LDS beliefs and the Bible

McBell · Jun 17, 2008

Fish-Hunter said:
I will continue to ignore you since you are neither a historic biblical Christian nor a LDS Christian.

That is the excuse you use to ignore me.
But we both know that the reason you ignore me is because you cannot provide that which you claim exists and that I flat out ask for:

The verse(s) that state Bible Only.

With each and every post that you ignore me you show your self to be an even bigger hypocrite.
Not to mention the fact it shows your yellow streak.
Come on, back up your claim and show that the Bible teaches Bible Only.
I dare you.
No, I double dog dare you.

Fish-Hunter · Jun 17, 2008

Mestemia said:
That is the excuse you use to ignore me.

But we both know that the reason you ignore me is because you cannot provide that which you claim exists and that I flat out ask for:
The verse(s) that state Bible Only.
With each and every post that you ignore me you show your self to be an even bigger hypocrite.
Not to mention the fact it shows your yellow streak.
Come on, back up your claim and show that the Bible teaches Bible Only.
I dare you.
No, I double dog dare you.

It makes no sense to discuss the Holy Bible with you because of your continual disobedience to the command of God to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. By your denial of the Biblical Jesus Christ, you continue to call God a liar. The Holy Bible is intended for believers in the Lord Jesus Christ only. You are an enemy of the cross. You have no fear of the Living Sovereign God.

1 John 5:10:
Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son.

Matthew 12:30:
"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.

2 Thes.
All this is evidence that God's judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering. God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.

McBell · Jun 17, 2008

Fish-Hunter said:
It makes no sense to discuss the Holy Bible with you because of your continual disobedience to the command of God to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. By your denial of the Biblical Jesus Christ, you continue to call God a liar. The Holy Bible is intended for believers in the Lord Jesus Christ only. You are an enemy of the cross. You have no fear of the Living Sovereign God.

And once again you are mistaken.
It is not God that I am calling a liar....

What is the matter Fish-Hunter?
Does not your God give your power/ability/strength/etc. to face me?
Sadly it is not me that you are afraid of facing.
It is your proven false beliefs.
If little old enemy of God me can show your beliefs to be the lies they are, how do you expect God to fall for your lies?

Fish-Hunter · Jun 17, 2008

Mestemia said:
And once again you are mistaken.
It is not God that I am calling a liar....

What is the matter Fish-Hunter?
Does not your God give your power/ability/strength/etc. to face me?
Sadly it is not me that you are afraid of facing.
It is your proven false beliefs.
If little old enemy of God me can show your beliefs to be the lies they are, how do you expect God to fall for your lies?

1 John 5:10:
Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son.

Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ revealed in the Holy Bible? What do you believe about Him? If you can't answer that, then it's between the God and the Bible and you. I think the God revealed in the Scriptures considers you but dust.

Acts 17 - In Athens

While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?" Others remarked, "He seems to be advocating foreign gods." They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean." (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)

Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.

"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'

"Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."
When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, "We want to hear you again on this subject." At that, Paul left the Council. A few men became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.

Acts 2 - Peter Addresses the Crowd

Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: "Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It's only nine in the morning! No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:

" 'In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
I will show wonders in the heaven above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.

And everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will be saved.'

"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. David said about him:
" 'I saw the Lord always before me.
Because he is at my right hand,
I will not be shaken.
Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices;
my body also will live in hope,
because you will not abandon me to the grave,
nor will you let your Holy One see decay.
You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will fill me with joy in your presence.'
"Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said,
" 'The Lord said to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet." '

"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call." 40With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

John 8 -The Children of the Devil

Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."
Jude 1:23:
snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.

DeepShadow · Jun 17, 2008

Fish-Hunter said:
The LDS Religion is really anti-Bible ready to do the infamous bait and switch tactic. Now you see the Bible and now you don't..and now you see the Book of Mormon and entire new religion based on the testimony of a 14 year boy which nullifies the written Word of God called the Holy Bible. Your hope and faith is based on Joseph Smith and not the Sovereign Triune God. The written Word of God stands forever because God is more powerful than evil men.

So this is what I get for actually engaging you in a discussion--you misrepresenting my beliefs back to me?

Is it any wonder that I stick to poking fun at the thread, when this is your excuse for fair treatment?

