Jenda Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 Originally posted by serapha+Apr 3 2004, 08:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (serapha @ Apr 3 2004, 08:35 PM)</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.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~ Really? That is interesting. In Malachi, God says he changes not. Now, if God doesn't change, why would He leave His creation alone with no one to guide them? He guided them for the first 4000 years of creation, why would he just abandon them because someone gave a convoluted revelation that couldn't be interpreted and expect that to hold as His final word to mankind? That doesn't seem like something a loving God would do, IMO.(Let me let you in on a secret. That Amen! and Don't add anything to these words. found at the end of the book of Revelations was meant only for Revelations. It is found in other books of the Bible long before John penned Revelations. So, it was either only meant for Revelations, or the Bible would end at Deuteronomy. So there goes one of your arguments against the BoM. Better think of a new one.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starsky Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 Originally posted by serapha+Apr 3 2004, 08:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (serapha @ Apr 3 2004, 08:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by -Starsky@Apr 3 2004, 11:34 AM 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~ LOL....now just turn that statement around to face you and yours. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted April 4, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 Originally posted by serapha@Apr 3 2004, 08:26 PM 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,You've stopped making sense. First you seem to imply that there was some corruption in the canonization process of LDS scripture and then you indicate that I don't know about it and will be rudely awakened to that point.Huh?Oh alright. I'll play along. Go ahead and rudely awaken me about corruption in the canonization of the BoM/PoGP/D&C.... and I promise, I won't call you an anti-Mormon if you honest about it.(By the way, did you think I wouldn't notice you trying to deflect the attention off the mass murder patron of the Nicene Creed and Bible canonization - Constantine? Don't worry, I did notice -- you did the same thing with the Bible infallibility topic when you tried to turn it into a referendum on Nephi's slaying of Laban) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted April 4, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 Originally posted by serapha@Apr 3 2004, 08:35 PM 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~ Serapha,Have you lost the desire to be taken seriously. We already have a couple of lightweight critic. I think you can do better.So you say God has stopped talking to the whole world. Really? I am glad you have an opinion but what is the point of sharing it - did you think that all you had to do was say it and that would make it so? Why don't you give us an argument we can chew on, instead of dogma.You last statement about the Bible being a finished work because Revelations ends with "amen" has to be a joke, right? That's not your real position is it?Oh, and lastly, I haven't speculated one bit on the canonization of the Bible. I am no scholar - that's a bit 10-4 good buddy, but I don't make anything up. If you think you can catch me on a factual mistake, you go girl, but I'm not holding my breath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tr2 Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 Do you understand the significane of Amos?I'm not going to get into this with you because you are ignoring what Romans says and dismissing it as irrelevant. You don't understand the bible, yet see fit to try and lecture me about what it says. Are you going to try and argue medical issues with me next?In a related post I mentioned that President Kimball was one of the most respected religious leaders in the country and you mocked the ideaI'm sure I did.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 notI have never made such a claim. I vaguely remember that conversation and that is not what I said. if you cannot accurately remember what I said, don't bring it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serapha Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 Snow.... If you want my conversation ... get out of the catetory of personal insults. I know it will be hard to raise yourself up... but God will give you the grace to do so as well as the patience to endure other people's opinions without taking it to a personal level. All you have to do is ask God for the grace... I might add... Killing the messenger has never killed the message. ~serapha~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tr2 Posted April 5, 2004 Report Share Posted April 5, 2004 If you want my conversation ... get out of the catetory of personal insultsHe doesn't want your conversation. he doesn't want anybody's opinions other than his own. And if you don't want to be insulted, you're gonna need to talk to somebody