authentic, reject the rest, and then place the entire revelatory experience in stasis. How does the Reformation, which occurred a millennium after the Bible was formulated, suddenly bring about a revelatory change for the "sure word of prophecy?" Only a restoration, as has happened many times in Biblical times via a prophet can bring about such an event.

Biblical scholars tell us of a divine council, where El Elyon was the head and Jehovah was one of the divine sons. Many scholars equate Jehovah, the Great Angel/Messiah, with Jesus (see Margaret Barker's the Great Angel). So, we have two separate beings, Elohim and Jehovah, and one of them becomes Jesus. This teaching was well accepted by both the early Hebrews and the early Christians, who also viewed Jesus as the Messiah/Jehovah.

Now, can you show me in the Bible where it says that Jesus has "eternally existed in the Godhead AS God"? Second, can you define eternal? And what verse states that God said, "I will be AS a Father unto you?" In Hebrews, Paul says that God is the "father of our spirits", Jeremiah was called to be a prophet before he was in his mother's womb, and Job was asked about the day when the sons of god (bene elohim) shouted for joy.

I know forums like this are pretty much fruitless, except to proclaim the Truth of God and, perhaps, some SEARCHING, not someone who is unwilling to hear, will have his/her heart opened, and believe. anyway:

And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were (PAST TENSE) with him in the holy mount.

[19] We have (PRESENT TENSE - speaking of REVEALED SCRIPTURE) also a more (MORE CERTAIN, than even the fleeting "voice from heaven", because it is established and forever) sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

[20] Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation (THIS PRIMARILY MEANS THAT IT DID NOT COME BY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IN THE CONTEXT - SEE THE NEXT ONE).

[21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake (PAST TENSE - NOT NOW, BUT THEN) as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Yes he warned of those who corrupted Paul's teachings, which he also called SCRIPTURE. IT was known even then that Paul's words were Scripture, on even par with the Old Testament. In this day God uses to teach His people: 1. HIs completed Word in conjuction with 2. The Holy Spirit, 3. Pastors, 4. Teachers. Prophets, primarily, reveal new information, future events, etc. Apostles were given to actually pen the New Testament, as well as NEw Testament Prophets (which the Apostles also were). ONce we have those Words, and we do today, we need only to be taught and "take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in (our) hearts:.." IN the sense that there are those gifted with exhorting from God's Word, making it clearer, yes we have "prophets" today, but not in the Old Testament or beginning of the church sense. What AMOS said is correct, and God did reveal to His servants, through the Prophets, His final revelation, and now, praise God, we HAVE IT. There is nothing left to be "revealed" but only made more light for our understanding, until He returns.

The reformation is so misunderstood, sadly, by so many, and that is primarily because, for centuries, the Catholic church pretty much controlled the wider telling of "history". However, there is another history not often told, and that is that there have ALWAYS been true Christians figting against error and false teaching. During the time, and before the reformation, that the Catholic church was in power, there were true CHristians being persecuted, starting from the time of the Apostles and continuing right up to this day. Please see the simple little book online called THE TRAIL OF BLOOD for a clear history of the Christian CHurch throughout the centuries, how it never stopped and how the gates of hell did NOT prevail against it in anyway. NOTHING was lost. GOd preserved His Words and His church as He promised. JOseph Smith restored nothing. The reformation, to get back to that, was simply people IN the Catholic church coming to realize the errors of the organization and coming to true faith in Jesus and then speaking out about it. This would be no different than someone in the Catholic church today seeing the truth, being born again, and leaving that institution. This led to other people doing the same and following the original leaders of each movement. There were, in fact, many born again Christians at the time instructing some of the newly converted Christians who came out of the Catholic institution, since Christians were ALWAYS there.

El ELyon simply means The Most High God, nothing more. There is no "council" of gods. There is THE Godhead, the ONE true God, period. Eternal life, in God's context, refers to self-existence, no beginning, no ending. IN regards to people (and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish) it means an eternal state that DOES have a beginning, it refers to both quality (non perishable) and quantity (never ending) life, one that continues without a finish, in God's presence.

