My faith isn't based on what might have been, it's based on what is. The KJ Bible has withstood all attacks for the past 400 years, that's good enough for me, a sure enough foundation for my faith to be solid.
Dave
My faith isn't based on what might have been, it's based on what is. The KJ Bible has withstood all attacks for the past 400 years, that's good enough for me, a sure enough foundation for my faith to be solid.
Dave
I've already told you I reject extrabiblical writings, including those of Joseph Smith. I've read a number of books on Mormonism, including God Makers.
"That kind of response has held back some serious analysis of the problems dealing with the simple absurdities of the LDS gospel. How do seemingly intelligent, well educated, normal people end up with a complicated belief system that is more in line with Star Wars than in Biblical and historical evidences of faith?
Several years ago, I quietly slipped into an LDS Fast And Testimony Meeting. I went to just sit and listen. I was transfixed by the testimonies I heard there. They were the exact wording of so many of those I had heard and shared myself while an active Mormon years before.
"I bear you my testimony that I know the Book of Mormon is true (or the Word Of God), I know that Joseph Smith is a true Prophet of God (and that Gordon B. Hinckley is the true prophet of God today) and I know that the Church is the only true church on the face of the earth today, and I know that Heavenly Father's priesthood is on the earth today and I thank my Heavenly Father that I am a member of this church (and or priesthood) and for the Bishop and for family home evening (the temple, Relief Society, genealogy, pick one) and I am so grateful for my home teachers(visiting teachers, priesthood leaders, the Stake Presidency, pick one) because (tell quick little faith promoting story) and I say these things in the name of thy son, Jesus Christ, Amen."
While I sat and listened, I realized that there was a subtle mind-warp taking place in that meeting. Only two testimonies were more than a few words of out sync. One lady who was obviously not a member of the IN crowd, apologized in tears for not being worthy enough, as the rest of the Ward sat nodding their heads in agreement. A little girl stood on the pew and gave a very sweet and halting rendition of the above and everyone sighed happily with her beaming, teary eyed parents.
My mind went back to an encounter I had some years earlier. I was asked by a local Pastor to go with him to a Mormon Bishop's office. It seems that the Pastor had led a young neighborhood girl to the Lord. The girl had been coming to his church with a few of her friends. The girl was an inactive member of the LDS church and when she had shared the joy of her new found faith with her family, they were frightened and immediately called in the Bishop. The Bishop demanded that the errant Pastor come to his office and get straightened out.
When we arrived, the Bishop was there with the girl and her parents, but when he recognized me, he phoned someone and left his office until two other men arrived, apparently skilled in running off infidels. The meeting was difficult at best, but what made it so unique was that during their defense of the only true faith, one of the men backed himself into a non-defendable corner from which there was no possible escape.
He then did what every single Mormon will do in a similar situation. He started to "Bear His Testimony". Except that this time I was sitting at a desk with my face just 15 inches from his. As he began his recitation, I noticed that his eyes had dilated just as though he were hypnotized. He was at the part where..."I know the Book of Mormon is the word of God..." and I slapped my hands together right in front of his nose and loudly asked, "What proof do you have that it is the word of God?" The man bounced back, his eyes slowly returning to normal and he sat there, confused and stuttering. He had no answer.
I had broken through what I call the mind warp of the LDS testimony and he was through for the rest of the meeting. The Pastor was able to reinforce that special experience for the young girl and with love and true spiritual authority, brought Christ's Words home to those in the meeting.
I had learned a valuable lesson that night and have used that knowledge during literally scores of similar encounters since then. You see, what actually happens at every LDS Fast and Testimony meeting is a form of group hypnosis. and a key part of the answer to this mysterious question of how so many people could be so misled.
I know some will say I am being sensational, but the fact is, it is true! Every single member of the LDS church listens to those words being repeated over and over and over again with almost no variation. After years of this being done during a time of sacred fasting and the avowing of one's reason for faith in the supposed presence of one's god, it becomes bedrock truth!
It often seems that only when a Mormon is confronted or shocked with the real truth that we are able to get past the powerful control of their testimony and get down into the level of reason and analysis. Perhaps that is why "The God Makers" book and film have been so effective....and why so many active Mormons hate even the name of the book/film/authors.