else. There are many other good people on this board that actually want to have an intelligent discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted April 5, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2004 Originally posted by serapha@Apr 4 2004, 11:47 AM Snow.... If you want my conversation ... get out of the catetory of personal insults. Yeah, see Serapha, for that tack to work, I would actually have to insulted you. However is this case I just asked you if you wanted to be taken seriously and said that we already have some lightweight on the board and they aren't taken seriously as an admonition that you were setting yourself and your argument for failure. Maybe you found the admonition insulting but you are the one that suggested that an amen in Revelation had some impact on whether the Bible is to be understood as complete or not. Either you have no idea about the canonization and writing process or you insult us by acting as if you have no idea.Here's an idea, instead of looking for ways to avoid the inconsistencies in your argument and deflect attention from their weakness, why don't you address the replies to your claims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted April 5, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2004 Originally posted by Tr2@Apr 4 2004, 05:35 AM Do you understand the significane of Amos?I'm not going to get into this with you because you are ignoring what Romans says and dismissing it as irrelevant. You don't understand the bible, yet see fit to try and lecture me about what it says. Are you going to try and argue medical issues with me next? I didn't ignore it Trident - a little honesty please. I addressed and described why it was irrelevant. You on the other hand as running from Amos. That's to be expected, so I guess I shouldn't complain. Maybe you and Serapha can form a group and both avoid problems in your arguments together....and peanut, you did get that whole rigor mortis thing wrong, remember. As I recall (and I do recall) your exact response was "Oh my gosh, do you know what I do for a living..." and then you told me that you could keep me up all night, sending to a goose chase trying to track down medical information. In the end, you just went to bed.Goodnight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tr2 Posted April 5, 2004 Report Share Posted April 5, 2004 I didn't ignore it Trident - a little honesty pleaseIt is a scripture that does not fit into what you are trying to say so you do not give it any attention. This is not a new thing for you. Since you have no desire to talk about relevant scriptures you can find somebody else to talk with....and peanut, you did get that whole rigor mortis thing wrong, remember. As I recall (and I do recall) your exact response was "Oh my gosh, do you know what I do for a living..." and then you told me that you could keep me up all night, sending to a goose chase trying to track down medical information. In the end, you just went to bed.Have you quoted me right just once in the past few days? Do you just make this stuff up as you go along? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serapha Posted April 5, 2004 Report Share Posted April 5, 2004 Again... Snow.... If you want my conversation ... get out of the catetory of personal insults. Perhaps you don't understand... It isn't worth my time or effort. ~serapha~Please watch overly agressive language and phrasing.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted April 5, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2004 Serapha, You bring up topic only to repeated refuse to support them or answer their rebuttal. If you feel insulted fine but let's not pretend that is the reason that you back off. You back off regardless of the tone and tenor of the person replying to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted April 5, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2004 Originally posted by Tr2@Apr 4 2004, 07:44 PM I didn't ignore it Trident - a little honesty pleaseIt is a scripture that does not fit into what you are trying to say so you do not give it any attention. This is not a new thing for you. Since you have no desire to talk about relevant scriptures you can find somebody else to talk with. I addressed it, you ignored it. I reminded you of my response, you pretended a second time as if I didn't repond. It right up there in the thread. Anyone reading knows the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starsky Posted April 5, 2004 Report Share Posted April 5, 2004 Originally posted by serapha@Apr 4 2004, 11:47 AM Killing the messenger has never killed the message. ~serapha~ Well we know this don't we....I mean JS's death certainly didn't kill his message did it..?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tr2 Posted April 5, 2004 Report Share Posted April 5, 2004 I addressed it, you ignored it. I reminded you of my response, you pretended a second time as if I didn't repond. It right up there in the thread. Anyone reading knows the truth.Find somebody else to talk with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serapha Posted April 6, 2004 Report Share Posted April 6, 2004 I addressed it, you ignored it. I reminded you of my response, you pretended a second time as if I didn't repond. It right up there in the thread. Anyone reading knows the truth.Find somebody else to talk with.Agreed.....