I quoted Hebrews SLIGHTLY wrong, but it means the same. "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be (future tense) to him a Father, and he shall be (future tense) to me a Son?" But before that it was: In the beginning WAS the WORD, and the WORD WAS with GOD, and the WORD WAS GOD.: John 1:1 HE eternally existed in the Godhead as The Word. HE BECAME the Son of God when brought into the World as a man. Some Christians disagree with this, but that is how I see it. Bottom line is that He ALWAYS existed as God. HE was NOT created. Of course God is the Father of His children, those who are adopted as His children. (Gal 1:5; Eph 4:5) What's the point you are making? HE is also Jesus Father, positionally, as Jesus BECAME the Son of Man, when he was brought physically, for our redemption, into this world. But their relationship is not the same as a creature to a Creator as ours is. If Jesus is God, He is eternal, as God is. Logically. "O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." Jn 17:5; "Thus saith God JEHOVAH, he that created the heavens...he that spread forth the earth...he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein (WE ACCEPT THIS IS THE GOD, RIGHT?) HE GOES ON TO SAY: "my glory will I NOT GIVE TO ANOTHER,..." (Is 42:5, 8) Jesus shared the same glory as God, because He was (is) God. YOu even said JEHOVAH was Jesus, well, here we have HIM saying HE is God the Creator, the eternal God, who will share His glory with no one else. Jesus is either the eternal God or God does not exist. Both you and "Jehovah's witnesses" get this so wrong. Read what JEHOVAH actually says about 'other gods": "Ye are my witnesses, saith JEHOVAH and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he (Jesus quotes and applies this "I am He" to himself in Jn 8:24): before me there was NO GOD FORMED, neither shall there be AFTER ME." (Is 43:10) The very verse "jehovah's witnesses" say they got their name from proves Jesus and God are one and the same, yet they deny He is God, in a similar way you deny He is the ONE TRUE God and not a separate "god". JEHOVAH clearly states in no uncertain terms that no TRUE God was FORMED (created) before nor after Him. Any other "god" would be a false one. Since Jesus is very God, He MUST be the ONE, TRUE, ETERNAL God. REad all of the verses around Isaiah, oh say, 42 - 46 and you will see this truth repeated over and over again. There is only ONE true God. Not multiple gods, not created gods, not exalted beings who BECOME gods. No, there is ONE. Praise HIS Name.

[newvid]

Does this forum originate in Australia or something? I am on the East Coast in USA and it is 9:21 AM, but my post says it is 1:55 PM? Go figure.

[Guest Malcolm]

Because we are certainly finite and three dimensional beings, we tend to the think in those terms. What is infinite minus 1 year? Look it is like trying to explain String Theory to most people, it is not an easy thing and for the most part well removed from our day to day concerns.

Not that we should not question those things but our time will be better spent doing emulating the Savior in thought and deeds as to strengthening our faith and relationship with Him

[rameumptom]

I guess I can see how you could interpret it that way but, I believe Father is referring Jesus' Father, not, as you believe Heavenly Father's. I checked about 9 other versions and they pretty much say the same thing.

BibleGateway.com - Passage*Lookup: Revelation 1:5-6;

M.

It states that "Jesus hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father." Just how else can that be interpreted? Either God and HIS Father are separate beings, or John is being redundant in a very oblique way that doesn't make sense.

Other translations state, "God, His Father", which does make sense in referencing God as Jesus' Father. But the KJV clearly refers to Jesus, God, and God's Father.

[rameumptom]

I know forums like this are pretty much fruitless, except to proclaim the Truth of God and, perhaps, some SEARCHING, not someone who is unwilling to hear, will have his/her heart opened, and believe. anyway:

And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were (PAST TENSE) with him in the holy mount.

[19] We have (PRESENT TENSE - speaking of REVEALED SCRIPTURE) also a more (MORE CERTAIN, than even the fleeting "voice from heaven", because it is established and forever) sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

[20] Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation (THIS PRIMARILY MEANS THAT IT DID NOT COME BY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IN THE CONTEXT - SEE THE NEXT ONE).

[21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake (PAST TENSE - NOT NOW, BUT THEN) as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Yes he warned of those who corrupted Paul's teachings, which he also called SCRIPTURE. IT was known even then that Paul's words were Scripture, on even par with the Old Testament. In this day God uses to teach His people: 1. HIs completed Word in conjuction with 2. The Holy Spirit, 3. Pastors, 4. Teachers. Prophets, primarily, reveal new information, future events, etc. Apostles were given to actually pen the New Testament, as well as NEw Testament Prophets (which the Apostles also were). ONce we have those Words, and we do today, we need only to be taught and "take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in (our) hearts:.." IN the sense that there are those gifted with exhorting from God's Word, making it clearer, yes we have "prophets" today, but not in the Old Testament or beginning of the church sense. What AMOS said is correct, and God did reveal to His servants, through the Prophets, His final revelation, and now, praise God, we HAVE IT. There is nothing left to be "revealed" but only made more light for our understanding, until He returns.

.

Sorry, I'm in disagreement with your interpretation. Peter was explaining that scripture is not of an individual's private interpretation, because there were many in his day who were wresting the writings of Paul and others. It was only to be understood as interpreted as the scriptures had been interpreted anciently: by prophets through the Holy Spirit. Given that Peter was still alive while writing his letter, it would be foolish to think he was telling his audience to ignore his teachings, because each individual was to find their own interpretation via the Holy Ghost! Instead, the apostles wrote their letters to ensure the members correctly understood the doctrine, and did not fall to a wrong interpretation. Clearly, Peter and Paul saw the need for prophetic interpretation of the scriptures.

Your view suggests Peter did not have the Holy Ghost ("not now, but then") or did things differently than the ancient prophets did, which is rather absurd! Peter was given the Holy Ghost, was changed by it on the day of Pentecost, and received revelations that were made scripture. These are things that did not occur to the average individual.

Instead, Peter was showing the ancient pattern and why it should continue in the Church. Prophets and apostles are moved by the Holy Ghost and whatever they say while inspired, is scripture.

Not all members considered Paul's writings as scripture. And of those that did, many wrested with what he wrote. Nowhere in the Bible does it show that we would not have prophets or apostles in latter days. Why would God change things? He continued prophets and apostles AFTER Jesus' resurrection, so obviously the pattern was expected to continue. And not just with the apostles, as Acts speaks of other prophets, such as Agabus; and Revelation mentions the two prophets in Jerusalem at the last days.

Why twist the Bible around to fit something that just is not apparent in it? God established a pattern of prophets/apostles. Amos stated it was necessary to reveal God's secrets. Paul stated that they were needed UNTIL we all come to a unity of the faith. Given that there is no unity in the Christian faith, much less in the faiths of the world, I'd say and the Bible teaches that living prophets are still needed to keep people from twisting God's words around to meet their own views.

[newvid]

Twisted the Word of God? I am not the one who invented new scripture and claimed it to be even higher than THE Word of God. How many books of Scriptures do the Mormons have?

Malcolm, I'm happy for you that you have it all figured out and the Mormon church is the one true church now and has "restored" Christianity, since God was not able to keep it faithful for 1830 years, until Mr. Smith came along to help him out. I guess when Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail againts it, He meant at least not till Joseph Smith came on the scene and rescued it. Like I said, forums like this are a waste. The "god of this world" has truly blinded the eyes of those who walk in disobedience, especially in disobedience to the revealed and completed Word of God. May God lead you into all truth.

Peace.

[rameumptom]

The idea of the gates of hell not prevailing against Peter is only believed by Roman Catholics. Protestants believe it to mean the rock of faith; while LDS believe Christ meant the rock of revelation, as his statement was based upon Peter's confession "Thou art the Christ" that was based upon revelation from Heavenly Father.

If it is based on Peter, that one fails, as he denied Christ three times. If it is based on the rock of faith, then my faith should save me just as much as yours will save you - but many traditional Christians won't give my faith the benefit of a doubt. I've actually been called a "child of hell", and one EV minister with millions of followers told his congregates that a vote for Mitt Romney was a vote for Satan!

If we are referencing the rock of revelation, then we can see from history that the early church rejected revelation for a static set of scriptures, in order to stop other Christian rivals from ascending with claims of revelation. This did end, and required a restoration, just as there have been restorations in previous ages (as told to us in the Bible). Moses didn't just bring about a revision of Hebrew culture, but restored authority and power and revelation that was lost. Elijah also brought about a restoration of truth in his day. Oh, and I believe Jesus did the same, as he took the teachings of the Jews and did more than reform them - he fulfilled them and restored the fullness of his teachings.

There is a pattern of apostasy and restoration that flows through the Bible. Why would there be so many examples of this in the Bible, and then 2000 years of supposed bliss? If you are Roman Catholic, then there is ample evidence of apostasy with early Gnostics and then the Reformation of the Protestants. If you are Protestant, then you are ignoring the non-Biblical errors of the Catholic Church that the Reformers sought to change by rejecting the things that supposedly would have been passed down by Peter.

So, are you RC or Protestant, and which one of these problematic themes applies to our world?

[newvid]

I am neither. I am a Christian. Absolutely not RC, nor protestant, though I certainly do "protest" against the falsehoods of the RC church, the Mormon and JW organizations, and any errors that seek to "prevail against" the truth of God. The prevailing against refers to the church, not Peter's statement, not Peter himself, and Jesus clearly stated the gates of hell, the lies, deception, destructiveness of Satan and his minions would not prevail against the work of God's church. Yes, there are setbacks, yes there are struggles all through church history, but not a complete loss of the church. There is nothing to indicate anywhere in Scripture that anytime in history there would be a complete loss of God's truth. Even in the examples you sited,there has always been a godly remnant, always. Actually the longest period of time of lack of revelation and proper following of God was between Malachi and Christ, a 500 year period where there was no revelation and a continual build-up of man-made rules and regulations contrary to God's truth, yet there still remained a godly remnant. Christ came to fulfill the law and establish His church, which would be the end times vessel He would use to spread His gospel to the ends of the earth till His return, and the church, to one degree or another, not perfectly, has done that and continues to. Mormons actually expect the world to accept that somehow virtually as soon as the church was established it lost its light and apostasized,which is ludicrous. The Scriptures and history are too complete and clear to allow for such a thing. There is ZERO evidence that the Word of God was corrupted as the Mormon church claims, but just the opposite. The Word of God has been miraculously preserved through the centuries, which is one of the proofs of its veracity and divine origin. Then along comes this farmer in up state NY and suddenly the church is restored and new Scriptures are added and we suddenly have the "truth". So how corrupt is the Bible, anyway? What do YOU believe? What do you believe your mormon scriptures add to the Word of God? My Bible tells me that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." I suppose you would say that includes Mormon Scripture, right? Sad the church did not have what it needed all those years, huh? I guess it was NOT thoroughly furnished as God's Word promised. Sad we were not able to carry out the great commission for so long till Joseph Smith came to set us straight.

[Guest Malcolm]

Newvid:

Again, no offense intended in my post, and I speak from a very practical standpoint. I grew up in a country with RC traditions. As far as we knew there was no other church. By the time I was in my teens religion around me had morphed with African/pagan rituals that were accepted by 99% of the people but not my grandma'. My (great) grandmother never went to school but knew how to read and we read an old Reyna-Valera version of the Bible every day. No teachers, no tradition of any kind, no dogma or preconceived notion or ideas.

For us it was clear that what they taught in the RC traditions was not in synch, according to our very simple and concrete logic, with the Gospels. I read the bible, to the best of my abilities, half a dozen times cover to cover before I made it this country. I have no theological training thus I do not debate or even discuss such matters. But I searched for seven years when I came to the US for the truth that I was convinced had to exist. I investigated just about every religious congregation and denomination around my home in LA.

My testimony of the Gospels, who Jesus is and where the truth is does not come from theological training or religious schools. I heard my grandma read the words of Isaiah, the words of the Savior to his Apostles and I heard her pray. I pondered for years what it all meant. Then one stormy night in the jungles in south America I found myself face up on the ground, my skull ripped by a snipper's bullet and no one but God to talk to. He whispered to me and I lived. I walked 6 miles to safety and after the ordeal I sought that same spirit for seven years until I found it while reading the pages of the Book of Mormon.

My friend, The Book of Mormon is the Word of God. It is Christ of whom we speak, we testify unequivocally that He is the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of the whole human race and there is no other name under which we bow our heads in prayer. And we go the world over to every people to tell of the good news and as we step in His name the devil trembles.

Newvid, my love goes out to you. I invite you to test my words.

[Guest Malcolm]

Sorry about the long post. I did not realize how much I had written

Just a note before I forget. The greatest evidence of the Apostasy and corruption of the doctrine was the millions of executions and torture perpetrated, for a thousand years, by the "beacons of virtue and religious knowledge" (The Church thru the middle ages to the Reformation) and ALL in the name of Christ.

[cgrantreed]

Even in the examples you sited,there has always been a godly remnant, always. Actually the longest period of time of lack of revelation and proper following of God was between Malachi and Christ, a 500 year period where there was no revelation and a continual build-up of man-made rules and regulations contrary to God's truth, yet there still remained a godly remnant. Christ came to fulfill the law and establish His church, which would be the end times vessel He would use to spread His gospel to the ends of the earth till His return, and the church, to one degree or another, not perfectly, has done that and continues to. Mormons actually expect the world to accept that somehow virtually as soon as the church was established it lost its light and apostasized,which is ludicrous. The Scriptures and history are too complete and clear to allow for such a thing. There is ZERO evidence that the Word of God was corrupted as the Mormon church claims, but just the opposite. The Word of God has been miraculously preserved through the centuries, which is one of the proofs of its veracity and divine origin. Then along comes this farmer in up state NY and suddenly the church is restored and new Scriptures are added and we suddenly have the "truth". So how corrupt is the Bible, anyway? What do YOU believe? What do you believe your mormon scriptures add to the Word of God? My Bible tells me that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." I suppose you would say that includes Mormon Scripture, right? Sad the church did not have what it needed all those years, huh? I guess it was NOT thoroughly furnished as God's Word promised. Sad we were not able to carry out the great commission for so long till Joseph Smith came to set us straight.

I don't want to start a fire storm because you seem to have set your mind pretty squarely on "the truth is only what is between the pages of the Bible". I would like to point out that your facts are slightly skewed about what "We Mormons" believe. The BoM is not a replacement for the Bible and its doctrine. Its also historic record that coincides with a HUGE part of the Bible. The first book of the BoM speaks clearly about having records of the Bible. Nephi even recites Isaiah pretty much word for word so even these people had the records in the Bible. They fled from Israel because it was headed for destruction and they carried with them records that had been passed down for generations as they were written in the Bible at that time. They had revelation that spanned from 600B.C. until well after Christs birth and they show that Christ came to that continent to spread his word...just as he did with every other continent and island in the world.

You don't have to accept it but until you have read it, please don't trash on it. By your post, you know very little about the LDS faith. Knowledge is king. Truth in all things is revealed through asking God for confirmation. Thats completely up to you.

[newvid]

Newvid:

Again, no offense intended in my post, and I speak from a very practical standpoint. I grew up in a country with RC traditions. As far as we knew there was no other church. By the time I was in my teens religion around me had morphed with African/pagan rituals that were accepted by 99% of the people but not my grandma'. My (great) grandmother never went to school but knew how to read and we read an old Reyna-Valera version of the Bible every day. No teachers, no tradition of any kind, no dogma or preconceived notion or ideas.

For us it was clear that what they taught in the RC traditions was not in synch, according to our very simple and concrete logic, with the Gospels. I read the bible, to the best of my abilities, half a dozen times cover to cover before I made it this country. I have no theological training thus I do not debate or even discuss such matters. But I searched for seven years when I came to the US for the truth that I was convinced had to exist. I investigated just about every religious congregation and denomination around my home in LA.

My testimony of the Gospels, who Jesus is and where the truth is does not come from theological training or religious schools. I heard my grandma read the words of Isaiah, the words of the Savior to his Apostles and I heard her pray. I pondered for years what it all meant. Then one stormy night in the jungles in south America I found myself face up on the ground, my skull ripped by a snipper's bullet and no one but God to talk to. He whispered to me and I lived. I walked 6 miles to safety and after the ordeal I sought that same spirit for seven years until I found it while reading the pages of the Book of Mormon.

My friend, The Book of Mormon is the Word of God. It is Christ of whom we speak, we testify unequivocally that He is the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of the whole human race and there is no other name under which we bow our heads in prayer. And we go the world over to every people to tell of the good news and as we step in His name the devil trembles.

Newvid, my love goes out to you. I invite you to test my words.

They are and have been tried, tested and found wanting MANY times. All you need for life, godliness and a relationship with your Creator is what is found in the pages of the Holy Bible, God's perfect, revealed Word.

I, too love you, with God's love and trust Him to reveal Himself to you in His time and His way.

Time for bed. Must get up for Church tomorrow. We are having a prophecy conference (meaning already revealed prophecy in His Word) and I am excited about it!