It is a matter of perspectives. The Bible is error free in terms of human witnessing. So make sure that you know what human witnessing is.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why is it *necessary* to believe (as a Christian) that the Bible has no errors?
- Thread starter Deidre
- Start date
It is a matter of perspectives. The Bible is error free in terms of human witnessing. So make sure that you know what human witnessing is.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
I am rather aware that it is a matter of perspectives. What precisely are you meaning by this so-called "human witnessing" thingy?
For an example, in an ancient war occurred 2000 years ago, 10 humans were dispatched to calculate the casualty. If 10 of them all came out with the same number, say 26,872 soldiers died. Do you think that it is a valid witnessing. How about all 10 of them came out with different numbers?
By evaluating the capability of humans, it is almost impossible for the 10 persons dispatched independent will come up with the same death toll in this situation. If they all came out with the same number, it could be a false witnessing. On the other hand, if they came out with different numbers, that's expected from a true witnessing. From this perspective, it is not an error. That won't be considered an error in a court case.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Actually, in that sense, in the case of real world events, I do accept eye witness accounts - to an extent. I say, to an extent, because an eye witness is not privy to all aspects of an event and is seeing a given thing from one perspective. So, if the numbers were identical, I'd assume fabrication. If the numbers were close I would accept that as plausible. If the numbers were wildly different I'd figure that there were no reliable witnesses but that there is a possibility that a large number of people had a really bad day.
Personally I don't believe it is necessary to believe that the bible has no errors to be a Christian. There are many versions of the bible, and some are quite different in certain areas. Heck, some even have more books in them than others. What is necessary to be a Christian is to be a believer in Christ. IMHO
leibowde84
Veteran Member
God's message to man might not have faults, but man had to put "pen to paper" and actually write it down. And, along with every other human endeavor, this process will inherently include mistakes/errors/intentional changes. Thus, your question here is a bit off base.
Why is it *necessary* to believe (as a Christian) that the Bible has no errors?
I do not agree with the premise of this question. Many more liberal Christians do not hold to Bible infallibility.
I do not agree with the premise of this question. Many more liberal Christians do not hold to Bible infallibility.
To an extent, the issue becomes one of what yardstick defines truth.Just curious on this point. If men were responsible for taking 'God's word' and putting it to paper, could it be that somewhere along the way, there were errors? That parts of the Bible might not be free from corruption? It requires faith to believe in the overall message of the Bible, and it requires the belief in God's grace to have a relationship with Christ...and to me, experiencing the Holy Spirit is all we truly 'need,' so why is it necessary to believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God?
I ask this because as I'm exploring churches, their 'mission statement' is wrapped up in believing that the Bible has no errors.
What do you think?
At one extreme ... every word in the Bible is perfect and only XYZ version is an accurate translation of God's message. This has the advantage of providing a clear yardstick against which any and every personal opinion can be measured. It has the disadvantage that many will question whether another translation is better and there are lots of 'apparent contradictions' (the term they will use) that will require mental gymnastics to talk your way around and 'properly understand'.
[Unfortunately, this is the view I lean towards. I just refuse to pick one translation believing that the 'perfect' version is the one that was written (and I no longer have) and that God meant for a lot of this stuff to be hard to understand ... that usually indicates that you don't need to know that information at this time and he will explain it when you need it.]
At the other extreme ... all scripture is so flawed that nothing of 'Truth' (capital 'T' ... absolute Truth) can be known, so everyone gets to make it up on their own based on warm and fuzzy feelings. The strength is that you are probably safe from legalism ... It will be hard to come up with a list of 'Do these 10 things and God will accept you.' On the down side, you will be like a ship without rudder, whichever way the wind blows, that is the direction you will be carried. It can lead to a lot of doubt filled nights. (When times are hard and you don't 'feel' saved, does God still love you?)
What I found to be good advice is "Keep the First (most important) things, First".
Start from the position that the Bible is probably true and mostly correct. Don't kill anyone for wearing blended fabrics. However, if it is written in your Bible, then give God the benefit of the doubt and assume that God probably said it, that it was probably translated correctly and it probably means what it says. Only after trying that approach and having trouble accepting it because it disagrees with something else, try taking it as meant to be less literal.
Another thing that helps is the ability to shrug. If you read something and it makes absolutely no sense, shrug and move on. God will either explain it to you later, or (this helped me) we can ask him about it when we see him and he can explain it personally.
***********
A short bonus: If all scripture is inspired and true, then there are God given truths intertwined throughout scripture to be teased out and enjoyed [Adam and Eve cast mankind into slavery to sin; God promises Eve that 'her seed' (singular) would undo the curse; Judah (son of Jacob) sold a brother (Joseph) into slavery; Jesus (seed of Eve, Lion of Judah) ends the curse and buys 'slaves to sin' to become brothers and children of God.]
If scripture can not be trusted ... If they are just books by men ... If they are so flawed that we can be certain of nothing that they say ... then there is no point in searching for such meaningless coincidences.
That's why it matters to those churches enough to be included in their statement of faith.
I am very interested in discussing the contradictions found in Mormon doctrine versus what the Bible says.
I am sorry it took two weeks to respond, but I've been too busy to be able to take the amount of time necessary to write this post all at once.
There are many traditions of men which have come into the church over two thousand years, but the view of God I gave you is one that comes from scripture - not tradition.