To be clear, I'm not complaining about the name calling. It's par for the course, and I know it's what you believe, so that doesn't offend me. What galls me is that you presume to speak authoritatively on something you obviously don't understand, and refused to be educated on.

We are not anti-Bible any more than Martin Luther was.

Fish-Hunter · Jun 17, 2008

DeepShadow said:
So this is what I get for actually engaging you in a discussion--you misrepresenting my beliefs back to me?

Is it any wonder that I stick to poking fun at the thread, when this is your excuse for fair treatment?

To be clear, I'm not complaining about the name calling. It's par for the course, and I know it's what you believe, so that doesn't offend me. What galls me is that you presume to speak authoritatively on something you obviously don't understand, and refused to be educated on.

We are not anti-Bible any more than Martin Luther was.

It's a battle for the truth and authority, isn't it? God speaks through Scripture alone, or through apparent modern day prophets. Someone is being deceived by the father of lies. Someone does not know the One true God and is a child of the devil.

This bible passage applies to either historic bible Christians OR Mormons.

John 8 -The Children of the Devil

Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."

Mister_T · Jun 17, 2008

***MOD POST***

Thread closed for Mod Review. Please use this time to cool off, and please do not start another thread in response to this one being closed.

Thank You.

Fluffy · Jun 18, 2008

*** MOD POST ***
Thread reopened. Please don't attack each other or use inflammatory language. If you are unsure whether something is inflammatory, veer on the side of safety and don't post it. If you want more advice on what is inflammatory and what is not then PM myself or another moderator and we can help you out but in the mean time stop doing it . Thanks!

*Paul* · Jun 18, 2008

madhatter85 said:
*Paul* said:

Let me pose a question.

What on earth makes anyone think that any Scripture has any authority at all???

In fact the Bible itself says differently

All authority does not lay within ANY book. In the words of esteemed New Testament scholar N. T. Wright, The risen Jesus, at the end of Matthews Gospel, does not say, All authority in heaven and on earth is given to the books you are all going to write, but [rather] All authority in heaven and on earth is given to me. In other words, Scripture itself points . . . away from itself and to the fact that final and true authority belongs to God himself. - Quote from Jeffrey R. Holland April 2008 General Confrence Report.

Click to expand...

Christ gave authority in His church to His Apostles (Mat 16:19,18:18, John20:23, Rev21:14 et al) therefore their writings are authoritative. it was said of the first church:

Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Where is the Apostles doctrine today but contained in scripture? Did Jesus take His authority back to heaven with Him and leave us with none? Did Jesus not leave the care of His church in the hands of the Apostles then they to faithful men and so on?

Fish-Hunter · Jun 18, 2008

I will be taking a break from Religious Forums. Therefore, *Paul* and the Apostle Paul represent my views on the essentials of the historic Christian Faith. We are all completely like-minded on the essential issues of biblical Christianity. Of course, the Apostle Paul is more authorativative than *Paul* and I combined. Search the Scriptures for yourself to see what the Apostle Paul proclaims to be true. I am proclaiming together with the Apostle Paul and *Paul* that God's authority rests with the Holy Bible alone, as compared to apparent "modern day prophets" described in the Mormon religion.

In Berea - Acts 17 - Holy Bible

As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men. When the Jews in Thessalonica learned that Paul was preaching the word of God at Berea, they went there too, agitating the crowds and stirring them up.

I'll see ya in a few days, few months, or a few years. I wish everyone well!

madhatter85 · Jun 18, 2008

*Paul* said:
madhatter85 said:

Christ gave authority in His church to His Apostles (Mat 16:19,18:18, John20:23, Rev21:14 et al) therefore their writings are authoritative. it was said of the first church:

Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Where is the Apostles doctrine today but contained in scripture? Did Jesus take His authority back to heaven with Him and leave us with none? Did Jesus not leave the care of His church in the hands of the Apostles then they to faithful men and so on?

Click to expand...