Look at the words of the Mormon testimony. They testify of the church, its authority, its scripture, its true prophet leader. No one talks of a relationship with God through Christ (As Jesus himself points to in Scripture) but their connection to God (and Godhood itself) is only to and through the LDS System. The testimony will override every bit of logic, evidence, or Scriptural truth that would challenge the faith of someone who had been brought through the mind-warp techniques above. It is the same kind of system used on POW's, the same kind used by the Hard cults, the same techniques used by the New Age mind development programs. They all use it because it works effectively upon every surrendered mind it touches.
Look at the subjects of the LDS Testimony. How can anyone irrefutably know that the Book of Mormon is true, when it defies every historic and anthropological kind of evidence. Not only does scientific evidence refute any kind of Book Of Mormon civilization, it give concrete evidence of a totally different civilization in its place. Yet, any faithful Mormon KNOWS it is true.
Every true Mormon will testify that Joseph Smith was/is a true Prophet of God, yet I doubt if one Mormon in a thousand can accurately recite any 5 of this great Prophet's actual prophecies. Shouldnít that raise some eyebrows?? Wouldn't you think a church that bases its very existence on a latter-day-prophet would gladly publish an official book that lists every one of his sacred prophecies? Not the Mormons! For good reason!
Not when you understand that almost every prophecy Joseph Smith uttered failed to come to pass. Yet, over 7 million people place their eternal salvation on the line in their testimony that he was/is the one.... who reigns in courts on high...to plead their cause above.....NO! they are not singing about Jesus......but Joseph." Link
I'm the only one of my family, both immediate and extended that has been brought out of the spiritual darkness of Roman Catholocism and found Salvation in Christ alone, by the Scriptures (the completed Bible) alone. So I know how difficult it was, and is to deny the faith of the ones you love knowing that by denying their faith, you admit to yourself that they are condemned to the Lake of Fire for eternity (unless they too willfully choose to repent of their sins and accept Christ alone as their Saviour). It was however better for me to lose my life for Christ's sake, than to save my life unto eternal damnation.
Matt.10
[39] He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
Matt.16
[25] For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
Mark.8
[35] For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.
Luke.9
[24] For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.
Luke.17
[33] Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.
John.12
[25] He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
Luke.14
[26] If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Dave
You're not rejecting Mormonism. You're rejecting God's word. If you're comfortable with that, so be it. Such is your choice.
If you're basing your ideas of Mormonism off the God Makers, there is your first problem. Having seen it myself, I find it nothing short of laughable. Pathetically done by a pathetic group of people.
And then the guy woke up and realize it was all a dream. Like I said, pathetically done by a pathetic group of people. Any one who has ever actually been to one of these meeting knows that more often than not, they will here about at least 2 family trips. The concept of an "IN" crowd is similarly laughable. The person might as well have said we all stood up and cursed God and his angels for all the validity of his argument.
I would absolutely LOVE to hear what this "non-defendable corner from which there is no possible escape" is. Too bad he doesn't include that. Wonder why?
Laugher starting....
Really? And what authority is that? Under whoms hands did he receive such authority? All who have received authority in the Bible did so in a specific way. I can trace my chain of authority back to the Savior himself. I would challenge this man to do the same.
Laughter continues....
Oh my gosh!! This man has truly been to what, maybe 5 minutes of a meeting, and then has the ability to generalize it over someones lifetime? The absolute ingorance of this man conclusion is all the evidence in the world of its falicy.
BWWWAAAAHHHHAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAA!!!!
I LOVE the name of that movie. I've never laughed so hard. Those people really think they have the answers, don't they? If the God Makers is the best you've got, it's not wonder you're in your current state.
Yada yada yada.... I don't really know... but I'll jump to this conclusion.
Yes, look at the subjects. That would be a good start. Once they do, they can rewrite this horrible statement. As for the evidence, he again couldn't be more wrong. As time has passed, more and more evidence has come forth showing what he stated to be wrong. So how would such an inspired man come to such a wrong conclusion? It's a mystery to me.
I'm sorry, but what? It's called the Doctrine and Covenants and was published over 100 years ago, still used today. Contains all of the revelations that pertained to the church during the course of Joseph's life. As for his 5 greatest prophecies, I would expect that every person would have their own opinion as to which are the 5 greatest. Besides, it's not the church of Joseph Smith, it's the church of Jesus Christ. Perhaps you would like to recite the 5 greatest prophecies of the Bible? I'll expect your answers to correspond 100% with every other Christian too now, so make sure you get them right.
