Evangelical with a question

[Jane_Doe]

1 minute ago, Tobeloved said:

Jane, Jane, Jane,

What you do deny is that we will be in the highest heaven with Jesus Christ for eternity.  That is what every Christian wants, so it is so misleading how you spin this one.

The other thing is you have NO IDEA WHAT A CREED IS.  I think I'll get you a definition off the internet maybe you can understand.  Hold on.

 

A creed (also confession, symbol, or statement of faith) is a statement of the shared beliefs of a religious community in the form of a fixed formula summarizing core tenets. ....

 

Can you show me where in the Bible "truth" is declared via the popular vote of men?

[Tobeloved]

Just now, estradling75 said:

So what is the lie...  They don't hold it as scripture?  Or it is not the word of man?

We call it a 'creed' because it IS NOT scripture.  

You can read the definition of creed I posted earlier.

2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

 

Can you show me where in the Bible "truth" is declared via the popular vote of men?

No.  You talk to much craziness without knowing basic Christianity.  

I do not want to talk with you at all.  Y

[Tobeloved]

Just now, estradling75 said:

So what is the lie...  They don't hold it as scripture?  Or it is not the word of man?

We call it a 'creed' because it IS NOT scripture.  

You can read the definition of creed I posted earlier.

2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

 

Can you show me where in the Bible "truth" is declared via the popular vote of men?

No.  You talk to much craziness without knowing basic Christianity.  

I do not want to talk with you at all.  You know better than to call a creed, scripture.  We've discussed this before, but right out of the gate, a lie.

[Jane_Doe]

4 minutes ago, Tobeloved said:

We call it a 'creed' because it IS NOT scripture.  

You can read the definition of creed I posted earlier.

No.  You talk to much craziness without knowing basic Christianity.  

I do not want to talk with you at all.  You know better than to call a creed, scripture.  We've discussed this before, but right out of the gate, a lie.

You say that the creed is not scripture.  And you say that truth only comes from scripture.... but you do not discard the non-scriptural creed... instead you defend these words of men like then you do the words of God.   From where I stand, you act like the non-scriptural creed is on par with scripture, despite your words that it is not.

If you truly believed that truth only comes from scripture and not men, you would throw the creeds in the trash.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Jane_Doe

[estradling75]

3 minutes ago, Tobeloved said:

We call it a 'creed' because it IS NOT scripture.  

You can read the definition of creed I posted earlier.

So a creed is not scripture... that means it is not the Word of God...

If it is not the Word of God it leaves two options... The Word of Man or the Word of the Devil.

Yet you and the rest of Christianity condemn the LDS faith because we do not follow it .

 

[Tobeloved]

6 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Did you just say the Book of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the writings of Peter and Paul are not biblical?

No, I want the exact verses.  In Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and/or Peter and Paul.

All of them you feel make your case.  Including; book, chapter and verses.

[Jane_Doe]

Just now, Tobeloved said:

We call it a 'creed' because it IS NOT scripture.  

You can read the definition of creed I posted earlier.

No.  You talk to much craziness without knowing basic Christianity.  

I do not want to talk with you at all.  You know better than to call a creed, scripture.  We've discussed this before, but right out of the gate, a lie.

You say that the creed is not scripture.  And you say that truth only comes from scripture.... but you do not discard the non-scriptural creed... instead you defend these words of men like then you do the words of God.   From where I stand, you act like the non-scriptural creed is on par with scripture, despite your words that it is not.

[Tobeloved]

9 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

So a creed is not scripture... that means it is not the Word of God...

If it is not the Word of God it leaves two options... The Word of Man or the Word of the Devil.

Yet you and the rest of Christianity condemn the LDS faith because we do not follow it .

 

Did you read the definition of creed?

 

Edited April 23, 2016 by Tobeloved

[Tobeloved]

6 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

So a creed is not scripture... that means it is not the Word of God...

If it is not the Word of God it leaves two options... The Word of Man or the Word of the Devil.

Yet you and the rest of Christianity condemn the LDS faith because we do not follow it .

 

Can I ask a separate question?

 

Can I ask that Jane no longer post to me?

I specifically said in a previous post I did not want to talk to her, nor was I going to respond to her posts.

I would like her to not post anymore in this thread  Is that possible?  I'm asking because you are a moderator of this forum.

[Jane_Doe]

Just now, Tobeloved said:

Can I ask that Jane no longer post to me?

I specifically said in a previous post I did not want to talk to her, nor was I going to respond to her posts.

I would like her to not post anymore in this thread.  Is that possible?  I'm asking because you are a moderator of this forum.