~serapha~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted April 6, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 6, 2004 Originally posted by serapha@Apr 5 2004, 09:08 PM Find somebody else to talk with.Agreed.....~serapha~ Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't this make the 4th time that you have gone out of your way to make sure you are ignoring me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porterrockwell Posted April 6, 2004 Report Share Posted April 6, 2004 Originally posted by Tr2@Apr 5 2004, 03:56 PM I addressed it, you ignored it. I reminded you of my response, you pretended a second time as if I didn't repond. It right up there in the thread. Anyone reading knows the truth.Find somebody else to talk with. Huh??? Oooo, you really got eem' thur didn't yuh TR. Hey Bro, might wanna realize for a split second that you are on an LDS FORUM, Snow has plenty of people to talk to. It is you and Serapha I don't care for.On a different note of canonization and "doctrine",(this is for Serapha), does mainstream christianity hold the Nicene Creed to be "officially" anything more than an opinion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serapha Posted April 6, 2004 Report Share Posted April 6, 2004 On a different note of canonization and "doctrine",(this is for Serapha), does mainstream christianity hold the Nicene Creed to be "officially" anything more than an opinion?Hi there!I don't know about "mainstream Christianity", but most denominations support the Apostle's Creed in their manuals or doctrines. My denomination doesn't adhere to creeds. ~serapha~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porterrockwell Posted April 6, 2004 Report Share Posted April 6, 2004 So where is the official declaration that supports the THEORY that the Godhead is actually the trinity. "Out of the mouth of two or three my word shall go forth." Where is mainstream Christianitie's second witness? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serapha Posted April 7, 2004 Report Share Posted April 7, 2004 So where is the official declaration that supports the THEORY that the Godhead is actually the trinity. "Out of the mouth of two or three my word shall go forth." Where is mainstream Christianitie's second witness?In man's finite mind, he may comprehend the First Person of the Trinity, the Father, as there is an image of his earthly father in his mind. The same occurs with the Second Person of the Trinity, the Son. Man can envision the incarnate Christ as a human. Christ bore witness of the Father, and the Holy Spirit bears witness of the Son. For the Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, there is no one to bear witness to Him. Our only record is the written Word and the record of the believer who feels the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The written record identifies the Holy Spirit with person pronouns, he and it are pronouns often used to describe the Spirit; and the Spirit has traits of a person. He speaks, He moves, He leads, He guides--all of which are activities related to the human person. ~serapha~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted April 7, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2004 Originally posted by serapha@Apr 6 2004, 04:54 AM Hi there!I don't know about "mainstream Christianity", but most denominations support the Apostle's Creed in their manuals or doctrines. My denomination doesn't adhere to creeds. ~serapha~ Exactly what Baptist denomination do you belong to? Here is a list of various Baptist Creeds:A Declaration of Several People Called Anabaptists... (1659)Keach's Catechism (1677) Bejamin KeachThe London Baptist ConfessionsThe First London Baptist Confession (1644)Second Edition of 1646The Second London Baptist Confession (1689)Similar to the Philadelphia & Westminster Confessions- Rewritten in modern English by Andrew KerkhamMidland Confession of Faith (1655)The New Hampshire Baptist Confession (1833)A Short Catechism About Baptism - John Tombes (1659)Reformed Baptist?Schleitheim Articles as adopted by the Swiss Bretheren Conference in 1527Seventh Day BaptistsSpurgeon's Catechism (1855) Charles Haddon SpurgeonSpurgeon's CatechismSouthern Baptist Convention (1963)Southern Baptist Theological Seminary - (1858) Abstract of PrinciplesWaldensian Confessions of Faith (1120, 1544) - Reproduced from Jones Church History.You yourself adhere to the Nicene Creed as evidence by your official acceptance of it in order to be identified as a Christian on christianforum. How does your denomination feel about you adhering to a creed that they don't adhere to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tr2 Posted April 7, 2004 Report Share Posted April 7, 2004 It is you and Serapha who I don't care for.So what? People like you come and go every month here. If you don't like me, well I didn't ask you to like me in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.