Question For Anti-mormon Christians

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[BYR]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@Apr 20 2004, 05:40 PM

I have heard the same argument by anti-mormon Christians on this board, repeated over and over that the LDS Scriptures are false because Paul said there would be no other gospels (Galatians 1:6-10).

I've recently been studying the chronology of the writing of the Gospels.

What I found was that Galatians (and all of Paul's writings) were written before the Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. Well, Mark might have been written at the same time as Paul. But still, that leaves 3 more Gospels.

Did Matthew, Luke and John violate Paul's sacred words by writing gospels?

I believe you need to understand what they mean by the Gospel. Non-Mormon Christians believe we LDS preach another Gospel. In their opinion what they are talking about then is that because they believe in the Gospel that Jesus taught in the Bible, and since they say that we don't believe that Gospel, we are the other gospel that Paul is warning the Christians about.

Not the actual books of the Bible.

[Outshined]

Galatians is not a prophetic book, so was not discussing any future church. Stephen Gibson Summed it up best when he said

A typical response to this accusation is that Latter-day Saints do not teach a different Gospel than was preached by the ancient apostIes--it is the various Christian sects who do. But this response is incomplete because the original question is based on an erroneous understanding of Galations 1:6-9. We should examine this scripture closely and determine who was writing to whom, when, and why.

Paul was writing to the Galatians to warn them about what he perceived as a growing problem within the Church itself. People had entered his flock, attempting to mislead it by preaching another gospel, a perverted one, different from the one that Paul himself had preached to these Gentiles who had just joined the Church.

Who were these people? Were these pagans or some other brand of non-Christians preaching a perverted gospel? It was neither. In fact, they were fellow Christians from the Church at Jerusalem who were trying to solve what they saw as a growing problem among the non Jewish converts. The brethren from Jerusalem wanted all male converts, Jewish and Gentiles alike, to comply with the requirement of circumcision and to make a commitment to keep the Law of Moses.

Earlier, Paul had been upset when Peter entered Paul's mission field teaching "another gospel" -- a gospel of circumcision, while Paul advocated the gospel of uncircumcision (Gal. 2:7). It was Peter who received the vision to widen the ministry to all people, including the Gentiles. This was a marked change from the ministry of Christ, who took his message only to the House of Israel. Yet Peter still wasn't convinced, as evidenced in Galatians 2, that there should be full fellowship with the uncircumcised Christians. Paul therefore referred to what Peter was teaching as another gospeI--the gospel of circumcision.

Students of the Bible know that circumcision was a divisive issue in the New Testament church for many years, even after Peter's vision of the "unclean" animals when he was told "what God hath cleansed, that call not thou common" (Acts 10:15-35). This controversy over the gospel of circumcision (Gal. 2:7) caused so much of a disruption in the church that the Apostles once gathered in Jerusalem to resolve the issue and to determine and write their unified position (Acts 15).

But back to Galatians--Paul was upset with Peter, who had been dining with the Gentile Christians until some of the Jewish Christians came into the area. Peter then separated himself from the Gentiles, which was so upsetting to Paul that he "withstood him to the face," or in other words, discussed it openly with Peter at Antioch (Gal. 2:11).

Paul continued to be angered by Peter and certain others who were still preaching the gospel of circumcision to the uncircumcised Gentile Christians. Noted Christian theologian F. F. Bruce adds his comments on the issue Paul was addressing in Galatians chapters 1 and 2:

If God's redeeming grace was to be received by faith, and not by conformity with the Law of Moses, then it was available on equal terms to Jew and Gentile and to make a distinction in practice between Jewish and Gentile believers, as Peter and the others were doing, was in practice to deny the gospel (Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, p.178).

Galatians 1:6-9 has to do with a specific doctrinal problem confronting the early Christians. To apply this scripture to any other doctrine with which detractors disagree is to wrest the scriptures.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[Tr2]

Galatians was indeed written about 10 years before the first gospel. However that was only the writing date. The stories of the gospels had been present long before the gospels were penned. Paul learned the gospel from the people who had been preaching it (directly and indirectly) since Christ was crucified. And take a look at what Paul writes, the vast majority of it is an enhancement of the gospels and not new material. It makes the gospels clearer and easier to understand.

The scriptures in Galatians are also very specific about what to be weary of. Galatians states what specific things to watch out for, not just a vague statement to be weary of new doctrines.

