Bible, Bible, We Got A Bible

[Snow]

My very beliefs are that the Bible is God's only words.

So says Stephen and I thought that this deserved its own thread.

Three thoughts:

1. Such a belief, in a closed canon, is contradictory with Stephen's other belief that all his religious beliefs are biblical, in as much as the idea of a closed canon is no where found in the Bible. Additionally, Stephen, and Trident, criticize us for having ideas not found in the Bible.

Why is what's good for the goose, not good for the Duck?

2. Such a belief is illogical. If God were to decide to open the heavens and pour forth new wisdom (and we believe he has) the idea of a closed canon would require Stephen to say, "Hush, we have a Bible and have no need for anything new or different." Placing a limit on God may just not be too practical.

3. Okay, I forgot what the third thing was but as soon as I regain consciousness, I'll post it.

[Guest Starsky]

LOL

Habakka 1:

2 O LORD, how long shall I cry, and thou wilt not hear! even cry out unto thee of violence, and thou wilt not save!

3 Why dost thou shew me iniquity, and cause me to behold grievance? for spoiling and violence are before me: and there are that raise up strife and contention.

4 Therefore the law is slacked, and judgment doth never go forth: for the wicked doth compass about the righteous; therefore wrong judgment proceedeth.

kinda how you feel huh?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Why is what's good for the goose, not good for the Duck?

Because a duck breast, being smaller, tends to dry out before the legs are cooked through, making it hard to get the best results when roasting the whole bird, as can be done with a goose. B)

[Tr2]

If God were to decide to open the heavens and pour forth new wisdom (and we believe he has) the idea of a closed canon would require Stephen to say, "Hush, we have a Bible and have no need for anything new or different."

I am open to God revealing new things. However most "new revelation" that comes out is in conflict with the existing scriptures. That is the issue, always has been and always will be.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Tr2@Mar 30 2004, 05:03 PM

If God were to decide to open the heavens and pour forth new wisdom (and we believe he has) the idea of a closed canon would require Stephen to say, "Hush, we have a Bible and have no need for anything new or different."

I am open to God revealing new things. However most "new revelation" that comes out is in conflict with the existing scriptures. That is the issue, always has been and always will be.

LOL....never can there be a new principle revealed...maybe clearified, but not revealed....

So there hasn't been anything revealed that wasn't already here...thus the term 'restoration'.

There may need to be modifications on applications of principles to deal with current issues of the day....thus a 'living prophet' to guide us...

but the current leader never changes 'principle' only application.

[srm]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 30 2004, 05:00 PM

Why is what's good for the goose, not good for the Duck?

Because a duck breast, being smaller, tends to dry out before the legs are cooked through, making it hard to get the best results when roasting the whole bird, as can be done with a goose. B)

O learned how to cook duck on good eats last night. He cut out the back bone and seperated the breat and legs. He brined it and the steamed it. Then into a hot oven to finish cooking and 'crisp' it. He did put the legs in first because the cooked slower. that shoots a hole in PD's theory. Just 'cuz he is a duck doesn't mean he can cook a duck. Now, i think I'll go home and give my wife a goose.

[Tr2]

So there hasn't been anything revealed that wasn't already here...thus the term 'restoration'.

Mormonism is a "revised" version of Christianity. The basic rules have been changed as have the practices. From the outside mormonism and Christianity look the same, but only from the outside. When you compare the the scriptures, doctrines, and teachings they just don't match up. Christianity and mormonism are not the same thing, they are very noticably different. The basic core foundations contradict each other, and discredit the other's foundations. If you believe one, you cannot possibly believe the other.

Mormonism isn't a restoration of Christianity, it is something completely different. What concerns me a lot, that mormons don't seem to understand, is that mormonism came into existance with an experience (Smith's with the angel) in the exact way that Galatians described us to be cautious of.

There may need to be modifications on applications of principles to deal with current issues of the day....thus a 'living prophet' to guide us...

I've debated with Catholics about this, because the Pope is their equivalent to your prophet. There isn't the biblical basis for believing that we need a prophet to speak for God. In fact there are numerous scriptures that suggest that we do not need somebody like that.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Tr2@Mar 31 2004, 10:52 PM

So there hasn't been anything revealed that wasn't already here...thus the term 'restoration'.

Mormonism is a "revised" version of Christianity. The basic rules have been changed as have the practices. From the outside mormonism and Christianity look the same, but only from the outside. When you compare the the scriptures, doctrines, and teachings they just don't match up. Christianity and mormonism are not the same thing, they are very noticably different. The basic core foundations contradict each other, and discredit the other's foundations. If you believe one, you cannot possibly believe the other.