I'm very sure that was the Apostle's intent to do so but they were hunted down and killed before they could pass on that authority and ordain new apostles. and the remaining churches scrapped themselves together and did the best they could with what they had. such as Ignatius of Antioch. But Ignatius if anythign only held the office of "Bishop" which is an office in teh lesser Levitical priesthood, or the priesthood of Aaron, the same priesthood John the Baptist had and the priesthood for the working of basic ordinances (baptism, sacrament). but that was not the same authority that the apostles had, the one for revelation and the working of miracles, the higher ordinances contained within the Temples, ect...

and because of the lack of revelation, due to lack of Authority, the "church" at the time felt as if the book was closed on revelation and hence thought the cannon to be closed as well. then they created the position of "Pope" which is a term derrived from the latin abbreviation PAPA which means Father of Fathers or Bishop of Bishops. to try and lead the church in the direction. But then politics, evil desires of mankind, lobbying for positions and such eventually turned the church away from the true higher doctrines and ordinances and eventually fell away into apostasy.

McBell · Jun 18, 2008

Fish-Hunter said:
It's a battle for the truth and authority, isn't it?

Obviously not.
Since your Bible Only agenda is a bold faced man made lie.

Fish-Hunter said:
Someone is being deceived by the father of lies.

Gee, could it be the one who telling lies about the Bible?
Now who would that be again?

Fish-Hunter said:
Someone does not know the One true God and is a child of the devil.

Really?
And just who are you to make such judgments on others?
What verse(s) do you use to justify your judging people to be children of satan?

madhatter85 · Jun 18, 2008

Mestemia said:
Obviously not.
Since your Bible Only agenda is a bold faced man made lie.

Gee, could it be the one who telling lies about the Bible?
Now who would that be again?

Really?
And just who are you to make such judgments on others?
What verse(s) do you use to justify your judging people to be children of satan?

while i agre with what you said Mest, the last comment there threw me off because only a few posts ago you called him evil. Which may or may not be the case depending on how you precieve him. But name calling is kind of like judging.

Katzpur · Jun 18, 2008

*Paul* said:
Where is the Apostles doctrine today but contained in scripture?

Well, those writings that were not lost comprise the New Testament. However, as has previously been pointed out, the scriptures mention certain epistles which we do not still have, and they even say that Jesus said and did so many things that were not written down that they would fill all the books in the world. Furthermore, the scriptural canon has changed from the early days of the Church. What reason do you have to assume that the Bible we have now is any more authoritative than the writings considered canonical in the 1st and 2nd centuries?

Did Jesus take His authority back to heaven with Him and leave us with none?

No, He left the authority to guide and direct the Church in the hands of Prophets and Apostles.

Did Jesus not leave the care of His church in the hands of the Apostles then they to faithful men and so on?

They did pass that authority on for a time. The scriptures mention four individuals having been called to the Apostleship in addition to the original twelve: Matthias, Paul, Barnabas, and Jesus' brother, James. Clearly, that's what Jesus had in mind, and Paul specifically pointed out that prophets and apostles were to remain part of the Church until we all came into a unity of faith. As evidenced by many of his writings, though, he was concerned that an apostasy was already starting to take place. Where was the foundation of Prophets and Apostles in the 2nd century?

*Paul* · Jun 18, 2008

madhatter85 said:
I'm very sure that was the Apostle's intent to do so but they were hunted down and killed before they could pass on that authority and ordain new apostles.

I never said they were to ordain new apostles, if they intended that they certainly did not write it.

such as Ignatius of Antioch. But Ignatius if anythign only held the office of "Bishop" which is an office in teh lesser Levitical priesthood, or the priesthood of Aaron,

The office of a Bishop (one who takes care of the church) is less than the office of a levitical priest? Isn't being of the tribe of Levi a necessity for being a levitical priest? Moreover isn't the temple kind of necessary for this role?

Numbers 1:49-50 Only thou shalt not number the tribe of Levi, neither take the sum of them among the children of Israel: But thou shalt appoint the Levites over the tabernacle of testimony, and over all the vessels thereof, and over all things that belong to it: they shall bear the tabernacle, and all the vessels thereof; and they shall minister unto it, and shall encamp round about the tabernacle.

Numbers 16:8-9 And Moses said unto Korah, Hear, I pray you, ye sons of Levi: Seemeth it but a small thing unto you, that the God of Israel hath separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to himself to do the service of the tabernacle of the LORD, and to stand before the congregation to minister unto them?