Galatians did refer to a specific problem for a specific people group. However if I were to tell Outshined about a 6'2 218 lb man wearing a black bandana who liked to fight people who look at his girlfriend, would you not be a little weary of a 6'2 218 lb man with a black bandana? Paul was preaching to specific people, but that doesn't mean it's not applicable elsewhere. the scripture in Galatians isn't specific direction, but rather a warning. Warnings are different than specific instruction in practicing faith.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

:)

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[serapha]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint+Apr 20 2004, 07:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Taoist_Saint @ Apr 20 2004, 07:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--BYR@Apr 20 2004, 03:47 PM

I believe you need to understand what they mean by the Gospel.  Non-Mormon Christians believe we LDS preach another Gospel.  In their opinion what they are talking about then is that because they believe in the Gospel that Jesus taught in the Bible, and since they say that we don't believe that Gospel, we are the other gospel that Paul is warning the Christians about.

Not the actual books of the Bible.

However, at the time of Paul's writings, there was only an oral tradition, perhaps Mark, and maybe "Q" (the theoretical document which Matthew and Luke may have used to write their gospels.

So what was Paul's idea of the gospel?

Correct me if I am wrong, but from what I remember:

Mark, Q, and Paul do not mention most of the miracles, including a virgin birth, or a physical resurrection (although Paul mentions some kind of resurrection).

Paul obviously believes that Jesus is divine, but is vague about the specifics.

Paul speaks mostly of practical matters...morality....not of doctrine.

Later we have "new gospels"...Matthew and Luke...who tell us of a virgin birth, physical resurrection, a clearer picture of who Jesus was. Then there is John who gave us all kinds of new doctrine, along with the revelations.

What if Paul was telling the truth in Gal 1:6 ???

Then, theoretically, we need to take Matthew, Luke and John (at the very least) out of the Bible, because they are false gospels!

The consequence would be that we would need to study only Mark, Q and Paul to get the true Christian doctrine...and the result would be a very different Christianity than both the LDS and Evangelicals are familiar with!

Originally posted by BYR@Apr 20 2004, 03:47 PM

I believe you need to understand what they mean by the Gospel.  Non-Mormon Christians believe we LDS preach another Gospel.  In their opinion what they are talking about then is that because they believe in the Gospel that Jesus taught in the Bible, and since they say that we don't believe that Gospel, we are the other gospel that Paul is warning the Christians about.

Not the actual books of the Bible.

However, at the time of Paul's writings, there was only an oral tradition, perhaps Mark, and maybe "Q" (the theoretical document which Matthew and Luke may have used to write their gospels.

So what was Paul's idea of the gospel?

Correct me if I am wrong, but from what I remember:

Mark, Q, and Paul do not mention most of the miracles, including a virgin birth, or a physical resurrection (although Paul mentions some kind of resurrection).

Paul obviously believes that Jesus is divine, but is vague about the specifics.

Paul speaks mostly of practical matters...morality....not of doctrine.

Later we have "new gospels"...Matthew and Luke...who tell us of a virgin birth, physical resurrection, a clearer picture of who Jesus was. Then there is John who gave us all kinds of new doctrine, along with the revelations.

What if Paul was telling the truth in Gal 1:6 ???

Then, theoretically, we need to take Matthew, Luke and John (at the very least) out of the Bible, because they are false gospels!

The consequence would be that we would need to study only Mark, Q and Paul to get the true Christian doctrine...and the result would be a very different Christianity than both the LDS and Evangelicals are familiar with!

Hi there!

The gospel of "Q" is interesting to entertain, but there is not any evidence that it ever existed, not even in fragments of manuscripts.... 20-30,000 manuscripts, and not one "Q". God said He would preserve His word.

One consideration that you haven't made and that is that the apostle John was still living throughout the first century. If there were errors in the letters of Paul or the gospels that circulated the churches... Certainly, John would have identified that error.

John's gospel can be witnessed to within 15-20 years of his death... check out manuscript P52... and see the dating on it... I believe we can count on John's Witness... it overcame the coptic accusations...

~serapha~

[serapha]

Originally posted by BYR@Apr 20 2004, 03:47 PM

I believe you need to understand what they mean by the Gospel.  Non-Mormon Christians believe we LDS preach another Gospel.  In their opinion what they are talking about then is that because they believe in the Gospel that Jesus taught in the Bible, and since they say that we don't believe that Gospel, we are the other gospel that Paul is warning the Christians about.

Not the actual books of the Bible.

However, at the time of Paul's writings, there was only an oral tradition, perhaps Mark, and maybe "Q" (the theoretical document which Matthew and Luke may have used to write their gospels.

So what was Paul's idea of the gospel?