Funny, he doesn't mention a single one that hasn't come to pass. And actually, its over 12 millions now, and still going strong. EDIT: Sorry, didn't notice the link in the reply box. Nice try, but even these are laughable at best. Beside, several of them actually have come true since this mans writing. Funny how those prophecy things work.
Yes, you've been brought out of the darkness of that church, yet still embrace religious doctrines brought about by that church that didn't even exist in Christ time. One such, wait for it, is the Trinity. The idea didn't even exist until around 380AD. Yet you still embrace it as the truth. You have no priesthood authority, yet claim to be able to do all that could be done before that required this authority. Good luck there.
So, you ever going to explain my verses, or do we just get to keep looking at your verses that mean nothing to the topic?
Click the link.
Actually NO, anything that was written in the Bible is a doctrine of the Bible. Biblical doctrine is based on the Bible. When the false church of Roman Catholocism officially recognized a Bible doctrine that had always existed in the Word of God is irrelevant.
What is there to explain, clearly the Book of Mormon is another gospel given by Joseph Smith in the 1800's. Could I look up the meaning of those verses in light of your faith, sure, but then you probably already have an response ready for whatever reason I give.
You refuse to give up your faith in Mormonism, and I will not give up my faith in the Bible as it currently exists, what more is there to discuss? You will continue to mock what I say, which is expected, but it does serve the cause of Christ since you are closed minded to my faith in Scripture alone, and I am equally closed minded to the notion that the Book of Mormon should be accepted as Scriptural.
Dave
Actually NO, anything that was written in the Bible is a doctrine of the Bible. Biblical doctrine is based on the Bible. When the false church of Roman Catholocism officially recognized a Bible doctrine that had always existed in the Word of God is irrelevant.
What is there to explain, clearly the Book of Mormon is another gospel given by Joseph Smith in the 1800's. Could I look up the meaning of those verses in light of your faith, sure, but then you probably already have an response ready for whatever reason I give.
You refuse to give up your faith in Mormonism, and I will not give up my faith in the Bible as it currently exists, what more is there to discuss? You will continue to mock what I say, which is expected, but it does serve the cause of Christ since you are closed minded to my faith in Scripture alone, and I am equally closed minded to the notion that the Book of Mormon should be accepted as Scriptural.
Dave
I assume you read the links, right? Because they verify my claims, not yours. The articles are not "fighting to move revelations" anywhere; they are merely defending the traditionally accepted view that Revelation was written around 96 A.D. Controversy about the date of writing only arose when seeds of discourse where sown by unbelievers and those with intent to destroy the Bible.
What are you talking about? If they are correct (which they are) they prove which was written first. Their correctness means that Revelation was written around 96 A.D. while the Gospel of John was written in the late 80's/early 90's. This in turn should make it clear to you that Revelation was written after John.
Are you admitting that you *might* be wrong? Are you unsure of your claims? Who are the "most people" that agree with you? Don't you realize that it has been accepted throughout history that Revelation was written during the mid-90's? It even has the historical evidence to back it up.
Revelation effectively ends God's message to mankind.
Revelation 22:20-21 (King James Version)
He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
The End
There were other inspired works, but it was not God's plan for them to be in the canon. They are "Lost Books."
The New Testament Canon
That will give you some information on the formation of the canon.
*sigh*
Why do you keep looking at the Revelation as being separate from the Bible?
Take a simple analogy for example. When you visit the library to find information in the encyclopedia, you'll find that it is broken into individual sections for each letter or a combination there of. If you add or take away portions of text from "Z" for instance, you take away from the entire encyclopedia. In your case, you see "Z" [Revelation] as being totally separate from the encyclopedia [Bible], instead of it just being an individual part of it.
The same logic can be applied to your question. Once see Revelation not as just a separate book, but as the smaller part of a greater whole; you will realize that the last few verses apply to all of the Bible, because Revelation is one with it.
I must mention that this is a common stumbling block for other Biblical doctrines such as the Trinity.
Done. Thanks for the laugh.