 

I am being perfectly polite and asking reasonable questions.  I have violated no forum rules.  

[Tobeloved]

2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I am being perfectly polite and asking reasonable questions.  I have violated no forum rules.  

Sit there by yourself.  You do not exist.

[Tobeloved]

So I have to run off for an hour or so, but will be checking back this afternoon to see if anyone has added anything.

Have a blessed day.  Talk soon.

[Jane_Doe]

1 minute ago, Tobeloved said:

Sit there by yourself.  You do not exist.

You know, you could just actually address my points or the points of other posters here...

[Tobeloved]

Just now, Jane_Doe said:

You know, you could just actually address my points or the points of other posters here...

I believe I have addressed the points of other posters so far.  I'm sure they will remind me if I have not.

[zil]

9 minutes ago, Tobeloved said:

So I have to run off for an hour or so, but will be checking back this afternoon to see if anyone has added anything.

This is probably why I'm not a moderator.  Were I, I would use that hour to lock this thread*.  Discussion is only of value when it can produce understanding.  From where I sit, all desire for understanding has been abandoned in favor of pointing out motes and denying beams.

*And then the CDO part of me would remove all the duplicates (because I wouldn't be able to stop myself).

[estradling75]

25 minutes ago, Tobeloved said:

No, I want the exact verses.  In Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and/or Peter and Paul.

All of them you feel make your case.  Including; book, chapter and verses.

I cite all the verses in all the books...  The very fact that they exist shows that prophets can and to scriptures.

Jesus cited scriptures... (Old Testament) then the Apostles added to that body of scripture which we now call the New Testament.  I cite as proof all the scripture in the New Testament that the scripture can be added to.

 

 

[Tobeloved]

1 minute ago, zil said:

This is probably why I'm not a moderator.  Were I, I would use that hour to lock this thread*.  Discussion is only of value when it can produce understanding.  From where I sit, all desire for understanding has been abandoned in favor of pointing out motes and denying beams.

*And then the CDO part of me would remove all the duplicates (because I wouldn't be able to stop myself).

You guys love to share your opinions on everything.  I will say that, interesting the things that stick in a new person's mind.

But I would challenge you to join the discussion on the 1st Century apostasy, as it is called.  If you'd like to contribute something meaningful.

[estradling75]

25 minutes ago, Tobeloved said:

No, I want the exact verses.  In Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and/or Peter and Paul.

All of them you feel make your case.  Including; book, chapter and verses.

I cite all the verses in all the books...  The very fact that they exist shows that prophets can and to scriptures.

Jesus cited scriptures... (Old Testament) then the Apostles added to that body of scripture which we now call the New Testament.  I cite as proof all the scripture in the New Testament that the scripture can be added to.

 

 

[LeSellers]

45 minutes ago, Tobeloved said:

NO BIBLICAL PROPHET has ever changed or down played ONE WORD in the Bible.  Keep in mind that this is one office of an individual church.

We could start with Matthew. I'll give an example (one of many) later, but Matthew often quoted scripture. His quotations, however, were not from the Hebrew Torah, but from the LXX. That translation is often not very accurate. But even when the LXX varies from the Hebrew, Matthew used it as if it were perfect.

The example that has great impact on doctrine is his use of Isaiah 7:14. The AV gives us:

Quote

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

But that's not what Isaiah wrote. It is a good translation of the LXX, but Isaiah did not say "… a virgin shall conceive …". He wrote " … the young woman shall conceive …". There are two important differences. First, it was not an unnamed or unknown woman who would become pregnant, but a specific woman. The context (next chapter) tells us the this young woman was Isaiah's own wife. Second, the woman in question was not necessarily a virgin. The Hebrew word ‛almâh means "young woman", not "virgin". That word is bethûlâh. Isaiah knew the difference. (And, for the record, a "young woman" is even better understood to mean "young wife". All marriage age women in Judaism were married, just as all young men were.)

So, when Matthew wrote, in what would later become the first chapter of his testimony, the 22d and 23d verses:

Quote

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 2 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

… he changed the words of the ancient prophet. Now, we Saints recognize that he, as a prophet, had the right to interpret the prophecy, to make it apply to a second fulfillment of Isaiah's words. This use of the LXX, especially in Matthew, is common. But, as I said above, there are many places where the Greek of the LXX and the Hebrew of the original texts do not match very well.

Your statement is erroneous.

Further, so what? You are alluding to the Joseph Smith Translation wherein Joseph, under the inspiration and revelation of God, restored the original meaning of some parts of the Bible. If, as we do, you believe that God is the Ultimate Author of scripture, you recognize that the author of any work has the right to step in and reverse errors in his works. God did just that with the JST,

Lehi

[Tobeloved]

2 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

I cite all the verses in all the books...  The very fact that they exist shows that prophets can and to scriptures.