Mormonism isn't a restoration of Christianity, it is something completely different. What concerns me a lot, that mormons don't seem to understand, is that mormonism came into existance with an experience (Smith's with the angel) in the exact way that Galatians described us to be cautious of.

There may need to be modifications on applications of principles to deal with current issues of the day....thus a 'living prophet' to guide us...

I've debated with Catholics about this, because the Pope is their equivalent to your prophet. There isn't the biblical basis for believing that we need a prophet to speak for God. In fact there are numerous scriptures that suggest that we do not need somebody like that.

Trident, you need to step back a little and look at the difference between what JS restored in 1830 and what the LDS church is presently. They are two separate things. I agree that the LDS church is not the restoration of the early Christian church, but that does not mean that that church wasn't restored. There are other churches that have kept truer to the restoration, those being the RLDS church, the Church of Christ -- Temple Lot, and a few other (much) smaller churches.

While we might not need someone to speak for God for us personally, the prophet is the person that is designated to speak for God for the church. We can each receive personal revelation, but that is all it is, for us, personally. If God wants the church to move in a particular direction, then, IMO, that must come through the designated figure.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Tr2@Mar 31 2004, 10:52 PM

There isn't the biblical basis for believing that we need a prophet to speak for God.

Trident,

now you know I think you are a sharp patootie but that remark has got to be among the most snogolistic things you have ever said.

Besides being incorrect (see Amos 3:7, which I am sure you'll ignore) can you imagine the Jews saying to Moses..."no way Moses, the Bible don't say nuttin bout no exodus"

Maybe Noahs wife would have said to Noah... "I know it looks like rain Noah, but if it ain't in the Bible, then it ain't happn'n."

Maybe in the Last Supper Peter stood up and said... "look here, the Bible don't talk bout no betrayal so relax"

Nor did the Bible say there was a need for any New Testament, nor Paul, nor ..blah, blah, blah...

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Tr2@Mar 31 2004, 10:52 PM

So there hasn't been anything revealed that wasn't already here...thus the term 'restoration'.

Mormonism is a "revised" version of Christianity. The basic rules have been changed as have the practices. From the outside mormonism and Christianity look the same, but only from the outside. When you compare the the scriptures, doctrines, and teachings they just don't match up. Christianity and mormonism are not the same thing, they are very noticably different. The basic core foundations contradict each other, and discredit the other's foundations. If you believe one, you cannot possibly believe the other.

Mormonism isn't a restoration of Christianity, it is something completely different. What concerns me a lot, that mormons don't seem to understand, is that mormonism came into existance with an experience (Smith's with the angel) in the exact way that Galatians described us to be cautious of.

There may need to be modifications on applications of principles to deal with current issues of the day....thus a 'living prophet' to guide us...

I've debated with Catholics about this, because the Pope is their equivalent to your prophet. There isn't the biblical basis for believing that we need a prophet to speak for God. In fact there are numerous scriptures that suggest that we do not need somebody like that.

No...it isn't revised....you have tried to 'revise' the truth however, in that statement...

Of course our church is different....because it was restored to the 'correct' way.

When you compare a dark room to a light room....yeah...you will see a big difference! LOL

The foundations comflick between the unrestore and the restored because the fundamental principles were all messed up...it had to be set in order...so of course...caos from the unrestored conflicts with the order in the restored.

Why would you want to believe both?

As for you interpretation and application of Galations to JS's experience.....You have to be kidding right? JS even taught how to discern the difference.

And as for the basis for a need of prophets...it didn't begin with Moses because there was Noah before him...but get this:

Exodus 20:

18 And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off.

19 And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.

20 And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is ccome to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not.

21 And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.

22 And the LORD said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by srm+Mar 30 2004, 08:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (srm @ Mar 30 2004, 08:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Mar 30 2004, 05:00 PM

Why is what's good for the goose, not good for the Duck?

Because a duck breast, being smaller, tends to dry out before the legs are cooked through, making it hard to get the best results when roasting the whole bird, as can be done with a goose. B)

O learned how to cook duck on good eats last night. He cut out the back bone and seperated the breat and legs. He brined it and the steamed it. Then into a hot oven to finish cooking and 'crisp' it. He did put the legs in first because the cooked slower. that shoots a hole in PD's theory. Just 'cuz he is a duck doesn't mean he can cook a duck. Now, i think I'll go home and give my wife a goose.

Ah, but that's my point. Duck breast is best served rare to medium rare -- but if you roast a whole duck all at once, when the breast is medium rare, the legs are still almost raw. So it is best to cook the legs separately (or at least put them in first). O was right.