Correct me if I am wrong, but from what I remember:

Mark, Q, and Paul do not mention most of the miracles, including a virgin birth, or a physical resurrection (although Paul mentions some kind of resurrection).

Paul obviously believes that Jesus is divine, but is vague about the specifics.

Paul speaks mostly of practical matters...morality....not of doctrine.

Later we have "new gospels"...Matthew and Luke...who tell us of a virgin birth, physical resurrection, a clearer picture of who Jesus was. Then there is John who gave us all kinds of new doctrine, along with the revelations.

What if Paul was telling the truth in Gal 1:6 ???

Then, theoretically, we need to take Matthew, Luke and John (at the very least) out of the Bible, because they are false gospels!

The consequence would be that we would need to study only Mark, Q and Paul to get the true Christian doctrine...and the result would be a very different Christianity than both the LDS and Evangelicals are familiar with!

Hi there!

The gospel of "Q" is interesting to entertain, but there is not any evidence that it ever existed, not even in fragments of manuscripts.... 20-30,000 manuscripts, and not one "Q". God said He would preserve His word.

One consideration that you haven't made and that is that the apostle John was still living throughout the first century. If there were errors in the letters of Paul or the gospels that circulated the churches... Certainly, John would have identified that error.

John's gospel can be witnessed to within 15-20 years of his death... check out manuscript P52... and see the dating on it... I believe we can count on John's Witness... it overcame the coptic accusations...

~serapha~

[Guest Starsky]

Is John the one who was given 'life' until the Savior came again? Is He still walking the earth? If so, wouldn't he take care of misconceptions and errors in the scriptures?

If not....why not?

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

B)

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Tr2@Apr 20 2004, 05:49 PM

Galatians did refer to a specific problem for a specific people group. However if I were to tell Outshined about a 6'2 218 lb man wearing a black bandana who liked to fight people who look at his girlfriend, would you not be a little weary of a 6'2 218 lb man with a black bandana? Paul was preaching to specific people, but that doesn't mean it's not applicable elsewhere. the scripture in Galatians isn't specific direction, but rather a warning. Warnings are different than specific instruction in practicing faith.

However, as we've seen, Galatians was not prophetical in nature, nor was it warning anyone about the LDS Church, as some try to wrest it into saying. It was about circumcision, pure and simple.

Now if I hear about a 6'2" 218 lb guy trying to forcibly circumcise the unbelievers, I'll definitely be on the lookout.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

:)

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[Luzia]

It`s nice to learn more from people...

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[Tr2]

I am totally wasting my time here!

Well what exactly are you trying to accomplish with this thread?

[Jenda]

Actually, I appreciate what you have written, it makes it easier to understand, in some ways. Although being the fundamentalist that I am, I am also interested in those theologians that still believe that the gospel writers were actually present with Jesus.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[Maureen]

Taoist - I've only just skimmed your several posts but I'm getting the idea that you want Paul's warning of preaching a different gospel to mean (see definitions below):

(Galations 1:8) But even if we (or an angel from heaven) should preach a gospel (One of the first four New Testament books, describing the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and recording his teaching) contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be condemned to hell!

Instead of:

(Galations 1:8) But even if we (or an angel from heaven) should preach a gospel (The proclamation of the redemption preached by Jesus and the Apostles, which is the central content of Christian revelation.) contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be condemned to hell!

I think Paul was refering to definition #1 not #2a. :)

--------------------

gos·pel ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gspl)

n.

1. often Gospel The proclamation of the redemption preached by Jesus and the Apostles, which is the central content of Christian revelation.

2.

a. Gospel Bible. One of the first four New Testament books, describing the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and recording his teaching.

b. A similar narrative.

3. often Gospel A lection from any of the first four New Testament books included as part of a religious service.

4. A teaching or doctrine of a religious teacher.

M.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@Apr 23 2004, 02:29 PM

My only suggestion was that Paul and Mark (the earlier writers) never mentioned a "physical resurrection" or a "virgin birth".

Taoist - I'm not sure about the virgin birth, I'd have to check it out but, Paul's letter to the city of Corinth (1 Corinthians) talks about a physical resurrection. One of the reasons for writing the letter was to counsel the church members on several subjects, one was to correct false teaching concerning the resurrection:

For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received—that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as though to one born at the wrong time, he appeared to me also. (1Cor. 15:3-8)...

It is the same with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living personâ€; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, made of dust; the second man is from heaven. Like the one made of dust, so too are those made of dust, and like the one from heaven, so too those who are heavenly. And just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, let us also bear the image of the man of heaven. (1Cor. 15:42-49)

M.