Jesus cited scriptures... (Old Testament) then the Apostles added to that body of scripture which we now call the New Testament.  I cite as proof all the scripture in the New Testament that the scripture can be added to.

 

 

Jesus also prophesized in the New Testament.

However, the canon closed long ago, as seen by the carbon dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The problem is JS wasn't in the Dead Sea Scrolls.  

[Jane_Doe]

2 minutes ago, Tobeloved said:

You guys love to share your opinions on everything.  I will say that, interesting the things that stick in a new person's mind.

But I would challenge you to join the discussion on the 1st Century apostasy, as it is called.  If you'd like to contribute something meaningful.

TBL, you said that you were on here trying to learn more about LDS beliefs.  But all of your comments don't point to you actually listening to our views, but rather just trying to tell us we're wrong.  

[Tobeloved]

 

2 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

We could start with Matthew. I'll give an example (one of many) later, but Matthew often quoted scripture. His quotations, however, were not from the Hebrew Torah, but from the LXX. That translation is often not very accurate. But even when the LXX varies from the Hebrew, Matthew used it as if it were perfect.

The example that has great impact on doctrine is his use of Isaiah 7:14. The AV gives us:

But that's not what Isaiah wrote. It is a good translation of the LXX, but Isaiah did not say "… a virgin shall conceive …". He wrote " … the young woman shall conceive …". There are two important differences. First, it was not an unnamed or unknown woman who would become pregnant, but a specific woman. The context (next chapter) tells us the this young woman was Isaiah's own wife. Second, the woman in question was not necessarily a virgin. The Hebrew word ‛almâh means "young woman", not "virgin". That word is bethûlâh. Isaiah knew the difference. (And, for the record, a "young woman" is even better understood to mean "young wife". All marriage age women in Judaism were married, just as all young men were.)

 

I have no idea what you are even trying to say.  The Bible never said that all prophecy comes from Torah.  

[LeSellers]

1 minute ago, Tobeloved said:

the canon closed long ago, as seen by the carbon dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Who closed it?

'Twasn't God. He promised more scripture. The problem is that there are few people who will accept it.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

45 minutes ago, Tobeloved said:

NO BIBLICAL PROPHET has ever changed or down played ONE WORD in the Bible.  Keep in mind that this is one office of an individual church.

We could start with Matthew. I'll give an example (one of many) later, but Matthew often quoted scripture. His quotations, however, were not from the Hebrew Torah, but from the LXX. That translation is often not very accurate. But even when the LXX varies from the Hebrew, Matthew used it as if it were perfect.

The example that has great impact on doctrine is his use of Isaiah 7:14. The AV gives us:

Quote

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

But that's not what Isaiah wrote. It is a good translation of the LXX, but Isaiah did not say "… a virgin shall conceive …". He wrote " … the young woman shall conceive …". There are two important differences. First, it was not an unnamed or unknown woman who would become pregnant, but a specific woman. The context (next chapter) tells us the this young woman was Isaiah's own wife. Second, the woman in question was not necessarily a virgin. The Hebrew word ‛almâh means "young woman", not "virgin". That word is bethûlâh. Isaiah knew the difference. (And, for the record, a "young woman" is even better understood to mean "young wife". All marriage age women in Judaism were married, just as all young men were.)

So, when Matthew wrote, in what would later become the first chapter of his testimony, the 22d and 23d verses:

Quote

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 2 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

… he changed the words of the ancient prophet. Now, we Saints recognize that he, as a prophet, had the right to interpret the prophecy, to make it apply to a second fulfillment of Isaiah's words. This use of the LXX, especially in Matthew, is common. But, as I said above, there are many places where the Greek of the LXX and the Hebrew of the original texts do not match very well.

Your statement is erroneous.

Further, so what? You are alluding to the Joseph Smith Translation wherein Joseph, under the inspiration and revelation of God, restored the original meaning of some parts of the Bible. If, as we do, you believe that God is the Ultimate Author of scripture, you recognize that the author of any work has the right to step in and reverse errors in his works. God did just that with the JST,

Lehi

[Jane_Doe]

2 minutes ago, Tobeloved said:

Jesus also prophesized in the New Testament.

However, the canon closed long ago, as seen by the carbon dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The problem is JS wasn't in the Dead Sea Scrolls.  

No where in the Bible does it say that the cannon was closed.  And the Dead Sea Scrolls have nothing to do with any of this.