If you think the view of God I gave is not consistent with scripture then I invite you to point out why.
We also see from early church writers and canon lists from across the Roman empire in the 2nd century that there was almost complete agreement about what books were authentic scripture and which were not, despite the fact that there was no centralized control structure to enforce such agreement. That is also why in the 2nd and 3rd century most of the writings we have perserved are apologetic in nature, because the only weapon Christians had to defend the truth with was through reasoned discourse and appeals to truth.
Even if you wanted to remove the handful of books that don't have unanimous early attestation , it wouldn't change our view of who Jesus is, who God is, or what the gospel message is because we're only talking about a few things like 3 John, 2 Peter, or Jude. The gospels, acts, and most of Paul's letters all have tremendous early witness in early writings. And while a few places might have regarded things like the Shepherd of Hermas as scripture, you won't find those kinds of writings are going to contradict what the scripture tells us on fundamental doctrinal truths.
None of the outright heretical or gnostic plagarisms that appeared in the late 2nd century have any attestation or witness whatsoever among the early church writings.
We know that's not true of the early church from history. There is reference to scripture being publically read in the early church, both old and new testament, following the custom of the Jewish synagogue.
We know synagogue involved weekly reading of scripture to the congregation (acts 15:21).
Josephus records that the entire point of gathering together on the sabbath was so that every person in the commuity would obtain a thorough and accurate knowledge of scripture.
In Luke 4 and Acts 13 we also see that this synagogue reading was done by people who were not a part of the local religious leadership, and was done in a language the people could understand.
We also see in the New Testament that when Jesus made reference to scripture, he generally appears to expect that the people would know what he was referring to.
The Jewish Mishnah also tells us that it was expected that the weekly Torah portion would be read by seven different people from amongst the congregation. The expectation is that there are many people in a community who can read, but provision is made for those where only one person knows how to read. Jewish tradition also states that it must be translated, if necessary, for those who cannot understand the language the scroll is written in.
The Roman and Orthodox church traditions still to this day involve weekly scripture reading, which goes back to those ancient traditions. Rome did wrong whenever they performed this in Latin despite the fact that the people could not understand Latin. Regardless of that, the point is that the mere existence of this tradition in these churches points back to the fact that they originally got the idea from the Jewish sabbath scripture reading; which was standard practice amongst the pre-Roman early Christian church of reading the scripture to everyone in a language they could understand precisely because they wanted everyone in the community to know the scriptures.
The early church had no power to keep the Bible from anyone, being a persecuted minority for hundreds of years.
I've seen no indictation in the early medieval Roman church era that common access to the scriptures was forbidden.
We don't see in history a greater sense of Rome trying to control the scripture until the middle or late medieval period - but even during and before that time there existed many translations of the Bible into common languages which were not opposed by the Roman church. Rome's historical tolerance of translations varied with the region and the times and seems to often have more to do with reacting to "heretical" groups or views associated with those translations.
I don't have any need to defend the practices of the Roman medieval church, because I recognize there was a very real need for the reformation that helped bring us back to something that was closer to apostalic church models - however, we have to be accurate in our depiction of what was really going on in the medieval era with regards to Bible access.
I am sorry it took two weeks to respond, but I've been too busy to be able to take the amount of time necessary to write this post all at once.
There are many traditions of men which have come into the church over two thousand years, but the view of God I gave you is one that comes from scripture - not tradition.
If you think the view of God I gave is not consistent with scripture then I invite you to point out why.
There's nothing in history to support that assertion. The New Testament as we know it was already established long before Christianity was the official religion of the empire, and the early church had no power to force the acceptance or rejection of books on anyone while it was a persecuted minority for hundreds of years. This attests to the fact that what the church passed down over centuries was from a genuine recieved apostalic tradition, not the result of later addition or subtraction.
We also see from early church writers and canon lists from across the Roman empire in the 2nd century that there was almost complete agreement about what books were authentic scripture and which were not, despite the fact that there was no centralized control structure to enforce such agreement. That is also why in the 2nd and 3rd century most of the writings we have perserved are apologetic in nature, because the only weapon Christians had to defend the truth with was through reasoned discourse and appeals to truth.
Even if you wanted to remove the handful of books that don't have unanimous early attestation , it wouldn't change our view of who Jesus is, who God is, or what the gospel message is because we're only talking about a few things like 3 John, 2 Peter, or Jude. The gospels, acts, and most of Paul's letters all have tremendous early witness in early writings. And while a few places might have regarded things like the Shepherd of Hermas as scripture, you won't find those kinds of writings are going to contradict what the scripture tells us on fundamental doctrinal truths.
None of the outright heretical or gnostic plagarisms that appeared in the late 2nd century have any attestation or witness whatsoever among the early church writings.
We know that's not true of the early church from history. There is reference to scripture being publically read in the early church, both old and new testament, following the custom of the Jewish synagogue.
We know synagogue involved weekly reading of scripture to the congregation (acts 15:21).
Josephus records that the entire point of gathering together on the sabbath was so that every person in the commuity would obtain a thorough and accurate knowledge of scripture.
In Luke 4 and Acts 13 we also see that this synagogue reading was done by people who were not a part of the local religious leadership, and was done in a language the people could understand.
