Why couldn't there be anymore? (Jesus Christ, rejecting, Torah, gospel)

[Bishka]

Me again

Much of the PM's I got sort of referred to that there couldn't be anymore, and that it was either the Apostles Creed or something like it and that's all we need.



So I ask, why? Why couldn't there be anymore? God never said "And I am done talking, and this is it, I refuse to give anymore of my gospel and my word"

Why is it impossible to believe that God would once again speak?

[MaddLlama]

It's not a question of whether or not God is done talking, but it's a question of whether or not anyone has the ability to call himself a prophet of God. It's a very strong assumption and not one to be taken lightly. I was under the impression that witin Christianity, Jesus was the only "prophet" of God. God could speak to any one of us and give us a message, but that doesn't make either one of us a prophet. Neither does writing down the messages we've recieved. Within Christianity the Bible is supposed to act as a guide for all things, to add to it, especially something that possibly contradicts it takes away it's power as a guide.

Why do you need anything more?

[Radio Frequency X]

The Christians added to the Torah. The Muslims have the Koran. Mormons have their Book. What's the difference? I don't hear the Jews complaining that the Christians added on to their work. Besides, Christians cut out 90% of all the gospels for political and institutional reasons that had little or nothing to do with theology or "The Truth". Look at the Coptic’s in Egypt to see how the influence of a broader collection of source materials can effect a denomination. The Book of Mormon is no different than the New Testament.

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Radio Frequency X

The Christians added to the Torah. The Muslims have the Koran. Mormons have their Book. What's the difference? I don't hear the Jews complaining that the Christians added on to their work. Besides, Christians cut out 90% of all the gospels for political and institutional reasons that had little or nothing to do with theology or "The Truth". Look at the Coptic’s in Egypt to see how the influence of a broader collection of source materials can effect a denomination. The Book of Mormon is no different than the New Testament.

The Copts are not influenced by a broader collection of source materials than other churches. They have the exact same canon we do and their practices and Traditions are nigh on identical to ours. The only point on which we disagree is Christology and this has nothing whatsoever to do with a reliance on different texts. In my opinion, it's all just a tragic misunderstanding and we both believe the same thing but describe it in different terms. This is one schism that does have a reasonable prospect of being healed in the not too distant future.

You'd have to come up with evidence of your supposed political reasons for rejecting NT era texts. I don't see any. I've read most of the rejected books and they are clearly beyond the pale theologically. I would have rejected them, also. The difference between the example of the Book of Mormon and the Gospels/Koran is that Christians don't claim to be Jews nor Muslims Christians. Mormons do call themselves Christian, though. I'm not willing to claim that they are not Christians, but I would guess that it is this fact that gets certain Christians' backs up.

James

[Radio Frequency X]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

The Copts are not influenced by a broader collection of source materials than other churches.

Incorrect. The Copts have been influenced greatly by the Gnostic gospels. I know this has become extremely unpopular as of late, but it remains a fact.

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

The difference between the example of the Book of Mormon and the Gospels/Koran is that Christians don't claim to be Jews nor Muslims Christians. Mormons do call themselves Christian, though. I'm not willing to claim that they are not Christians, but I would guess that it is this fact that gets certain Christians' backs up.

I think Mormons should back off their claim to be "Christian". In fact, I don't think there is a such a thing as "Christianity". Catholicism and Protestantism are two totally different religions in my book. But if they are both "Christian", then so is Mormonism I guess. But what Christians believe is none of my business. It's not my fight. Believe as you wish.

[michel]

Originally Posted by beckysoup61

Why is it impossible to believe that God would once again speak?

I believe it is to test our Faith; goodness knows, it would be comforting to have a sign; but the problem is that that would be too easy.

[SoyLeche]

Originally Posted by Radio Frequency X

I think Mormons should back off their claim to be "Christian". In fact, I don't think there is a such a thing as "Christianity". Catholicism and Protestantism are two totally different religions in my book. But if they are both "Christian", then so is Mormonism I guess. But what Christians believe is none of my business. It's not my fight. Believe as you wish.

The problem with "backing off" on the claim is that we do, in fact, believe that Jesus Christ is our Savior. I can't think of any more important aspect of what a "Christian" is. We will generally agree that we are not "traditional" or "mainstream" Christians, but we are definately Christians, and will continue to defend that claim