[Orontes]

Originally Posted by Fish-Hunter

Obviously there is so much to discuss and debate. I would like to go through all of the important issues one at a time. According to some of the other LDS members, it seem that they were given me the liberty to decide which topic to discuss first. I have not intentionally avoided your particular points, but simply tried to get order regarding our friendly debate. One of the LDS members plans to read and study the 13 Epistles and get back to me. We should be patient and not run ahead of ourselves at this point. I am not ready to leave the 13 Epistles of Paul, nor do I think all of the LDS members are willing to leave this topic, before going to the next topic.

I have given multiple opportunities for you to respond to various absurdities found in your different positions. I have explicitly stated if you do not respond to those noted absurdities, then I would consider you had ceded the point. I also stated I am willing to reopen any one of them should you have the gumption. Until you actually do so, I can only consider there are 9 points (and evidently now 10 points with 2 Thessalonians) where your vew has been weighted in the balances, and found wanting.

I am quite familiar with Paul's work, but I don't understand what you are attempting to get at. If I engaged an Evangelical and said "Give me the Evangelical position of the Gospel by the 13 Pauline Epistles" I would expect he would be as confused as I am at reading your posts. My would be Evangelical interlocutor might simply present all 13 epistles and say "this comprises my belief on the Gospel" but that doesn't really allow for discussion does it. This is why I suggested looking at specific verses, but you reject that notion. He might present a thesis comprising a few hundred pages, but that also is a tad unwieldy for a thread as well. My Evangelical interlocutor might say "well I think verse X and Y demonstrate the Evangelical view" but this again is something you seem to reject as it is a particular verse(s) and not the whole 13 Epistles. So, I really don't understand what you would like at all. The only other option I can think of is based on your use of context. If the entire Pauline corpus is the subject then the context would be Koine Greek and the Greco-Roman Worldview Paul was operating in. I can speak on this level, but I'm not sure that is really what you want. So, I'm at a loss to what you are looking for. I think your stance is based on a bad question or poor presuppositions. Your request seems like form void of content.

I found your comment and presuppositon of "As to Joseph Smith or other LDS prophets equaling Paul's authority or no: a living prophet always trumps a dead one" leaves no room for dialouge with any historical Christian (Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox); it also appears you have nullified all biblical truth with your one dogmatic presuppositon. With that comment, do you really think any Biblical Christian can take you seriously in discussion of the Scriptures (Hoy Bible)?

This is rather odd reply. The notion "a living prophet trumps a dead one" is not on its own Mormon specific and in fact is a position any Christian must agree with as evidenced by Jesus supplanting Moses or Stephen speaking with authority against the Sanhedrin's loyalty to the prophets of old, or Peter or Paul doing exactly the same vis-a-vis Jewish deference to the voices of the past. If you believe a living prophet is inferior to dead prophets then you cannot accept the New Testament. In fact the only position that would seem to agree with dead prophets trumping a living version would be the view of the Grand Inquisitor from Dostoevsky's 'Brothers Karamazov'.

I don't understand the adjective "historical" in front of Christian. You refer to Protestants. Protestantism dates from 1521. Mormonism dates from 1830. Why is a difference of only 300 years the grounds to place Protestantism on the would be "historical" side of Christendom and Mormonism on the other? Your division seems ad hoc.

The Word of God does not change.

Alas, it has and does. You as an Evangelical are illustrative. Do you accept the deuterocanonicals scriptures? If not, then that is a change. One that runs against over a millennia of Christian history. Of course, my other points are equally valid: examples of textual corruption (I cited John 5: 7-8) and the translation process itself.

BTW...you still haven't even attempted to quote from the 13 Epistles of Paul in defense of the Mormon gospel. The apparent apostasy is not the gospel my friend. We are trying to take all of the writings of Paul in context to understand God's truth; we cannot take one or two verses to create a man-made doctrine because that is sin against God. One step at a time. What is the gospel or the great good news of God to mankind according to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints"? Could you be ashamed of the gospel according to Paul? Guess what ...the Apostle Paul is not dead....according to Jesus.

I have specifically referred to Romans 1:16-17, Romans 4:5 and most recently Thessalonians 2:3. All of these are in the Pauline corpus. Your charge is simply false.

What is your definition of Gospel? Paul's words don't constitute the Gospel? It is clear your sense for the Gospel expands beyond the Synoptics and John's Gospel which means you're not simply referring to Christ's life or the standard notion of what constitutes the good news. I was sure you referred to Paul's epistles as the Gospel and even mentioned the Gospel of Paul. If that is right, then Romans and 2 Thessalonians would be included. If you equate "God's truth" as the Gospel, then any truth Paul puts forward would constitute the Gospel. This would include notions on the Apostasy.

Why do you say "apparent apostasy"? Paul's statement is straight forward. My explanation of the verse is not novel or unique. Paul says there will be an apostasy. One either accepts Paul's words or rejects them. Why would Paul's straight forward statement suddenly be a man made doctrine? Given you are an inerrantist, Paul's statement must be perfect, correct? Therefore, there is really only one conclusion assuming one is loyal to the text and not a dogma. If you cannot accept Paul's words then you cannot claim any Bible alone posture.

The Gospel or the "great good news" according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in its simplest form would be: God has been made manifest in the flesh to save man from his sins.

I don't understand why any self described Christian would be ashamed of the Gospel according to Paul. Paul was a great Apostle of the Lord. His words are sublime.

What do you mean Paul is not dead according to Jesus? Did Jesus mention Paul? Did He say Paul was still to be walking around even into the 21st Century or wouldn't die? If not, then you are equivocating on the word dead.