We also see in the New Testament that when Jesus made reference to scripture, he generally appears to expect that the people would know what he was referring to.
The Jewish Mishnah also tells us that it was expected that the weekly Torah portion would be read by seven different people from amongst the congregation. The expectation is that there are many people in a community who can read, but provision is made for those where only one person knows how to read. Jewish tradition also states that it must be translated, if necessary, for those who cannot understand the language the scroll is written in.
The Roman and Orthodox church traditions still to this day involve weekly scripture reading, which goes back to those ancient traditions. Rome did wrong whenever they performed this in Latin despite the fact that the people could not understand Latin. Regardless of that, the point is that the mere existence of this tradition in these churches points back to the fact that they originally got the idea from the Jewish sabbath scripture reading; which was standard practice amongst the pre-Roman early Christian church of reading the scripture to everyone in a language they could understand precisely because they wanted everyone in the community to know the scriptures.
The early church had no power to keep the Bible from anyone, being a persecuted minority for hundreds of years.
I've seen no indictation in the early medieval Roman church era that common access to the scriptures was forbidden.
We don't see in history a greater sense of Rome trying to control the scripture until the middle or late medieval period - but even during and before that time there existed many translations of the Bible into common languages which were not opposed by the Roman church. Rome's historical tolerance of translations varied with the region and the times and seems to often have more to do with reacting to "heretical" groups or views associated with those translations.
I don't have any need to defend the practices of the Roman medieval church, because I recognize there was a very real need for the reformation that helped bring us back to something that was closer to apostalic church models - however, we have to be accurate in our depiction of what was really going on in the medieval era with regards to Bible access.
Last edited:
The Nicene Creed (declaring the nature of Jesus) was written in the 4th century, a thousand years before the printing press - yet the protestant reformers (who rejected everything about church tradition, embracing a doctrine of "scripture alone") had no trouble seeing the truth of the Nicene creed within the scripture itself. They had no trouble rejecting anything else about the Roman church that did not line up with scripture. They would have no need to align themselves to the Nicene creed unless they actually found it to be an accurate reflection of truth contained within the scripture.
Furthermore, we see from early church writings from the 2nd century that the Nicene creed was not some invention of the 4th century, but merely a reflection of what Christians had believed from the earliest times based on apostalic teaching and scripture.
Ignatius, writing around 110 AD, in his letter to the Ephesains, says:
"For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan . . ."
He further says:
"Consequently all magic and every kind of spell were dissolved, the ignorance so characteristic of wickedness vanished, and the ancient kingdom was abolished, when God appeared in human form to bring the newness of eternal life . . ."
Polycarp, one who was around to personally speak with the apostles and learned from John, writing in his letter to the Smyrnaeans says:
"I glorify Jesus Christ, the God who made you so wise . . ."
We also see distinct recognition of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in early church writings:
"O Lord God almighty . . . I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever," -Polycarp
"For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water," -Justin Martyr
"In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever, - Ignatius
"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith . . . one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all . . . '" -Irenaeus
"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation . . . [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit," -Tertullian
To summarize: we see both a recognition that there is only one God, and Jesus is God, yet the Son is also distinct from Father and the Holy Spirit.
We also see in the 3rd century, long before the council of Nicea, the the language of trinity and the doctrinal concept is being used by Origen:
"If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority . . . There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father," -Origen
"For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit,"-Origen
"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification, -Origen
I must state that I do not consider Origen the most reliable source for apostalic truth considering that he lived in the 3rd century - However, I quote him because he demonstrates for us that not only was the concept of the trinity around a century before the Council of Nicea, but even the word was being used as a theological definition for that concept. We can therefore see the Nicean creed was a natural way of explaining the nature of God that developed out of the apostalic scripture and teachings.
Last edited:
It doesn't need to, because it's merely a theological word that describes a concept seen in scripture.
Similar to how "ominscience" is a theological word used to describe a concept we see in the Bible that God knows everything. It is an accurate description of a concept seen in scripture even if the word "omniscience" doesn't appear anywhere in scripture.
As for the Biblical basis of the Trinity, there is no lack of scripture concerning this topic....
Scriptures concerning the connection between God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit:
Matthew 28:19
2 Corinthians 13:14
Ephesians 4:4-7
Jude 1:20-21
The Holy Spirit is linked with the Spirit of God
1 Corinthians 2:10-11
Acts 5:3-4
John 4:24
The Holy Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of Jesus
John 14:26
Philippians 1:19
Acts 16:7
Jesus equal with God:
John 5:18
Philippians 2:6-8
Jesus is linked with God
Philippians 2:9-11 ("Lord" is the term the Jews used in substitution of the old testament name Yahveh, regarding it as too holy to speak. The hebrew word for Lord was adoni, the greek kyrios).
You see that Paul is quoting a passage from Isaiah 45:22-23 where the word YHVH is used instead of Lord.
Romans 14:11, Paul quotes from Isaiah 45 again but this time uses the term Theos (God), thereby explicitly linking Jesus (Lord, YHVH, Kyrios) with God the Father.
John 1:1-2
John 1:14-15
John 20:28
Jude 1:4
Additionally, we have the "I AM" statements by Jesus in the Gospel of John. Whenever he says "I am", such as in John 8:58 or John 8:35, he is referring back to verses like Exodus 3:14 and Isaiah 47:8. Which is why the people sought to stone him, equating himself to God. All throughout the OT God reveals himself through the use of "I am" phrases.