I like to separate the breasts, marinate in a raspberry/red wine vinegar marinade, and then pan sear them, cooking the legs separately in the oven.

[Tr2]

I wasn't clear enough on one of my earlier points that some have taken issue with. There is indeed a biblical basis for saying that at one point in time, man needed a prophet to bridge the communication gap. However, in the time we live now, there isn't the biblical basis for stating that we currently need a prophet or specific high shepherd to bridge that gap that once existed.

Romans 8:9 says the spirit of God lives inside us. Every single person who has ever truly accepted Jesus into their heart has the Holy Spirit living inside them. If you have the spirit of God living inside of you then why would you need to go to another source? That's like having a pharmacy inside your home and insisting that you need to drive to the drug store down the street to get your medication.

If you have the holy spirit living inside you, then you don't need a prophet. If you don't have the spirit of God living inside you then I guess you are right, you need a prophet.

No...it isn't revised....you have tried to 'revise' the truth however, in that statement...

Maybe revised wasn't the right word. Revised implies that there has been subtle changes to the product. Mormonism and Christianity are two very different products that have some things in common, but not enough to be the same.

Of course our church is different....because it was restored to the 'correct' way.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I'm glad we agree that mormonism and Christianity are not the same thing.

When you compare a dark room to a light room....yeah...you will see a big difference! LOL

What light are you referring to? Are you referring to the mormon church being a light in a dark world? if that is the case then you should have ample amounts of evidence to back that up. That is a very bold claim you may have just made. Is that what you are claiming? i don't want to misunderstand you.

The foundations comflick between the unrestore and the restored because the fundamental principles were all messed up

That statement suggests that Jesus failed. i do believe a lot of fundamentals were messed up, however I don't believe it was the principles. I believe it was the actions and beliefs of the followers. I see many Christians, too many to count, who have non-biblical and ungodly beliefs. I see Christian after Christians tryng to work hard enough to get God's love and approval. There was, and still is, a problem with the Christian church, but the principles are not it. It is the ungodly practices of its members. We don't need a restoration of the church to fix that, we need to be revived to the state that the church needs to be in. Mormonism is just legalistic Christianity taken one step further.

As for you interpretation and application of Galations to JS's experience.....You have to be kidding right? JS even taught how to discern the difference.

Why would i be kidding? Joseph Smith received his new revelation from an angel of light that came to him. Galatians specifically states that believers are not to accept any new doctrines from an angel that would come to them. Galatians was in print for over 1000 years before Smith came around. If you want to ignore a warning from God that has stood for that length of time then go right ahead.

Nor did the Bible say there was a need for any New Testament, nor Paul, nor ..blah, blah, blah...

So that is your logic? Then I trust you do not use a bathroom, drive a car, have a checking account, or have a pension. The bible mentions none of these.

[srm]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Apr 1 2004, 12:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Apr 1 2004, 12:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -srm@Mar 30 2004, 08:58 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Mar 30 2004, 05:00 PM

Why is what's good for the goose, not good for the Duck?

Because a duck breast, being smaller, tends to dry out before the legs are cooked through, making it hard to get the best results when roasting the whole bird, as can be done with a goose. B)

O learned how to cook duck on good eats last night. He cut out the back bone and seperated the breat and legs. He brined it and the steamed it. Then into a hot oven to finish cooking and 'crisp' it. He did put the legs in first because the cooked slower. that shoots a hole in PD's theory. Just 'cuz he is a duck doesn't mean he can cook a duck. Now, i think I'll go home and give my wife a goose.

Ah, but that's my point. Duck breast is best served rare to medium rare -- but if you roast a whole duck all at once, when the breast is medium rare, the legs are still almost raw. So it is best to cook the legs separately (or at least put them in first). O was right.

I like to separate the breasts, marinate in a raspberry/red wine vinegar marinade, and then pan sear them, cooking the legs separately in the oven.

I often make duck soup and with it I serve...

Quackers

[Snow]

Originally posted by Tr2@Apr 1 2004, 01:47 PM

Nor did the Bible say there was a need for any New Testament, nor Paul, nor ..blah, blah, blah...

So that is your logic? Then I trust you do not use a bathroom, drive a car, have a checking account, or have a pension. The bible mentions none of these.

Whoops!

Missed the point entirely Trident. I was you who made the point that the Bible doesn't say we need prophets (though factually you are incorrect and completely ignored the scripture to that effect) and all I did was point out the absurdity of your position.

I don't think that something needs to be in the Bible to be good or true of correct. That was what YOU implied.

BTW, did you notice how in the post where I referenced Amos 3:7, I specifically said that Trident would ignore it. Guess what. He ignored it.