All sounds a bit Jewish to me.

the same priesthood John the Baptist had and the priesthood for the working of basic ordinances (baptism, sacrament).

Well John the baptist was a Jew also but he was not a levitical priest he lived in the desert and was not a minister over the ark of the covenant, and the vessals.

but that was not the same authority that the apostles had, the one for revelation and the working of miracles, the higher ordinances contained within the Temples, ect...

What temples?

and because of the lack of revelation, due to lack of Authority, the "church" at the time felt as if the book was closed on revelation and hence thought the cannon to be closed as well. then they created the position of "Pope" which is a term derrived from the latin abbreviation PAPA which means Father of Fathers or Bishop of Bishops. to try and lead the church in the direction. But then politics, evil desires of mankind, lobbying for positions and such eventually turned the church away from the true higher doctrines and ordinances and eventually fell away into apostasy.

We have records of faithful Christians in all generations, they may not have had everything right and that is no different now but they knew their Saviour as Christians do today, yes there was apostasy but the truth was not lost.

McBell · Jun 18, 2008

madhatter85 said:
while i agre with what you said Mest, the last comment there threw me off because only a few posts ago you called him evil. Which may or may not be the case depending on how you precieve him. But name calling is kind of like judging.

The main difference is that I have never claimed to be bound by the Bible only.
However, i will concede your point.

madhatter85 · Jun 18, 2008

*Paul* said:
I never said they were to ordain new apostles, if they intended that they certainly did not write it.

Yes they did, read Acts chaper 1 again.

22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

It is said that from the baptism of John, that there shoudl always be 12 apostled, when Judas lost his place they ordained a new apostle, Matthias, in his stead. This set the standard as to how Christ's church was to go about choosing replacement apostles. exactly as written in the Book of Acts, 1st chapter.

The office of a Bishop (one who takes care of the church) is less than the office of a levitical priest? Isn't being of the tribe of Levi a necessity for being a levitical priest? Moreover isn't the temple kind of necessary for this role?

not if one is adopted into the tribe =/

All sounds a bit Jewish to me.

Was Christ not a Jew? is not Chrisitanity spawned form Judasim? do you think Moses was a "christian?" Of course it sounds Jewish because it IS jewish, Christianity spawned with the rejection of Christ by the Jews.

Well John the baptist was a Jew also but he was not a levitical priest he lived in the desert and was not a minister over the ark of the covenant, and the vessals.

Yes he was LOL, how else would he have the proper authority to baptize?

What temples?

Temples mentioned all throughout the New testament? look it up, too many refrences to post here.

We have records of faithful Christians in all generations, they may not have had everything right and that is no different now but they knew their Saviour as Christians do today, yes there was apostasy but the truth was not lost.

Of course it was lost, it was prophesied of by Amos,
Amos 8:

11 ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord:

12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.

And Daniel when he interpited Neb's Dream

36 ¶ This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king. 37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.

38 And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.

39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.

40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.

41 And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters’ clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.

42 And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.

43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.

the prophesies of Isaiah,
Isaiah 2:2

2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.

why would there be a need for his house to be established in the last days if it was already here???
and the Book of Revelation.
Revelation 14:6-7

6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, 7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

If the truth remained what need is there to have an angel bring it to the earth?

Katzpur · Jun 18, 2008

Fish-Hunter said:
I will be taking a break from Religious Forums.

Yes! There is a God!

Therefore, *Paul* and the Apostle Paul represent my views on the essentials of the historic Christian Faith. We are all completely like-minded on the essential issues of biblical Christianity.

I've never had *Paul* tell me I'm a child of the devil, though, and he is actually both willing and able to carry on a real conversation, including answering questions. Debating with him is going to be a breath of fresh air.

Of course, the Apostle Paul is more authorativative than *Paul* and I combined.

The Apostle Paul would turn over in his grave if he could see how horribly you've mangled and distorted the gospel message.

Search the Scriptures for yourself to see what the Apostle Paul proclaims to be true. I am proclaiming together with the Apostle Paul and *Paul* that God's authority rests with the Holy Bible alone, as compared to apparent "modern day prophets" described in the Mormon religion.

I never cease to be amazed at your ability to interpret holy writ, Fishguy. I have searched the scriptures with a fine-toothed comb and didn't see a single verse in which the Apostle Paul mentioned either the Bible or Mormonism. I did find a passage, though, where he proclaims that prophets and apostles, the foundation upon which Christ built His Church, are to remain a part of it until we all come into a unity of the faith. Your lack of understanding is the perfect example of what he said would happen if we were left to go it on our own.

I'll see ya in a few days, few months, or a few years. I wish everyone well!

Come back again when you can't stay so long, okay?

Orontes · Jun 18, 2008

Part One

Orontes said:
There are different Bibles, both in regard to content and translation. Which Bible version is sola scriptura?

*Paul* said:

That depends who you ask, there is no headquarters from which the churches are dictated to on what to believe. For me and my church it is the King James Version but we are autonomous and it is something we have agreed upon together. Let others decide which version they want to use, I do not judge them on it except to say that in our church it is the king james bible for public use.

Orontes said:

Paul, do you understand what it means to assert sola scriptura? It is a rather specific claim about the nature of the text, much like were one to claim an elephant is a mammal (the claim asserts something about the object). Your answer suggests you are thinking about usage, which is a different issue.

*Paul* said:

For me Sola Scriptura is appeal to the authority of Scripture alone in all matters of how to practice our faith and define doctrine. So when you asked which version is scripture alone I said in my church it is the King James bible this is because we consider it the best translation of scripture and a version that God has honoured for centuries.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Sola scriptura is indeed an appeal to scripture as the authority, but it is not simply that: the claim has traditionally entailed that scripture is self authenticating, sufficient and infallible. Without these later elements the claim lacks any weight and simply appears as a bald assertion. So, for one like yourself the question then is: do you believe the Bible is infallible, self authenticating etc.? If so, then we can ask about which Bible? You mentioned the King James is the version you use. Is this the original 1611 King James Version which included the deuterocanon or is it the versions seen today which no longer include the deuterocanon?

Another issue to consider is you mentioned your group/church agreed upon the King James Version. Rhetorically, this is interesting: the claim is the text is the sole authority and yet that sole authority is itself dependant on your church's approval. This says something. I think sola scriptura is an interesting idea, but it is fraught with logical issues

Orontes · Jun 18, 2008

Reply Part Two

Me said:
My question was not sect specific. It is general. Do you hold to determinism, with all that entails, or do you believe in free will?

Me said:
Paul said:

I believe man has a will. But it is a will that has a natural proclivity to do that which is against God;

Epistle to Romans 7:18-20 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

See how Paul says he has a will, he also knows what is good but sin nature can override your will. So I think the will can be taken into bondage by powerful desires.

Me said:

If man has free will, but also a natural proclivity to evil, or as you also noted "sin nature can override your will" how does that work? Where does "sin nature" come from? Why can it override one's will and if it does override one's will, then in what sense is the subject responsible for the evil done?

Paul said:

You don't think that that was what Paul was saying in the verse I quoted? It seemed to me that Paul was saying that he had a will but he couldn't perform it because of sin. Can you break down your understanding of the verse point by point, if your right then I will agree with you. (on that verse)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Sure, I actually addressed this very issue earlier in this thread. Here is the exegesis I gave. This was originally addressed to Fish-Hunter, but I think the explanatory will work for your question as well. To whit:

Romans 7:19-25 to Romans 8 1:2:

The passage:

19For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

20Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 21I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. 1There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

The above is a great scripture. Now, my guess is that were I to ask one like yourself the meaning I would get something like: the above demonstrates the fallen and miserable state of man. Paul speaks as a victim of his own sinful nature: constantly born down by the evils of the flesh. This wretched man can only hope for the redeemer Christ to pull him from his despair. And thus we can see it is not anything Paul, as a fallen man can do (and thus we reject the pride of any works based approach), but only through Christ that any hope is possible. Am I close?

The exegesis:

I have noted you state a few times that context is important. I agree. Context does not simply mean the verses that surround a chosen passage or even the book or the Bible proper, but actually entails the entire socio-cultural milieu any piece of literature was written in. The Greco-Roman World is the context. Paul as a Hellenized Jew was fully able to communicate to a Greek speaking audience on their own terms. A simple example would be his referencing the Greek poet Aratus when speaking to the Aeropagus on Mars Hill (Book of Acts). In Romans a similar tact is taken.

If I asked 'what is going on in verse 19?' My guess is the reply from yourself would be something connected to the notion of Original Sin and man's sinful falleness. This would be an anachronistic reading of the text that is only possible by one divorced from the linguistic-cultural context of the passage. I'll illustrate: if I asked what does "to be or not to be" mean? Some might give a response on existential angst. Most would tie it to Shakespeare. Some may even tie it to Hamlet. The above phrasing from verse 19 would have a similar impact on a Greek speaking audience. The phrase is a medean turn. What does that mean? It refers to Medea from Greek Tragedy.* The phrase is most commonly found in

Euripides's "Medea': "I am being overcome by evils. I know that what I am about to do is evil but passion is stronger than my reasoned reflection "

It can also be found in the larger literature of contemporaries and near contemporaries of Paul. For example.

Epictetus: "What he wants to do he doesn't do, and what he doesn't want he does."

Ovid's Medea: I see the better and approve it, but I follow the worse"

Verse 24's phrase Paul's uses is almost an exact phrasing of his contemporary Seneca who wrote in his Medea Tragedy:

"O wretched woman that I am!" The phrase is "talaiporos ego anthropos".

What is going on here? Why would Paul refer to a figure from Greek myth and why this specific phrasing? The reason is because the figure of Medea and the phrasing was commonly used in the Greco-Roman world to illustrate akrasia which refers to weakness of the will or lack of self mastery. Attaining self mastery was a central principle in Greek and Roman Thought. This is why writers in Athens would often sing the praise of their mortal enemies the Spartans (often seen as those most able at self mastery). It is one of the reasons why Stoicism became the dominant ethos of the Roman world. It is also why Greco-Romans might become interested in Jewish Thought. The Law of Moses was portrayed as a vehicle for self mastery (Philo is a simple example of this). What Paul is skillfully doing in the passage is both showing how it is pathe that leads to wrong doing (hamartein), but also he is engaging in a trope when he turns the notion back on his audience. "Medea" was used as an illustration of the dangers of the foreign: the evils that can occur when the other is let within.** The Romans/Greeks were very aware of the barbarorum and sought to maintain the divide. Paul's use turns the Romans/Greeks into the other vis-a-vis the Law of Moses. They are compared to the foreign Medea, the ones who have gone against the good and corrupted themselves. Once this is established, Paul then is able to show it is not adherence to a foreign law of Moses that will bring self mastery, but rather through Christ via the spirit.

The Conclusion

Now what you should notice is there is none of the stark divide between a grace vs. works dynamic which is a complete misreading of Paul's rhetoric. Neither is there any appeal to any inherited corrupted will. This also means that the very question of a "gospel of grace" is a failure to understand the text and ties into a larger mistaken Justification Theology that makes stark distinction between the saved and the other. This is common with Evangelical readings because they approach Paul as a believer and then begin to mine the text as a believer, rather than understanding who the text was actually written for and the rhetoric employed. The problem is then compounded by the base unfamiliarity with Greco-Roman Thought. The rub is basically that for the Greco-Roman, as for the Mormon, Paul's work was/is concerned with bringing the person into a relation with Deity, not drawing arbitrary justification lines in the sand and declaring who is or isn't worthy.

*Medea is a figure from Greek Myth. She was a foreign princess who joined with the leader of the Argonauts (Jason) while on his quest and then returned with him to Greece. Later, she killed Jason's and her children when she feared he was going to abandon her for another. It was this act the quotes refer to.

**Cleopatra was often painted as an example of a Medea figure by the Romans. She was seen as the dangerous foreign other that had corrupted Marc Antony and instigated war.

LDS beliefs and the Bible

Resident Sourpuss

Rejoice in the Lord!

Resident Sourpuss

Rejoice in the Lord!

White Crow

Rejoice in the Lord!

Forum Relic

A fool

Jesus loves you

Rejoice in the Lord!

Transhumanist

Resident Sourpuss

Transhumanist

Not your average Mormon

Jesus loves you

Resident Sourpuss

Transhumanist

Not your average Mormon

Master of the Horse

Master of the Horse