Jesus is synonymous with God as Judge:
Romans 2:16, Romans 14:10-12, 1 Corinthians 4:5 (All throughout scripture of the old testament, God is said to be the one who will judge man).
Jesus is synonymous with God's love:
Romans 8:38-39
Jesus is synonymous with God as Creator of everything:
John 1:3
Colossians 1:16
1 Corinthians 8:6
Romans 11:36
Isaiah 40:26
Neheimah 9:6 (YHVH)
Genesis 1:1 (Elohim)
Isaiah 45:7 (YHVH)
Genesis 1:3-4 (Elohim)
Isaiah 66:2 (YHVH)
Ephesians 3:9 (Theos, equivalent of Elohim in Greek)
Psalm 96:5 (YHVH)
Jeremiah 10:11
Isaiah 45:18
Psalm 100:3
Psalm 139:13
YHVH and Elohim are also shown to be the same, both being creator, in both old and new testament:
Isaiah 37:16 (Uses both YHVH and Elohim, where LORD and God is)
Revelation 4:11 (Uses both Kyrios and Theos, which are the Greek equivalents in the pre-christian Seputagint version of the Old Testament)
Both Jesus and God were together before Creation; And we were created in the image of God, as revealed through Jesus:
John 17:5
John 8:58
John 16:28
Genesis 1:26
Hebrews 1:3
John 14:9
John 10:30
Genesis 5:1
Genesis 9:6
Jesus and God are synonymous in their ability to know the people who follow God:
Numbers 16:5
1 Corinthians 8:3
Galatians 4:9
John 10:14
2 Timothy 2:19
No one knows God except Jesus (the word know implying an intimate connection)
Matthew 11:27 , John 10:15
Only God is said to be all knowing, all seeing, omnipresent, with perfect knowledge, and he is the only one in existence like this.
Isaiah 46:10
Isaiah 42:9
Isaiah 44:7
Daniel 2:27-28
Psalm 147:4
Isaiah 40:26
Job 37:15-16
Daniel 2:22
Job 34:21
Job 31:4
Matthew 10:30
Psalm 33:13-15
Psalm 139:2-3
Jeremiah 23:24
Matthew 6:8
1 Chronicles 28:9
Psalm 44:20-21
Psalm 139:1-2
Jeremiah 17:10
Ezekiel 11:5
Hebrews 4:12-13
Genesis 20:6
1 Samuel 16:7
Jeremiah 16:17
Acts 2:23
Acts 4:27-28
Romans 8:29
Jereimah 1:5
Romans 11:2
Psalm 139:4
Deuteronomy 31:21
Hebrews 4:13
Ecclesiastes 12:14
Romans 2:16
1 Corinthians 4:5
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all referred to as having the trait of "all knowing", linking them together as one. You can also find these traits linked with both the use of the words Elohim and YHVH in the verses I gave above.
1 John 3:20, John 16:30, John 21:17, 1 Corinthians 2:10-11, 1 Corinthians 4:5 (Jesus is referred to as Lord)
There is only one God, there never was another, and there will never be another:
Deuteronomy 6:4
John 10:30
Isaiah 43:10
Isaiah 44:6
Isaiah 44:8
Isaiah 45:5
Isaiah 45:14
Isaiah 45:18
Isaiah 46:9
Isaiah 47:8
John 17:3
1 corinthians 8:5-6
So the fact that there is only one God, yet the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit share all these attributes and roles that are said to be true only of the one true God, we must conclude that these are not three equal Gods but are one God.
As you can see above, there's a lot more to the concept of the trinity than just that one statement made by Jesus; and that's not even all the Bible has to say on the subject.
A detailed look at comparing scripture forces us to conclude that Jesus and the Father are the same God in unity despite being distinct, rather than being two separate Gods.
Last edited:
It is no surprise that we find archeology evidence of people worshipping other Gods alongside YHVH when the Bible explicitly tells us that Israel was involved in this sin and was carried away into captivity because of it.
However, your assertion that this was seen as a normal expression of Biblical faith in God, rather than an abberation of legitimate Biblical worship of God, is proveably wrong - Both scripturally and historically.
Scripturally because the idolatrous worship of other Gods, and worship of God in pagan ways, was expressly condemned by God and resulted in judgement upon the Israelites.
In fact, we see in Jeremiah 44:15-23 what is quite probably a direct reference to Israel's idolatrous and blasohemous pairing of God with an idol as wife when it refers to them worshipping the so-called "queen of heaven".
Furthermore, we know from archeology that the name they gave the consort of YHVH was "Asherah"; and guess what is says about Asherah in the Bible:
It is expressly forbidden to practice the worship of Asherah - Deuteronomy 16:21
It is linked with idolatrous practices that led Israel astray from the one true God and provoked His anger - Judges 6:25, Judges 6:28, 1 Kings 15:13, 1 Kings 16:33, 2 Kings 13:6, 2 Kings 17:16, 2 Kings 21:3, 2 Kings 21:7, 2 Kings 23:4-7, 2 Kings 23:15, 2 Chronicles 15:16, Micah 5:14.
