Changing the Bible

[benjosh]

BenJosh, I'm curious why a need for a book with revelation being so alive and all.

~Victor

Victor, People bounce back and forth like ping pong balls. I am obviously using scripture in my posts. Seldom does anyone respond with scripture, And, scripture is the best way to test the context of another scripture.
SO, why be extreme?
I guess I am supposed to ping to your pong.
SO, here goes.
Victor, you never, never, never, ever use scripture. So, you must be anti-scripture.
As Paul said, I speak as a fool.


BenJOsh

 

[Scuba Pete]

Hey,

I use quite a bit of scripture in my replies!

 

[TheGreaterGame]

Says who?

Says the Councils . . . there are no Apostles of Christ walking around these days . . . when they passed on . . . the inspired writings ceased, regardless of how many tales you hear of Jesus visiting 15 year old New York Treasure seekers who practice black magic . . . the writings are finished :woohoo:

 

[benjosh]

Says the Councils . . . there are no Apostles of Christ walking around these days . . . when they passed on . . . the inspired writings ceased, regardless of how many tales you hear of Jesus visiting 15 year old New York Treasure seekers who practice black magic . . . the writings are finished :woohoo:

I don't think you've studied what you are talking about re: Joseph Smith.

BenJosh

 

[Sunstone]

Says the Councils

Do the Councils have authority over God should God decide to send a new prophet?

...15 year old New York Treasure seekers who practice black magic

If you're refering to Joseph Smith, on what authority or evidence do you have for saying he praticed black magic?

 

[jonny]

Says the Councils . . .

I can be a Christian if I accept the creeds of the councils and the Bible.

Can I be a Christian if I reject the creeds of the councils and accept the Bible? From your previous posts on the forums you've made it clear that the answer to this question is no. Doesn't that elevate the creeds above the Bible?

I think its slightly problematic to on one hand claim that nothing can be added to the bible because the cannon is closed and then on the other hand claim that being a true Christian is dependent on non-cannonized interpretations of the scriptures.

 

[jonny]

Says the Councils . . . there are no Apostles of Christ walking around these days . . . when they passed on . . . the inspired writings ceased, regardless of how many tales you hear of Jesus visiting 15 year old New York Treasure seekers who practice black magic . . . the writings are finished :woohoo:

To clear this up (not that it has ANYTHING to do with this thread), Joseph Smith and his father, in 1825 (age 20), worked for a man who believed that he had located the site of a Spanish mine in New York. After a few weeks Joseph Smith convinced them to abandon the project and returned home.

This was at the same time that Joseph Smith was having the visions regarding the Book of Mormon and the man who had hired Joseph learned of his "gift." Joseph Smith had what he believed was a seer stone and people asked him to help them find lost property using the stone. The man who had hired them earlier asked Joseph Smith to assist them with locating the Spanish mine using the stone.

One mistake that many people make when looking at history is that they judge people by the standards that we have today. People were looking for treasures back then - look at the Gold Rush. There is an interesting chapter on this in Joseph Smith's new biography by Richard Bushman.

Here are a couple quotes:

"Buried treasure was tied into a great stock of magical practices extending back many centuries. Eighteenth-century rationalism had failed to stamp out belief in pre-natural powers aiding and opposing human enterprise. Enlightened newspaper editors and ministers scoffed at the superstitions of common people but were unalbe to erase them. Ordinary people apparantly had no difficulty blending Christianity with magic. Willard Chase, the most vigorous of the Manchester treasure-seekers,was a Methodist class leader at the time he knew the Smiths, and in his obituary was described as a minister. At the time he employed Joseph to use his stone to find Spanish bullion, Josiah Stowell was an upright Presbyterian and an honored man in his community. The so-called credulity of the money-diggers can be read as evidence of their general faith in invisible forces. Christian belief in angels and devils blended with belief in guardian spirits and magical powers."


If you want to read more, get the book. If you want to discuss it more, you should start a thread on it.

Joseph Smith himself admitted that he had problems with seeking treasure, which is why he wasn't allowed to take the Golden plates the first time he saw them. It took him four years to overcome this greed and finally receive the plates.

Instead of critisizing an imperfect man for his imperfections, we should learn from him. The story of Joseph Smith and the treasure seeking is a great analogy for where we should place our hearts - not on the treasures of this world, but on the treasures of God.

 

[jonny]

I don't think you've studied what you are talking about re: Joseph Smith.

BenJosh

It actually sounds like a fairly accurate regurgitation of anti-Mormon literature. Those writers have perfected the art of slander. They could make a kitten seem satanic.

 

[Scuba Pete]

They could make a kitten seem satanic.

OK,

Show me ONE kitten that isn't satanic! Bwahahahaha!

But truly, I find most anti-LDS tripe to be just as odious as all other bigotry. Like other bigots, they can see it others, but fail to see it in themselves.

 

[michel]

OK,

Show me ONE kitten that isn't satanic! Bwahahahaha!

But truly, I find most anti-LDS tripe to be just as odious as all other bigotry. Like other bigots, they can see it others, but fail to see it in themselves.

Nicely said! Fruball time!

 

[benjosh]

One mistake that many people make when looking at history is that they judge people by the standards that we have today. People were looking for treasures back then - look at the Gold Rush. There is an interesting chapter on this in Joseph Smith's new biography by Richard Bushman.

Here are a couple quotes:

"Buried treasure was tied into a great stock of magical practices extending back many centuries. Eighteenth-century rationalism had failed to stamp out belief in pre-natural powers aiding and opposing human enterprise. Enlightened newspaper editors and ministers scoffed at the superstitions of common people but were unalbe to erase them. Ordinary people apparantly had no difficulty blending Christianity with magic. Willard Chase, the most vigorous of the Manchester treasure-seekers,was a Methodist class leader at the time he knew the Smiths, and in his obituary was described as a minister. At the time he employed Joseph to use his stone to find Spanish bullion, Josiah Stowell was an upright Presbyterian and an honored man in his community. The so-called credulity of the money-diggers can be read as evidence of their general faith in invisible forces. Christian belief in angels and devils blended with belief in guardian spirits and magical powers."




Jonny, the subject of Joseph Smith and the so-called "gold digging" events is not really off the subject of this thread.

The Bible, and changing it, as it has been discussed in most of these posts, shows that rationalism almost dominates all the discussions on this board (varies from thread to thread).

The belief that God can speak directly to individuals just irks the heck out of the ones whose tool bags have only rational tools.

Natural science has now intersected the supernatural, unexplainable world and some people are calling it Intelligent Design. Mystery and rational thinking have heretofore been thought of as mutually exclusive. They are not. They are opposite ends of the human experience. Some go too far out on their limbs, stay there too long and break off from the full spectrum of truth.

BenJosh

 

[James the Persian]

No the Canon is closed.

So, how many books do you have in your closed canon? You sound like a Protestant so I'd guess it's 66. The problem with that is that by the time of the last councils, the canon contained more books than that and, in fact, there were at least 3 different canons in use by different churches prior to Chalcedon and all 3 still are in use by non-Protestant churches today. The largest is the Ethiopian canon (an OO church), next comes the Orthodox canon and last the RC canon, but even the latter have more books than the Protestants. If the canon was closed (presumably before the Reformation) then what right did the Reformers have to tinker with it? Or, do you believe that it is legitimate to take books out of the canon but not add them in?

I actually agree with you that, practically speaking, it is very unlikely that books will be added to the canon, but the idea of a single fixed canon is overly simplistic to say the least. Your answer, then, that the canon is closed is not really much of an answer at all. Your subsequent argument that the inspired writings ceased after the deaths of the Apostles likewise holds little water with me and seems to speak of an overly black and white idea of what is or is not inspired. There are many writings that read as inspired to me, some of which are even as old as those that are to be found in the NT. If your criterion for excluding such writings is that they were written after the inspired writings ceased then why can't you add texts such as the Shepherd of Hermas or the Didache. Not only are these as old as the NT canon but they were considered for a long time (before the formalisation of the 5th century) to be a part of it by many.

James

 

[Quiddity]

Victor, People bounce back and forth like ping pong balls. I am obviously using scripture in my posts. Seldom does anyone respond with scripture, And, scripture is the best way to test the context of another scripture.
SO, why be extreme?
I guess I am supposed to ping to your pong.
SO, here goes.
Victor, you never, never, never, ever use scripture. So, you must be anti-scripture.
As Paul said, I speak as a fool.


BenJOsh

BenJosh, you had already answered this here:

Because we are not designed by God to be all subjective nor all objective, The truth is in the middle.

My going around with Energize is because he seems to say the objective is everything. But that may not actually be what he is saying. SO, we counterbalance one another.

It's the old horse and carriage thing . . . . you can't have one without the other.

And I responded with:

In the middle?

Certainly you can. God can so choose to reveal himself and accomplish what you are talking about. His revelations alone are both objective and subjective because he hardly ever says everything about Himself, does He?

~Victor

Nonetheless you brought up a different point in your last post that went over my head. Why do you think I'm anti-scripture?

~Victor

 

[Katzpur]

Says the Councils . . . there are no Apostles of Christ walking around these days . . . when they passed on . . . the inspired writings ceased, regardless of how many tales you hear of Jesus visiting 15 year old New York Treasure seekers who practice black magic . . . the writings are finished :woohoo:

Oh, I see now! So the guys got together and voted that God was through talking, huh? :biglaugh: What kind of a person would put himself in the position of telling God to shut up? Oh, excuse me. I forgot who I was talking to!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So, how many books do you have in your closed canon? You sound like a Protestant so I'd guess it's 66. The problem with that is that by the time of the last councils, the canon contained more books than that and, in fact, there were at least 3 different canons in use by different churches prior to Chalcedon and all 3 still are in use by non-Protestant churches today. The largest is the Ethiopian canon (an OO church), next comes the Orthodox canon and last the RC canon, but even the latter have more books than the Protestants. If the canon was closed (presumably before the Reformation) then what right did the Reformers have to tinker with it? Or, do you believe that it is legitimate to take books out of the canon but not add them in?

I actually agree with you that, practically speaking, it is very unlikely that books will be added to the canon, but the idea of a single fixed canon is overly simplistic to say the least. Your answer, then, that the canon is closed is not really much of an answer at all. Your subsequent argument that the inspired writings ceased after the deaths of the Apostles likewise holds little water with me and seems to speak of an overly black and white idea of what is or is not inspired. There are many writings that read as inspired to me, some of which are even as old as those that are to be found in the NT. If your criterion for excluding such writings is that they were written after the inspired writings ceased then why can't you add texts such as the Shepherd of Hermas or the Didache. Not only are these as old as the NT canon but they were considered for a long time (before the formalisation of the 5th century) to be a part of it by many.

James

The RC canon was "closed" at the Council of Trent, including the Apocryphal books because the Reformers did not include them.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The belief that God can speak directly to individuals just irks the heck out of the ones whose tool bags have only rational tools.

Natural science has now intersected the supernatural, unexplainable world and some people are calling it Intelligent Design. Mystery and rational thinking have heretofore been thought of as mutually exclusive. They are not. They are opposite ends of the human experience. Some go too far out on their limbs, stay there too long and break off from the full spectrum of truth.

BenJosh

From wikipedia "supernatural":
The supernatural (Latin: super- "exceeding" + nature) refers to forces and phenomena which are beyond the current scientific understanding and concept of nature, and which may actually directly contradict conventional scientific understandings. Concepts in the supernatural domain are closely related to concepts in religious spirituality and metaphysics.

Those asserting the occurrence of supernatural events and entities usually describe them as having been observed or experienced firsthand, but as being so unique that they cannot be systematically observed, recorded, or studied. Examples include sightings of angels, healings, creationism, and communications with the dead.

Those denying the plausibility of supernatural events typically define them as events which cannot be perceived by natural or empirical senses, and whose understanding may be said to lie with religious, magical, or otherwise mysterious explanation—yet remains firmly outside of the realm of science.

-----
-----

How can the natural intersect the supernatural? The two concepts are wholly mutually exclusive. Natural science is a study of nature (hense the term) and the supernatural is the claim that something exists outside of nature. If anyone takes evidence from nature and tries to make conclusions about something wholly unrelated to nature, then the evidence does not match the conclusions, and therefore the conclusions are baseless.

Science and the supernatural may be opposite ends of the human experience, meaning that they are wholly unrelated and mutually exclusive ends of human experience. The natural experience may be reviewed by natural science. We'll never know if there is anything supernatural about humans, which is why we need faith to believe in the supernatural rather than the false hope that we will discover the supernatural (God) with natural methods.

 

[Quiddity]

The RC canon was "closed" at the Council of Trent, including the Apocryphal books because the Reformers did not include them.

Incorrect, The Council of Carthage in 397 did it for us.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

~Victor

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Incorrect, The Council of Carthage in 397 did it for us.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

~Victor

Did you even read that article? From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm:

"The Catholic New Testament, as defined by the Council of Trent, does not differ, as regards the books contained, from that of all Christian bodies at present. Like the Old Testament, the New has its deuterocanonical books and portions of books, their canonicity having formerly been a subject of some controversy in the Church. These are for the entire books: the Epistle to the Hebrews, that of James, the Second of St. Peter, the Second and Third of John, Jude, and Apocalypse; giving seven in all as the number of the New Testament contested books. The formerly disputed passages are three: the closing section of St. Mark's Gospel, xvi, 9-20 about the apparitions of Christ after the Resurrection; the verses in Luke about the bloody sweat of Jesus, xxii, 43, 44; the Pericope Adulteræ, or narrative of the woman taken in adultery, St. John, vii, 53 to viii, 11. Since the Council of Trent it is not permitted for a Catholic to question the inspiration of these passages."

 

[Quiddity]

Did you even read that article? From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm:

"The Catholic New Testament, as defined by the Council of Trent, does not differ, as regards the books contained, from that of all Christian bodies at present. Like the Old Testament, the New has its deuterocanonical books and portions of books, their canonicity having formerly been a subject of some controversy in the Church. These are for the entire books: the Epistle to the Hebrews, that of James, the Second of St. Peter, the Second and Third of John, Jude, and Apocalypse; giving seven in all as the number of the New Testament contested books. The formerly disputed passages are three: the closing section of St. Mark's Gospel, xvi, 9-20 about the apparitions of Christ after the Resurrection; the verses in Luke about the bloody sweat of Jesus, xxii, 43, 44; the Pericope Adulteræ, or narrative of the woman taken in adultery, St. John, vii, 53 to viii, 11. Since the Council of Trent it is not permitted for a Catholic to question the inspiration of these passages."

You are not understanding. Prior to the Council of Trent people were constantly questioning the Canon of Scripture even though it was finalized in 397. Do some research and see the list of books accepted in the Council of Carthage of 397 vs. the Council of Trent. Did you read the whole thing?

~Victor

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You are not understanding. Prior to the Council of Trent people were constantly questioning the Canon of Scripture even though it was finalized in 397. Do some research and see the list of books accepted in the Council of Carthage of 397 vs. the Council of Trent. Did you read the whole thing?

~Victor

We're on the same page with this then I think. I didn't say that the Church didn't have a canon before that time, merely that it was closed. I have argued elsewhere my views on canonization.