Why Dont Christians Accept the Book of Mormon as Valid? (Jesus, Earth)

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by athanasius

The way catholic believe is that the Canon of scripture is closed. If a letter of St Paul is found and proven to be real it still would not mean that it would be scripture and it would not be part of the canon.

But the canon of scripture changed many, many times even before the Protestant Reformation -- based on the councils you speak of. I guess that's because there was no more "Public Revelation" from God and as the centuries went by, different people were in charge of making the decisions. That doesn't sound much like the way God would work to me, but each to his own.

We believe that God through is councils decided what was the true authentic written revelation thousands of years ago. That is why we cannot accept the book of Mormon. We see the book of Mormon as false revelation because we believe the canon to be settled already by the grace of God. As I said earlier we also do not hold to any new public doctrinal revelation because to us it contradicts Gods Oral word in apostolic tradition and the magisteriums(we believes Gods church on earth) teachings. In other words just the fact that the book of Mormon exist and claims to be another testament or canon for the Church is reason alone of the Catholic faith to consider it false because of what we believe about revelation. So this honestly why many catholics do not believe in the book of Mormon or Joseph Smith. If they did it would be a denial of what the word of God already teaches us through his One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church. I hope that makes sense.

Actually, it doesn't. I mean you've explained what you believe pretty well, but I fail to see the logic behind it. You also neglected to explain how the canon came to be closed. If there was no more "public revelation" after the deaths of the Apostles, then how could God have revealed that He was done talking? Or maybe at a certain point, a council was called and everybody agreed that God hadn't been in touch lately and maybe it was time to say that He wasn't going to be any more.

[Reverend Rick]

Perhaps the church of Rome was very satisfied with all the other texts that was removed from the bible or were not allowed to be included. I find it funny that the dead sea scrolls contain the entire bible, but the bible is not as complete.

Any reference to a women having power was suppressed and the book of James just barely made it into the bible and would have been discarded as well if some folks back then had their way.

Yes folks, the church of Rome was satisfied with the interpretations and editing and wanted the door slammed shut for all eternity.

What if Jesus wanted to walk the earth this upcoming week? I guess he would not be the Son of God because the closed cannon does not speak of the possibility of such a thing happening. He is God almighty and saying he can not or has not or will not do anything is putting your salvation in the hands of man and not God almighty.

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by madhatter85

you still have yet to support your claims that the terinitarian view is even supported biblically when i have provided evidence to the contrary, biblically.

It is impossible for Jesus Christ and God to be the same personage.

Jesus Christ prays to the Father as in Mark 14, why would he pray to himself?



This actually supports my claim that Jesus Christ and God's will may vary at times even when they are united in purpose.

Why in Matthew 3 does it say:




just for a couple refrences.

Only a complete misunderstanding of the Trinitarian doctrine could see in the passages you cite proof that the doctrine is false.

[athanasius]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

But the canon of scripture changed many, many times even before the Protestant Reformation -- based on the councils you speak of. I guess that's because there was no more "Public Revelation" from God and as the centuries went by, different people were in charge of making the decisions. That doesn't sound much like the way God would work to me, but each to his own.

Actually, it doesn't. I mean you've explained what you believe pretty well, but I fail to see the logic behind it. You also neglected to explain how the canon came to be closed. If there was no more "public revelation" after the deaths of the Apostles, then how could God have revealed that He was done talking? Or maybe at a certain point, a council was called and everybody agreed that God hadn't been in touch lately and maybe it was time to say that He wasn't going to be any more.

The the Catholic church uses the Same canon it always has which has been set since the council of Rome in 382 A.D. under the decree of Pope Damasus I.If you do not believe me look up the decree of Pope Damasus. His decree on the canon was ratified again at the council of Hippo 393 and the council of carthage 397. The Canon was not any new revelation because it had already been delivered by the apostles Via ... apostolic tradition and was Infallibly decreed 1439 at the Council of Florence and ratified again at Council of Trent. The protestants changed their canon by throwing out 7 books from the old testament(The deutrocanonicals) that uncle Marty didn't like. But the Catholic canon was settled and has been the same since 382 A.D under the Pope of Rome. God through the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Blessed Trinity, does not give new public revelation that we need to hold to that is doctrinal. But God in our understanding does enlighten us and develop our understanding of already existing doctrines(delivered by Scripture and apostolic tradition) by the Power of the Holy Spirit and Virtue of his Authoritative Church through his councils. God is alive and active in his Church and he speaks infallibly through his Catholic church and her councils. So that is why we cannot ever accept the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith to be a real actual prophet of God. Rome has spoken the Case is Closed. Or should I say Jesus has spoken through Rome and her councils, the case is closed. Its really simple. any thing else or anyone else claiming another testamant or more public revelation is simply a false prophet and is slapping Jesus in the face because he denies the words his infallible church have already spoken(Lk 10:16). God does not change! Truth does not change! Jesus Christ is the same Yesterday, Today, and always, and so is his truth he decrees. I hope that better helps you understand why we believe the way we do. Christ founded the Catholic Church to be the one true Church on earth and anything less is does not have the fullness of truth.