It was the prophets of Asherah that were the idolatrous false prophets opposing Elijah, the ones who led the nation of Israel into disasterous abandonment of YHVH under Ahab - 1 Kings 18:19
Historically, we can see when the Jews came back from Babylonian captivity, and even moreso after asserting their independence over greek influence, idolatry was no longer a major issue for the Jewish people. They worshipped the one true God - and no longer tried to corrupt the worship of YHVH by attaching pagan symbolism, rituals, and deities onto what God had revealed and commanded to them. Their biggest problem by the time Jesus came on the scene was rebellion in the sense of demanding adherence to man made authority over the authority of God's true commands (legalism), and the pride associated with it.
Historically we don't see evidence of this dual alliegence to idols and YHVH at the same time during the 2nd temple period, especially around the time of Jesus.
So it's very odd that you would try to claim that polytheism was the natural state of Judaism when everything in scripture was against it and idolatrous worship of other Gods was given as the cause of their exile from the land. Furthermore it ceased to be the practiced by the Jewsish people long before Jesus appeared on the scene, and it's practice has never been taken up again by Jews - because that is what happens when you actually try to follow what the Bible says.
As I established already in this post using the scripture, it can be shown there there is only one God. Jesus would not condemn that which God has declared to be true through His prophets in the Bible.
If there is anything I have stated about what LDS scripture or doctrine says about the nature of God and Jesus then I welcome you to point out what specifically I got wrong, and why.
I don't see anything in your post that points out how any of the statements I made was not in line with what the LDS believe.
I have to ask you first what do you mean by virgin, in light of what Mormon leaders have said:
"The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood--was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers," -Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 115
"Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers," -Bruce McConkie (member of first council of seventy), Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 547
""For our present purposes, suffice it to say that our Lord was born of a virgin, which is fitting and proper, and also natural, since the Father of the Child was an immortal Being" -Bruce McConkie, The Promised MEssiah, pg 466.
"And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, . . . Christ is the Son of Man, meaning that his Father (the Eternal God!) is a Holy Man," -Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, p. 742).
"The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated in the capacity of husband and wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term lawful wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully........He had a lawful right to overshadow the Virgin Mary IN THE CAPACITY OF A HUSBAND, and beget a Son.......Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time and eternity, we are not informed. It may be that He only gave her to be the wife of Joseph while in this mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity." -"Apostle" Orson Pratty
So essentially they are claiming that Mary had a sexual relationship with God the Father in order to produce Jesus the Son, yet she is still considered a virgin because God is immortal.
That would be nonsense because the word "virgin" loses all sense of it's meaning if you try to claim that someone can have sex and still be a virgin.
The implication in the Bible when it says Mary "has known no man" in Luke 1:34 is that she has no had any intercourse with a man.
I'd must point out that this was actually the only issue you even tried to deny as untrue out of my long list of what Mormons believe. If you are trying to tell me that you don't take issue with the other things I stated, then you've got much bigger theological contradictions to be dealing with between the LDS writings and the Bible than just the issue of Mary's virginity. Mary at that point becomes the least conccerning of the things on that list when everything Mormon writings teach about the nature of God, Jesus, and the purpose and plan of God, stands in direct opposition to Biblical truth. There are no greater core fundamental truths in the Bible than those issues - You cannot contradict those with nonbiblical writings and still claim to be following a Bible based faith in the one true God.
You can see in the extensive list of verses I gave that the scripture lists both God and Jesus as the source of creation, using all terms that refer to God in multiple languages (Elohim, YHVH, Jesus, Kyrios, and Theos).
This is where the trinitarian aspect of Jesus per-existing before creation with the Father comes in. It can be suggested when he said "let us make man in our image" that it was the Father conversing with the Son.
There is theological debate about what exactly the Beni'Elohim (Sons of God, often translated as Angels) refers to exactly; and therefore debate over what is meant exactly when God said "let us make man in our image" (was the Father talking to the Son, or the Son talking to the Beni'Elohim which could be angels?)...
However, such questions ultimately don't matter when it comes to establishing whether or not Mormonism is consistent with the Bible - because regardless of what debate may exist over the Beni'Elohim; there are three things which we can be absolutely certain about based on the scriptures (many of which I listed already):
1. That Jesus existed before creation with God.
2. That Jesus is God.
3. That through Jesus, God, creation came into being.
Yet, LDS writings and doctrines contradict those Biblical truths. So at that point it doesn't really matter what Beni'Elohim means in the context of Genesis 1 with regards to whether or not Mormonism is true, because we already know that LDS views cannot be reconciled with what the Bible says is true.
Last edited:
You have God visiting Abraham and eating with him as well.
What you must not realize, based on other scriptures, is why this necessitates a trinitarian understanding of God's nature - because it is the only thing consistent with all of scripture.
We also know from scripture that no one has seen God.
John 1:18
1 John 4:12
1 Timothy 6:16
Yet Moses spoke face to face to Him.
Exodus 33:11
Yet, no one can see God's face and live:
Exodus 33:20
Yet people did see God, and live:
Genesis 32:30
All of this only makes sense when you understand that Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God:
Colossians 1:15
Hebrews 1:3
John 14:9
Through Jesus we can see God in the flesh. Through Jesus God interacts with mankind throughout history in a visible way.
Because we have already established through scripture that God is one, and we see Jesus embodying the same attributes and roles as are ascribed to God, we know that Jesus cannot be some second being in addition to God. He is God Himself, yet we see in scripture that there is a relational distinction between the Son of God and God the Father.