Um, the doctrine of the Trinity did not exist during the time of the Bible. It was created after the Council of Nicea during which there was a major discussion over the idea of the relationship of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Ultimately, the idea of unity over individuality won out because the Roman civilization was polytheistic and the early church wanted to distinguish itself as clearly as possible from the Roman theology. Matter of fact, they even had to create words to describe the relationship they made up. Look up homoousious, homostaseis, and hypostaseis. The later was created to reflect a new idea on the relationship between God and the Father because early church leaders, Basil the Great in particular, were too afraid of the church appearing to be polytheistic like the Romans. That's why you have the idea of the trinity. It did not exist prior to that time. Period.
Another book, not another Gospel. I have faith that one day you'll understand the difference.
I don't mock your answers, but simply point out the holes. To mock them would mean that I don't care or understand how you came to your conclusions, nor do I care, but simply feel you ignorant for coming to them. In fact, I understand how and why. Don't coward out or blame me for the holes in your logic.
Oh I'm willing, but you better give me a much better reason than you have provided.
Oh spare me. You sound like a 4 year old. Your argument is flawed and you therefore say I'm mocking you because of it. Proving you wrong and mocking you are two completely different things, with mocking being something I would never do. I would never mock someone for their beliefs, but that doesn't mean I won't point out to them any holes I see. So get over it. You're not being mocked, your just losing your debate.
Yes I did. The first put the writing of Revelations between 90-95AD, and the third one put the Gospel of John in the early 90's. So like I said, these links prove what? Matter of fact, here's a bible study link you can look at.
Linky
I'm sure you will have noticed that the time frame for the Book of Revelations is 68-95AD, with the Gospel of John being 85-95AD. Seems a lot better chance to me that it was written before, even using your links.
The validity of 96AD is not correct. That has not been proved. You are simply using it because it corresponds to what you believe. As you yourself posted, earliest date for the Gospel is much later than the earliest date for Revelations. So like I said, IF.
Sure, all you have to do is look it up. Do a simple google search for when the Book of Revelations was written. Even my link shows the Gospel of John was finished after Revelations.
That's so funny. Then why in the world do so many "experts" say it wasn't written then? And why would there be evidence that it was written closer to 70 AD?
And you have the authority to make such a claim? That verse you quoted means absolutely nothing.
So what, God "lost" them? They weren't important? He just had them written "in case"? You sure seem to put a lot of faith in men with no authority to do what they did.
Hey, look at that. Even that page list the Gospel of John as 90-100, showing there is a good possibility, even according to them, that Revelations was not written last.
As for the Canon, here's a better page.
Evolution of the Canon
Because the Book of Revelations is a PART of the Bible, it is not THE BIBLE. THE BIBLE did not exist when it was written, so why would I associate God's word with a man-made creation hundreds of years later by men you don't even consider inspired, though correct me if I'm wrong.
Perfect examply, thanks. If I add to Z, am I adding to X, or am I adding to the encyclopedia? If I add a new letter, am I adding to Z or am I adding to the encyclopedia. This is a very simply concept. I would never dream of adding to or taking from the books of the Bible, but seeing as men have already taken away from and added to the Bible, why would you have a problem with them doing it now?
I would see them applying to all scripture, not to the Bible, which is simply a collection of scripture. They are two very distinctly different things.
I mentioned my comments on the trinity already, you can check them if you like.
Actually the doctrine of the Trinity is based on the Word of God, and as such it has always existed along with Scripture, regardless of when some committee chose to include it as official teaching. Men of faith have always accepted doctrines gleaned from reading the Scripture regardless of what other men say, there is no need for a man of faith who is free in Christ Jesus to wait for some official announcement that he may believe a certain doctrine unless you are under bondage to the philosophy and vain deceit of a religion of worldly traditions.
OK, lets ignore the tone of your converation as it means nothing to me, forget I brought it up. Rather, I'll simply point out that you see flaws in my argument that I will never see because I will never believe that the Bible is incomplete in its current form, and the basis for the holes you perseive stem from that foundation. Does that make sense to you?
Dave
Wow. Come on Dave, surely you can see a problem here. You even quoted me the verses about following the call of "Lo, here is Christ, or Lo, there is Christ", yet now claim that so long as the doctrine is based upon the Word of God, it doesn't matter? If the concept of the Trinity was truly a teaching of Christ, why was it not taught by Christ? Why was it not included in his complete scripture? Because it's not true. They are 3 distinct beings, even the early church members knew and accepted that.
I guess I shouldn't expect you to understand, but that doesn't stop me from hoping.