Besides which, Trident has told us that he does believe in Prophets and specifically mention Benny Hinn as one of them and said that the mantle of authority (my words) was self-evident in the Benny.

How could it not be thus: http://www.cephasministry.com/Hinn.jpg

[Tr2]

He ignored it

No, I ingored you. As you ignored my reference to Romans.

Besides which, Trident has told us that he does believe in Prophets and specifically mention Benny Hinn as one of them and said that the mantle of authority (my words) was self-evident in the Benny.

How could it not be thus: http://www.cephasministry.com/Hinn.jpg

Coming from you, I can't take that seriously.

[serapha]

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets. Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;"

Hebrews 1:1-2

So what needs to be added to the Old and New Testament to make it more complete?

~serapha~

[Snow]

Originally posted by Tr2@Apr 2 2004, 06:24 PM

No, I ingored you. As you ignored my reference to Romans.

Come on Squire,

I didn't ignore it. I read it. It just isn't relevant to this topic. If your reasoning was correct (that since the spirit dwells within us - there would be no need to go to another source) is faulty and you proved it by referring to the Bible. The Bible is a source other than than the spirit which you acted like was sufficient. Which is it, no source necessary or source necessary?

Obviously you think the Bible, another source, is necessary. In addition the Roman reference says nothing about whether God WILL have propehts. It just says that the spirit dwells with those who accept Christ.

Besides, your wrong on a 3rd count. After Christ died, prophets existed and wrote the Bible via revelation.

Besides which, Trident has told us that he does believe in Prophets and specifically mention Benny Hinn as one of them and said that the mantle of authority (my words) was self-evident in the Benny.

How could it not be thus: http://www.cephasministry.com/Hinn.jpg

Coming from you, I can't take that seriously.

Missed the point again. It didn't come from me. It came from you. You are the one that claimed that Benny Hinn was a prophet, well he claims it too - that Christ visits him personally weekly - and pastors in your sometimes church, the Toronto Blessing also claim to be prophets/prophetesses. It's your point not mine.

Today you say there are no prophets yet we both know that you claimed last year that there were.

Which is it going to be. You can't have it both ways.

[Snow]

Originally posted by serapha@Apr 2 2004, 10:22 PM

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets. Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;"

Hebrews 1:1-2

So what needs to be added to the Old and New Testament to make it more complete?

~serapha~

Serapha,

This might be useful for our discussion of Biblical infallibility. The author of Hebrew though he was in the "last days" but he was not. His view was common in the ancient Church so he was in common company but he was mistaken. Yes, Christ did not need prophets to speak for him, God. He was God and spoke for himself.

Whatever times the Hebrews author thought he was in, we are not in those times. We are in these times. Additionally, regardless of how the author of Hebrews thinks God spoke then, it says absolutely nothing and implies nothing about how God was to speak in the future.

[Tr2]

It just isn't relevant to this topic

It was very relevant. In typical style you don't want to talk about something that you can't debate against.

It just says that the spirit dwells with those who accept Christ.

Why don't you try and think about what that means and how it relates.

Missed the point again. It didn't come from me. It came from you. You are the one that claimed that Benny Hinn was a prophet, well he claims it too - that Christ visits him personally weekly - and pastors in your sometimes church, the Toronto Blessing also claim to be prophets/prophetesses. It's your point not mine.

I have never said that Benny Hinn was a prophet. I have never said that he pastors my church. I have never said that the people of TACF claim to be prophets. Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by serapha@Apr 2 2004, 10:22 PM

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets. Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;"

Hebrews 1:1-2

So what needs to be added to the Old and New Testament to make it more complete?

~serapha~

LOL...so is today the 'these times' spoken about? NO.

Today is 2000 years past 'these' times.

What needs to be added is what was taken away, ....

[Snow]

Originally posted by Tr2@Apr 2 2004, 11:57 PM

It just isn't relevant to this topic

It was very relevant. In typical style you don't want to talk about something that you can't debate against.

So wrong my friend. (close enough).

I did talk about it. You know I talked about. I said as much about it as you did. Can you read. Here's what ya do squire. You look up on the thread a little bit and see what I said. Which point you have failed to rebut just as you have Amos.

Do you understand the significane of Amos? Hmmm? If you accept that God does anything, then you accept that he talks to his servants, prophets. Now you may take the position that God was wrong or that the Bible is wrong but you seem to have no idea at all.

I have never said that Benny Hinn was a prophet.  I have never said that he pastors my church. I have never said that the people of TACF claim to be prophets. Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?