This is where we get trinitiarian doctrine from - It is a theological description of the truths we see in the Bible
I am not opposed to the idea that you can use different terminology to describe the same truth, but ultimately your theological descriptions of God cannot contradict the Bible and still be called consistent with the Bible.
I already gave you a mountain of verses that prove, Biblically, the omniscience of God. The creator verses I gave also demonstrate aspects of his omnipotence.
The Bible also clearly tells us that God is, in addition to omniscient (all-knowing), he is also omnipresent (being everywhere) and omnipotent (all-powerful).
Omnipotent (besides the extensive verses already given about how God creates all things and :
Ephesians 4:6
Ephesians 1:18-23
Hebrews 11:3
Colossians 1:17
Hebrews 1:3
Colossians 1:16
Matthew 28:18
Luke 8:31
Job 5:9
Psalm 72:18
John 3:2
1 Thessalonians 4:15-17
Exodus 7:3
Deuteronomy 32:39
John 10:28
All of Psalm 91
Isaiah 44:24
Psalm 147:5
Jeremiah 25:9
Isaiah 46:10
Romans 9:17, Exodus 9:16
Job 12:23
Isaiah 31:3
Revelation 6:17
John 19:11
Jeremiah 32:17
Genesis 18:14
Mark 9:23
Matthew 17:20
Philippians 4:13
Hebrews 2:8
Isaiah 43:2
I could keep going with more scriptures. The Bible is basically filled cover to cover with examples of God's omnipotence over everything there is to have control over.
Omnipresent (This also ties in with the scriptures on his omniscience; being his ability to see everything everywhere at once)
Psalm 139:7-12
Psalm 11:4
Jeremiah 23:23-24
Proverbs 15:3
Amos 9:2-3
Ephesians 4:6
Genesis 1:31
Revelation 22:13
1 Kings 8:27
Isaiah 66:1
Acts 17:24
Colossians 1:17
Matthew 18:20
Isaiah 57:15
Isaiah 66:1
Psalm 113:4-6
Acts 17:27
Genesis 28:16
Deuteronomy 4:39
Hebrews 13:5
Mormon doctrine about who God is cannot even come close to being reconciled with everything the Bible says about Him. It does not even believe he is all knowing or all powerful, the two attributes you see clearly expressed from beginning to end. Nor does Mormon doctrine recognize God as the creator and originator of all things, when this is expressly stated as one of His defining attributes from beginning to end.
That's pretty basic theology right there. If Mormon doctrine can't even agree with the Bible on that, then there's really no need to even get into the finer points of why Mormon doctrine can't agree with the Bible on who Jesus is and what his relationship to God is; because it's already been established that at the most basic level Mormon doctrine contradicts what the Bible says about the nature of God.
The Mormon idea of what it means to be "The Son of God" is completely different from the Biblical concept of "The Son of God".
There is also a Biblical difference between "The unique" Son of God and "a" son of God.
Jesus is referred to as the "monogenes huios" in John 3:16, which means "the only one of it's kind".
I've gone over many scriptures that establish Jesus is equal to God.
No where is Satan ever given those attributes or roles, nor is anyone else given them.
It is ambigious whether Job is saying that Satan was one of the Beni'Elohim or just showing up...
Regardless, of the debateable issues on the nature of Satan; One thing that is not debateable about scripture is the clear message of who God and Jesus are.
Mormon doctrine is completely in opposition to almost every Biblical point about who God and Jesus are, and what their relationship is, despite the Biblical clarity we have on these issues.
It would at that point be superfluous to even bother debating whether or not the Mormon idea of who Lucifer is consistent with the Bible when their view of God Jesus can be demontrated to be completely the opposite of so many things the Bible clearly says.
I don't shy away from any Biblical verses. I say any view of God has to be consistent with all of scripture taken together.
I could in turn ask you why Mormons choose to ignore, downplay, or explain away the overwhelming mountain of Biblical scripture that shows the unity between God and Jesus, God as creator, or the all knowing and all powerful nature of God.
Older versions of the book of Moron stated that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians. Newer versions stats that they are only "among" the ancestors of the American Indians.
If you want to say the church was wrong when they printed the original introduction, that's ok. However, I'd ask you where do you think they got that conclusion from in the first place, and why did they change it?
It also doesn't matter if those who came to North America were Jews or from other Israelite tribes - Regional genetic markers of north africa and the middle east would show up in their descendants.
The Lemba tribe of southern Africa claim descent from Jews about 2700 years ago. 50% of their Y chromosomes match Jewish populations, but their African neighbors do not have these same chromosomes. Even though they look like their black African neighbors, their genetics prove their ancestry.
If the book of Mormon were true we would expect to see something similar among at least some of the Native American tribes, but we don't.
What you'd have to be asserting is that none of the descendants of those travelers from the middle east survived to pass down their genetic heritage because it is no longer detectable.
It's not just Y-chromsome and mitochondrial DNA data that show east Asian migration either. Even things like the DNA of gut microbial flora and the DNA of the domesticated dogs they carried with them (testing of dog bones from pre-columbian times that is) all point to migration out of east Asia.
You'd have to be more specific about what studies and data you're referring to. There's no way to verify what you're saying otherwise.