Dave, I've know for quite some time that you would never be willing to see what I see. I guess it's the sadness I feel for those with such a strong desire that simply lack a certain amount of understand because of the false teaching of men. There is sooooo much more, so much more, if people would just open their ears to hear.
I don't think you'll do it, and I won't pretend to not understand why, but I'd invite you to read the Book of Mormon and test what I've said. If you're right, then there is not penalty incured for you will have done no wrong. But if I'm right, then there is so much more that can be gained, just as the scripture you quoted stated that all scripture is given for our edification and understanding. If you don't accept it as scripture, fine, but I hope you at least give it a chance. At least then you could form you own opinion and not have to rely on the horribly pathetic word of some website or some ridiculous movie.
Now that I know your a Mormon, I know why you can't comprehend my position. As such
God says
1Thes.5
[1] But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
[2] For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
[3] For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
[4] But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
[5] Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
[6] Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.
Again, because you are a Mormon, you can't accept that the Book of Revelation is the last book of the Bible as that would deny your faith.
The english Bible, which remained uncontested for nearly 300 years of soul winning and which remains an unshakeable foundation is the King James Bible, and that is the Bible which I trust is the infallible and complete Word of God in the English language.
In the late 1800's, two heritics came along by the names of Westcott and Hort who used mainly 4 obviously corrupt (by the nature of their background, and the extent of their errors and disagreement between even themselves) manuscripts (aleph, siniaticus, c and d, rather than the over 90% of currently existing manuscripts which agree with one another, and which represent the Received Text, from which the King James Bible was translated) when creating the new Greek text upon which all the modern Bible versions are based.
I wish you would have stated you were a Mormon, as that way I could have avoided trying to explain a concept that your faith does not allow you to accept. Since your faith requires you to accept extra biblical writings, you simply can't comprehend why the time frame matters, or how the providence of God worked in regards to the completion of His revelation to man over the course of 1500 years as was His plan before the beginning of creation.
Dave
The difference in compilation time proves validity only if you believe the Bible is a complete revelation, which as a Mormon you can't, and therefore don't understand how the difference in time proves the Koran is the work of a false prophet.
And my response is simple. God's always knew what His plan was for the Bible, and that the Torah would always be the beginning of the Bible.
And I'll repeat my very simple answer. As a Mormon you must accept that the Bible was not complete, as such you must also not understand why the time frame matters as to the validity of extrabiblical writings, as that would deny your faith in the Book of Mormon.
I was simply drawing a logical conclusion that fits with the prophecy as it was foretold 2000 years ago. Whether it will happen exactly that way is unknown, but up until this century there was no way the prophecy could have been fulfilled because the technology didn't exist to meet the requirements of the prophecy. Don't confuse my guess as to how the prophecy could or would be fulfilled based on the requirements of the prophecy in light of current world events, with a matter of fact statement on my part as to how it will happen (which I am incapable of making). Until the prophecy is fulfilled, I can only guess at how it will ultimately be fulfilled, but I can also use my knowledge of current events, with my knowledge of the requirements needed to fulfill the prophecy to come to a logical conclusion.
God says
1Thes.5
[1] But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
[2] For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
[3] For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
[4] But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
[5] Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
[6] Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.
Again, because you are a Mormon, you can't accept that the Book of Revelation is the last book of the Bible as that would deny your faith.
You yourself stated that it was uncommen for whole Bibles to exist even in the 6th century due to the time consuming task of copying it. So it is irrelevant whether it took some committee 4 tries before God let His completed Scripture stand by His providence and His foreknowledge of all events. The Saints always had and believed the Books currently contained in the Bible as authoritative even though they all didn't have complete Bibles themselves to study and preach from.
Same again. If the completed Bible in its current form was simply the will of man, not the providence of God, then man would have stopped at the first committee. The fact that it took 4 tries for the uninspired men to put the Bible in the order that God had always intended it to be, and the order in which it currently remains, unshakeable, only underscores that it was the providence of God, not the ignorance of man at work. Ignorant man would have stopped at one, God stopped it when His will for His Word was complete.
Muhammad was only copying from the first part of the Bible, which was obviously available to him, or he would not have been unable to copy from it.
Again, as a Mormon you have to allow for extra biblical writings, which also means you can't recognize why the time frame matters.
The english Bible, which remained uncontested for nearly 300 years of soul winning and which remains an unshakeable foundation is the King James Bible, and that is the Bible which I trust is the infallible and complete Word of God in the English language.