Not so fast there. This is back in the days before you were Jimmy, back when you were Trident, on the old board. You were making the point that simply observing a man you could tell if he was a prophet or not by the power and authority he carried with him (I don't recall your exact words) and Benny Hinn was such a man and the leaders of the LDS Church were not. In a related post I mentioned that President Kimball was one of the most respected religious leaders in the country and you mocked the idea. This was all about the time that you claimed the Benny Hinn's cohort Reinhard Bonke had cut his chops ressurecting the dead in Africa.

[Snow]

Originally posted by serapha@Apr 2 2004, 10:22 PM

So what needs to be added to the Old and New Testament to make it more complete?

That a fallacious line of thinking. It suggests that as the ancient authors of what later became the Bible, they were writing with the idea there was something more to say.

It's not like Paul was thinking, hey, the Bible lack such and such point, I'd better get it written. There is no such thing as "complete." Eventually, by the early second century the ancient Christians lost the spirit of revelation that allowed them to write scripture. All Christians that I am aware of agree to that. God stopped talking to them. Then, over the course of a couple hundred years, through politics and battles and guessing, various canons took shapes, books were sorted through, and then - long after the inspiration was gone - the mass murder Constantine sponsered councils that essentially compiled the Bible into it's basic form.

It was put together, not by prophets, but by committee, led by a serial killer.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Snow+Apr 3 2004, 10:03 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Apr 3 2004, 10:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--serapha@Apr 2 2004, 10:22 PM

So what needs to be added to the Old and New Testament to make it more complete?

That a fallacious line of thinking. It suggests that as the ancient authors of what later became the Bible, they were writing with the idea there was something more to say.

It's not like Paul was thinking, hey, the Bible lack such and such point, I'd better get it written. There is no such thing as "complete." Eventually, by the early second century the ancient Christians lost the spirit of revelation that allowed them to write scripture. All Christians that I am aware of agree to that. God stopped talking to them. Then, over the course of a couple hundred years, through politics and battles and guessing, various canons took shapes, books were sorted through, and then - long after the inspiration was gone - the mass murder Constantine sponsered councils that essentially compiled the Bible into it's basic form.

It was put together, not by prophets, but by committee, led by a serial killer.

Well that would explain all the corruption chapioned in it.

[serapha]

Originally posted by Starsky+Apr 3 2004, 11:34 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Starsky @ Apr 3 2004, 11:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@Apr 3 2004, 10:03 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--serapha@Apr 2 2004, 10:22 PM

So what needs to be added to the Old and New Testament to make it more complete?

That a fallacious line of thinking. It suggests that as the ancient authors of what later became the Bible, they were writing with the idea there was something more to say.

It's not like Paul was thinking, hey, the Bible lack such and such point, I'd better get it written. There is no such thing as "complete." Eventually, by the early second century the ancient Christians lost the spirit of revelation that allowed them to write scripture. All Christians that I am aware of agree to that. God stopped talking to them. Then, over the course of a couple hundred years, through politics and battles and guessing, various canons took shapes, books were sorted through, and then - long after the inspiration was gone - the mass murder Constantine sponsered councils that essentially compiled the Bible into it's basic form.

It was put together, not by prophets, but by committee, led by a serial killer.

Well that would explain all the corruption chapioned in it.

If corruption is the reason that you dismiss something, then you are in for a rude awakening as a member of the CoJCoLDS's.

It never ceases to amaze me that the LDS's use a specific argument to discredit the Bible or a particular theological stance of other denominations, but when the same argument is applied to the bom, the same members will scream...

anti-mormon!!!!!

~serapha~

[serapha]

Originally posted by serapha@Apr 2 2004, 10:22 PM

So what needs to be added to the Old and New Testament to make it more complete?

That a fallacious line of thinking. It suggests that as the ancient authors of what later became the Bible, they were writing with the idea there was something more to say.

It's not like Paul was thinking, hey, the Bible lack such and such point, I'd better get it written. There is no such thing as "complete." Eventually, by the early second century the ancient Christians lost the spirit of revelation that allowed them to write scripture. All Christians that I am aware of agree to that. God stopped talking to them. Then, over the course of a couple hundred years, through politics and battles and guessing, various canons took shapes, books were sorted through, and then - long after the inspiration was gone - the mass murder Constantine sponsered councils that essentially compiled the Bible into it's basic form.

It was put together, not by prophets, but by committee, led by a serial killer.

Ninety percent of your posting was purely your own speculation concerning the canonization of the Bible. God has never stopped talking to people..... it's called "prayer"... personal revelation.... or private revelation. God has stopped talking to the entirity of the world. He gave us a finished work. It ends with "amen". It is called the Revelation of Jesus Christ. It gives the final account of this world and sums up the eternal life to come.

~serapha~