I know that Haplogroup X was found among a small population of Native Americans shows that it comes from siberians who had a mix of both west asian and east asian DNA in them. It does not imply that west asians entered North America from a different route or different timeframe than the east asians because this DNA has been found in ancient Siberian remains. This supports the prevailing model that the Siberians migrated over the Bering Strait into North America.
All of which does not support the book of Mormon's account.
Again, I'd need you to cite the specific study, because it doesn't sound like it has any relevance to our ability to chart ancestry back to the middle east.
It is not my intention or desire to mischaracterize Mormon doctrine or writings.
I welcome any correction with LDS sources about what their position is on the issues I bought up.
However, Rrosskopf has already Tried to defend some of the things is stated about Mormon beliefs; and he did not say that any of my statements about LDS belief were wrong aside from one statement about Mary.
This is relevant to the topic because it is a prime example of why it is essential that we have a written basis for discerning truth from fabrications.
2 Corinthians 11:4
Galatians 1:8-9
We are explicitly warned that Satan poses an an angel of light, and we are not to believe any gospel other than that which has been preached by the apostles even if an angel were to deliver it to us.
Jospeh Smith gets a new gospel delivered to him by an angel of light, and goes on to write things that directly contradict the Bible on essential and fundamental points.
The Bible cannot be true and Joseph Smith also true.
That is why it is dangerous for new Christians untrained in spiritual discernment to not use the Bible as their baseline for measuring truth against; otherwise it is extremely easy for people to be led away by all manner of false teachings that will often estrange them from relationship with the one true God and His salvation.
Matthew 7:21-23
Last edited:
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
@Deidre (was thinking) the bible only has errors when you see it as words (cultural influence and many translations, etc)
The Bible has no errors when you know Christ is the Word not the Bible.
No language can be translated into another without some linguistic and cultural error. However, it depends on where you place your faith: in words or the Word. John 5:39
The Bible has no errors when you know Christ is the Word not the Bible.
No language can be translated into another without some linguistic and cultural error. However, it depends on where you place your faith: in words or the Word. John 5:39
rrosskopf
LDS High Priest
Yes, there is. The Nag Hammadi books were culled from the canon of scripture because they didn't agree with popular positions.
Yes, they were publically read - because most men didn't know how to read. Most Hebrew men could read, but most of the gentiles could not. Never-the-less I was referring to the Catholic stance of denying books of scripture to anyone but priests. Being found in the possession of a book of scripture could result in severe punishment.
"We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books." - Canon 14, Council of Toulouse
""It is dangerous, as St. Jerome declares, to translate the text of Holy Scriptures out of one idiom into another, since it is not easy in translations to preserve exactly the same meaning in all things. We therefore command and ordain that henceforth no one translate the text of Holy Scripture into English or any other language as a book, booklet, or tract, of this kind lately made in the time of the said John Wyclif or since, or that hereafter may be made, either in part or wholly, either publicly or privately, under pain of excommunication, until such translation shall have been approved and allowed by the Provincial Council. He who shall act otherwise let him be punished as an abettor of heresy and error." - 3rd Synod of Oxford
You are making my point! They read the scriptures with their preconceptions in place, and saw their own traditions. The tradition came before the scripture.
The whole Nicene council was an abomination from start to finish. First of all, it was started at the direction of a pagan Emperor. Secondly, the issues were to be decided by vote, and not by revelation from God. The arguments against the Nicene Creed were also scriptural, and compelling. Thirdly, it was the Emperor's shill that drafted the Nicene Creed. The Emperor wore these fantastic purple robes studded with emeralds and rubies, and the bishops bowed and worshipped the beast. All but two signed the document. The two bishops who stood up for the truth were exiled, and anyone caught with books teaching that Jesus was the actual Son of God were to be put to death. The whole thing, from start to finish, was the work of the devil.
None of the 1st or 2nd century Christians believed that Jesus was equal to God; all believed in some form of Subordinationism. When Subordinationism fell out of fashion, hundreds of years later, the Trinity was born.
rrosskopf
LDS High Priest
He also said "Be subject to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ in the flesh was subject to the Father and the apostles were subject to Christ and the Father, so that there may be unity both fleshly and spiritual."
That is a clear indication that he believed in Subordinationism, not Trinitarianism. Jesus was subordinate to his Father. He did add the caveat "in the flesh", suggesting that his relationship with his father might change after his death... but why would it? Both Father and Son have very specific definitions in our society and in theirs. Why would God mislead us, if he didn't really have a son? And what gives Ignatius the right to define scripture? Why not believe Clement of Rome who was a peer of Ignatius? "Let all the heathen know that thou [the Father] art God alone, and that Jesus Christ is thy Servant..."
Justin Martyr lived in the 2nd century and even he believed in subordinationism. "I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, of the truth of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things"
Tertullian continues this doctrine in his day: "Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, in as much as he who begets is one, and he who is begotten is another; he, too, who sends is one, and he who is sent is another; and he, again, who makes is one, and he through whom the thing is made is another."
The Protestants didn't go far enough. They should have rejected the Trinity as well.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Actually, you can't. You can show where you think contradictions exist, but when LDS doctrine is correctly understood, it does not in any way contradict the Bible.
So now angels are inherently evil, huh? The doctrines believed by most Christian today are absolutely not "that which [was] preached by the apostles." Galatians and other books in the Bible caution of the apostasy that was beginning to take place even in the late first and early second centuries. Even in Old Testament times, God's prophets warned that the time would come when the word of the Lord would not be found anywhere in the world.
In Amos 8:11-12, we are told, "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; 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."
Contrary to most other Christian denominations, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contends that this prophesy did, in fact, come to pass, and that shortly after the deaths of Christ's Apostles, the Church He personally established ceased to exist in its original form -- in other words that there was, for many, many years, a famine in the world "a famine of hearing the words of the Lord" and that, regardless of where one might wander in search of God's word, it could not be found.
Throughout the New Testament, the Apostles also warned that this was to happen. Paul seemed particularly concerned about the infant Church and frequently voiced his concerns to the early Christians. Among his statements to Christ's followers, are these:
Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition…
Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel…
2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears…
Paul made it absolutely clear that (1) the flock would not only be attacked, it would not be spared, (2) Christ would not return to the earth until this universal "falling away" or "apostasy" had taken place, (3) these things were already beginning to take place as he spoke, and (4) the doctrines taught by the Savior would, in time, cease to endure.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds that during the first few centuries after the Savior and His Apostles died, Christianity began to evolve into something quite different than it had originally been. While the Apostles, who assumed leadership over the Church after Christ's death, undoubtedly did everything within their power to preserve and strengthen the Church, there were, unfortunately, other forces at work. Within a matter of just a few years following their deaths, the simplicity and purity of Christ’s teachings had begun to undergo some rather significant changes. Greek philosophical thought corrupted such basic doctrines as the true nature of God and man’s relationship to Him, as learned but uninspired men sought to make this new religion more acceptable to the masses, and especially to the non-Jewish convert. Finally, and probably most important of all, God withdrew His priesthood from the earth. What did this mean? It meant that there was no one left who held the authority to act in His name. With God no longer directing the affairs of His Church, man was on his own. Through debate and discussion, by vote and by compromise, what we now know as “mainstream” Christianity emerged.
Religious scholars describe this as "The Helenization of Christianity." We call it simply, "The Great Apostasy."
Does this mean that Christianity ceased to exist entirely? No. There have been devout Christians ever since the time of Christ. But the "fullness" of His gospel was taken from the earth, just as the ancient prophets said it would be.
That's where you're wrong. It wasn't a "new gospel" at all. It was a reestablishment of the gospel Jesus Christ had taught but which men changed after His death. Revelation 14:6 speaks of the last days and says, "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..." Why in the world would it be necessary for God to send an angel with the everlasting gospel if it was already here?
Why don't you just preface that statement with, "In my opinion," because that's all it really is. Over 15 million people would disagree with you. You can simply dismiss what they say, but that doesn't make your opinion a "fact."
Yeah, and it's particularly dangerous for any Christian to rely solely on the Bible, when Paul pointed out that prophets and apostles were to be a part of the Church Christ established until we all came into a unity of the faith.
Last edited:
rrosskopf
LDS High Priest
The context of John 5:18 is all wrong for what you are trying to prove. It was the Sadducees and Pharisees that thought Jesus was making himself equal to God. Jesus taught that he was the son of God, therefore subordinate and not equal.
Philippians 2:6-8 appears on the surface to vindicate your thesis, but the verses that follow your quote destroy any thought of the Trinity.
"Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,to the glory of God the Father."
If by "equal" you mean the same person, then the scripture destroys that view, as they are clearly treated as separate entities. If by "equal" you mean that they have the same glory, then that view is destroyed as well, as all glory goes to the Father.
You have amassed a ton of scriptures to support your view, but without understanding our views, you are missing the target every time. We believe that Jesus is the Lord Jehovah, the God of Israel. We accept all of those scriptures that you referenced at face value. Where we disagree is whether Jehovah is God the Father. One of his titles is "father", but it doesn't follow that he is God the Father.
This isn't Isaiah talking, but Hezekiah. He is the one who ordered that the Brazen Serpent of Moses, which represented the Son of God, be taken out of the Temple, where it had resided for hundreds of years, and be melted down. He is the one that brought the heresy of monotheism to the Jews. I imagine that he would have been first in line to stone Jesus. The Sadducees and Pharisees were certainly adhering to his teachings.
Really? Do I really need to examine all of these references? Did you read all of these references? Or are you just posting someone else's list?
"Only I can tell you the future before it even happens. Everything I plan will come to pass, for I do whatever I wish." - Isaiah 46:10
The person speaking is Jehovah, the God of Israel. He is speaking to Isaiah, an Israelite. He is the only one who can tell Isaiah the future before it happens; he is the God of Israel, assigned by God Almighty to be the God of Israel. He is a spokesman for God. Of course, Isaiah can turn around and tell anyone else the future, as it is revealed to him by God, just as he is doing here. If this is the best scripture in the list, then you have no hope of proving your assertion.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
What if they were correct to worship the original pantheon and after some prophets decided to monopolize the god they worshipped, the world went to hell because the other gods were angered at being ignored?
It's expressly condemned by the authors.
What if it's really like a polygamist throwing all of his wives out in the cold save one? Would that be moral?
Priests and prophets got food and other presents/tributes from the public. Polytheism meant food and cool stuff that could go to them were going to others. They have an economic incentive to promote the "only" way.