In the late 1800's, two heritics came along by the names of Westcott and Hort who used mainly 4 obviously corrupt (by the nature of their background, and the extent of their errors and disagreement between even themselves) manuscripts (aleph, siniaticus, c and d, rather than the over 90% of currently existing manuscripts which agree with one another, and which represent the Received Text, from which the King James Bible was translated) when creating the new Greek text upon which all the modern Bible versions are based.
The Torah, is, was, and always will be the beginning of the Bible. Again though, because of your Mormon faith, you reject the notion that the Bible is complete in its current form, and therefore you reject God's predetermined plan for the Bible, which included His plan to complete it over a period of 1500 years.
I wish you would have stated you were a Mormon, as that way I could have avoided trying to explain a concept that your faith does not allow you to accept. Since your faith requires you to accept extra biblical writings, you simply can't comprehend why the time frame matters, or how the providence of God worked in regards to the completion of His revelation to man over the course of 1500 years as was His plan before the beginning of creation.
Dave
Since if I'm correct you already acknowledge that John was written during the 1st century AD, and 1 John 5:7 clearly teaches the concept of the Trinity, then it is an obvious fact that the concept of the Trinity was taught in Scripture from the beginning.
1John.5
[7] For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
I did read parts of the Book of Mormon, and the fact that it can't even get basic history correct, and that it was clearly written in the 1800's by a man called Joseph Smith was proof enough for me to reject its teachings outright.
I can't believe you still don't get this. I have never, not ever, stated that the Bible is not a complete revelation. I've simply stated that it is not the only revelation. Please, if you learn nothing else, learn that.
Again, complete vs. only. Really need to understand the difference. The Book of Revelations is a complete revelation. The Book of Isaiah is a complete revelation. None of which says anything as to whether or not their is additional revelation. Again, you put all your trust in men that you don't even believe are inspired. Men with itching ears, as you have called them.
Oh, and by the way, the time frame of the Bible has nothing to do with the validity of the Book of Mormon. It would be true whether the Bible ended at 200BC or 1500AD, but nice try.
You're more than welcome, in fact incouraged, as you showed, to understand the nature of prophecy and how it will be fulfilled. But when you make statements such as, and I quote, "The realization of how the mark of the beast would work if it was placed in hte hand or in the foreheard, and how it would be used to buy and sell fook wasn't full realized until recently...."
That sure sounds like a declaration, not an opinion. I simply wanted you to acknowledge that it was an opinion. I have often thought the same thing, and do still wonder if that is not the answer, but I would never state it in the fashion in which you did, as it is still nothing more than opinion.
Actually, we do accept the Book of Revelatioons as the last book of the Bible. You truly have absolutely no concept of our religion, do you? Simply repeating what you're told, huh?
And thank God for that. The only thing it did actually prove, which you seem to have failed to acknowledge/notice yet again, is that these men did not have the authority or right from God to do what they did. Doesn't mean they didn't try their best, and it doesn't mean they were bad men. It simply shows the difference in how the church is run once the authority of God is lost.
No, actually most of the changes where the result of trying to bring in or take out writings the might encourage other religious sects at the time. It had nothing to do with their wisdom. Many were worried about losing power, and that was the problem. Power seeking men stop when the opposition stops. After the Council of Nicea, they pretty much solidified their power.
Which belonged to the Jews, not the Christians, and is the exact same thing the Christians did. So again, that proves nothing. I've always wondered about one of those verses from the Book of Mormon that I quoted you. Now I understand it. Thanks.
Again, I could care less about Westcott and Hort. And unless you have the ability to tell God when he can and can not bring forth his works, your time frame argument hold absolutely no water. Let me know if you ever achieve that power.
You know, it doesn't make it any more true as you repeat it. By now, it's actually making you look rather ignorant, as it's the only thing you've got. What are you going to do after you read this and realize that argument doesn't work?
Um, the fact that I'm Mormon was clearly stated almost 80-100 post ago. The fact that you didn't read it is your fault, not mine, so don't blame you. You have a bad habbit of that.
Actually, that couldn't prove the falsehood of the Trinity concept better if I wanted it to. If you can explain how 3 beings are 1 being without contradicting yourself, while still making sense, and not using the ulltra-bull-crap excuse of "We simply can't comprehend as mortals", I will give up my faith and join your church this day. Since I know you can't, and I know this because Biblical scholars smarter than you or I have been trying for almost 1700 years and can't do it, I will help you out.