[Katzpur]

The Catholic church uses the Same canon it always has which has been set since the council of Rome in 382 A.D. under the decree of Pope Damasus I. If you do not believe me look up the decree of Pope Damasus. His decree on the canon was ratified again at the council of Hippo 393 and the council of Carthage 397.

So nearly 400 years after Christ, Rome finally got its act together. Well, I’m really impressed. And just where did that leave the Church prior to 382 A.D.?

Consider the fact that in 1740, a list of the canonical books compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. was discovered in the Ambrosian Libary in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included.

Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter where described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.

The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.

Clearly the canon was in a state of flux for some fourteen or so generations after the deaths of the Apostles. What, may I ask, was the hold up?

The Canon was not any new revelation because it had already been delivered by the apostles Via ... apostolic tradition and was Infallibly decreed 1439 at the Council of Florence and ratified again at Council of Trent.

So when certain writings are authenticated and determined to have been inspired, and others determined, for whatever reason, not to qualify as scripture, this is not new revelation? It sure sounds like new revelation to me, unless you’re saying that the decision as to what to include in the canon was not inspired at all. If the canon was to include only the writings of the Apostles, and not even all of their works, why in Heaven’s name did it take 400 years for it to be finalized? Either the decision as to what would be included in the canon was divinely inspired or it wasn’t. If it was, it was by revelation that the decision was made. If it wasn’t – and I’m convinced that it wasn’t – then it’s easy to understand why the canon of 200 A.D. was so different from the canon of 400 A.D.

God is alive and active in his Church and he speaks infallibly through his Catholic church and her councils.

And it took Him nearly 400 years to do so. Oh, brother.

Rome has spoken the Case is Closed.

You have no idea how funny that sounds to a non-Catholic. The Catholic Church is true because the Catholic Church has said so.

Or should I say Jesus has spoken through Rome and her councils, the case is closed.

No, actually, I think you should stick with your first statement. I don’t believe God the Father, Jesus Christ, or the Holy Ghost to have been present at any of those councils. The case may be closed from your perspective, but not from mine.

Its really simple. any thing else or anyone else claiming another testamant or more public revelation is simply a false prophet and is slapping Jesus in the face because he denies the words his infallible church have already spoken(Lk 10:16).

Oh, so we’re going to start slinging the mud, huh? Now Joseph Smith is slapping Jesus in the face. Could you possibly have been less tactless?

God does not change! Truth does not change! Jesus Christ is the same Yesterday, Today, and always, and so is his truth he decrees.

I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, somebody along the line managed to corrupt the truth to such an extent that God had to restore what had been lost.

I hope that better helps you understand why we believe the way we do. Christ founded the Catholic Church to be the one true Church on earth and anything less is does not have the fullness of truth.

Christ founded His Church all right, and it wasn’t the Catholic Church.

[dance-above]

I do believe there are some people in the world that knows the truth, I just dont believe its the LDS. I get a little suspecious, when, any one group tries to preach themselves. Christians are called christians because their faith is in Christ. Not because they believe they are the one true Church or the other flock.

[nutshell]

Originally Posted by dance-above

I do believe there are some people in the world that knows the truth, I just dont believe its the LDS. I get a little suspecious, when, any one group tries to preach themselves. Christians are called christians because their faith is in Christ. Not because they believe they are the one true Church or the other flock.

I feel the need to correct you.

LDS are Christians because their faith is in Christ - NOT because they believe they are the one true Church.

[dance-above]

I just want to say, you dont need my approval. Paul said there could be no other foandation laid except that of Christ and that one should beware how he built thereon.