Let's see, they're 3 and they're 1. What can that mean. Well, 3 really has only one meaning. 1, on the other hand, has several. It can mean individuality, it can mean unity, it can mean, well, let's see what dictionary.com says.
One
1. being or amounting to a single unit or individual or entire thing, item, or object rather than two or more; a single: one woman; one nation; one piece of cake.
2. being a person, thing, or individual instance or member of a number, kind, group, or category indicated: one member of the party.
3. existing, acting, or considered as a single unit, entity, or individual.
4. of the same or having a single kind, nature, or condition: We belong to one team; We are of one resolve.
There are a few. Now, taken into consideration with that verse you gave, which could it mean. Number 1 doesn't work, but the other 3 do, and don't invalidate that previous verse. Matter of fact, they kind of agree with those words I gave you a few post ago. Remember, they start with homo, meaning of the same.
Well, even without these definitions, let's see if we can find another verse to help describe this relationship.
First, there's this verse in Ephesians 5
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be aone flesh.
Using your definition of one, that's pretty gross. The best verse, and I can't seem to locate it right now (perhaps you would be kind enough to help, but I doubt it) says the following:
Speaking in reference to husbands and wives, it says "Be ye therefore one, as your Father in Heaven and I are one."
I'm fairly positive I'm not commanded to become one single person with my wife. Now throughout the Bible, there are several very specific examples of how the Father and Son are three distinct beings, but are unitied in purpose, thereby making them 3 and 1. Everything corresponds to my beliefs and interpretation. This idea was even presented at the Council of Nicea and arguable the most debated point of doctrine spoken of. Eventually, as I said though, the need to differentiate between the Christian and Roman religions won out and the idea of the Trinity was accepted, although not one could clearly explain it, even today. I can give you a textbook reference that is very good and is not written by a single LDS person. All are Christian.
I believe God had foreknowledge of His plan for His Revelation to man. I believe that plan was completed when the final book of the Bible was penned and accepted by believers as His Word during the first century AD. When I use the term Bible, I use it to mean the whole of God's revelation to man, and I cast aside any book claiming to contain further revelation from God (like the Book of Mormon). When I say the Bible is a complete revelation, I mean it is the ONLY revelation from God, I don't mean it is a complete revelation but that there are other revelations outside of the Bible. That's what I believe, plain and simple.
Why isn't the terrain of Central America described?
Why is it that numerous LDS books and papers describe proposed Book of Mormon locations for cities and the "narrow neck of land"? No city has been identified as being Nephite, Lamanite, Jaredite, etc. For example, Zarahemla was occupied for hundreds of years, but we still don't have any real evidence of it ever existing. The Book of Mormon describes a time period from 2000 BC to 400 AD and millions of people. No city they occupied has yet to be found.
Why didn't any of the place names from the Book of Mormon still exist when Columbus arrived?
Where was the Hill Cumorah? Was it in New York or Central America? If it was in Central America, why hasn't it been found? If it was in New York, how did they move that quickly and where are all the remains?
Why don't significant gaps exist in the archeological record of Mesoamerica if these "missing" people existed?
Did the Book of Mormon take place outside of Mesoamerica? The History of the Church records an incident from June, 1834 in which Joseph Smith identified a skeleton found in an Indian burial mound in Illinois: ". . . the visions of the past being opened to my understanding by the Spirit of the Almighty, I discovered the person whose skeleton was before us was a white Lamanite, a large, thick-set man, and a man of God. His name was Zelph . . . who was known from the Hill Cumorah, or eastern sea to the Rocky mountains." (HOC 1948 ed., II: 79-80).
Why don't archeologists theorize Hebrew or Egyptian linkages or influences in Mesoamerica?
There is also no historical evidence for any part of the Book of Mormon existing prior to Joseph Smith, exept for what the Book of Mormon itself states (per your above quote 2nd Nephi:29 (Book of Mormon, written around 550bc) )
Dave
I have no difficulty recognizes the clear distinction between the two types of relationships.
John.1
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
In the above passage, the indication that God and the Word are one entity is made clear to me.
Dave
What you both need to realize is that you are both using the writings in a book to prove that the writings in that book are true. It's called circular logic, and it's the reason why neither of you are getting anywhere with this argument.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter