LDS Contradiction of the Bible. Tenable?

[Katzpur]

1) That jesus visited North America (3 Nephi 11:18; 3 Nephi 12:1-2)

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus made no post-resurrection appearances outside of the Holy Land. The gospel accounts end with His ascension into Heaven, but nowhere is it implied that He never did anything beyond that. The Bible is actually silent on the matter entirely except in one instance which could very well be pertaining to such a visit. In John 10:16, Jesus is quoted as having said the following to His followers in the Holy Land: "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." Who were the "other sheep" who would "hear His voice"? Since He has previous stated (in Matthew 15:24), "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel," the "other sheep" that were of a different "fold" but still His would have had to be of the house of Israel. Furthermore, He did not say that other sheep would hear His message (as it would later be taught by His Apostles) but His voice. Whoever He was referring to would have had to be of "the house of Israel" and He would have to be speaking to them Himself.

2) That jesus was not the result of a virgin birth, and that god had literal, physical sex with mary. (1 Ne. 11:18-21; Alma 7:10)

Okay, here's what 1 Nephi 11:18-21 says: "And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh. And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look! And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms. And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?" And Alma 7:10 says, "And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God." Both of these passages actually make a point of the fact that we believe Mary was a virgin, both when she conceived and when she gave birth to her Son. There is absolutely nothing in either of these verses to imply what you're saying.

 

[Katzpur]

And that helped how?

It's a coping mechanism that people fall back on when all else fails.

 

[Skwim]

I actually have no idea where you're coming from in your posts.

You mean it's more confusing than the trinity paradox?

"Revelation And Logic
That three are one is a logical impossibility. It defies mathematical logic conceived as far back as Pythagorus. It also defies Aristotelian logic. Arius was right in asserting that you cannot logically conceive of the transcendent One as three. Plato conceived of the creative demiurge who expressed divine immanence not as the indivisible One, but as the divisible, and decidedly subordinate and unequal, Two.

The early church faced the revealed paradox that God is one, and yet God is three. They did not resolve the paradox. They simply named it."
source​

______________________________________________________________________________________________

"If we read the Bible and take what we read seriously, we must not fall into either one of these extremes. Rather, we must try to remain "at the center of Biblical tension."

As Wayne Grudem put it so simply in his Systematic Theology:

1. God is three persons.
2. Each person is fully God.
3. There is one God.

By definition, this is a paradox. It is illogical. If something is illogical, isn't it, by definition, false? So how can this be true?
I'd say that generally, yes, if something defies the laws of logic, which are the most basic laws of our universe, it must be false."
source​

 

[Scott C.]

You mean it's more confusing than the trinity paradox?

"Revelation And Logic
That three are one is a logical impossibility. It defies mathematical logic conceived as far back as Pythagorus. It also defies Aristotelian logic. Arius was right in asserting that you cannot logically conceive of the transcendent One as three. Plato conceived of the creative demiurge who expressed divine immanence not as the indivisible One, but as the divisible, and decidedly subordinate and unequal, Two.

The early church faced the revealed paradox that God is one, and yet God is three. They did not resolve the paradox. They simply named it."
source​

______________________________________________________________________________________________

"If we read the Bible and take what we read seriously, we must not fall into either one of these extremes. Rather, we must try to remain "at the center of Biblical tension."

As Wayne Grudem put it so simply in his Systematic Theology:

1. God is three persons.
2. Each person is fully God.
3. There is one God.

By definition, this is a paradox. It is illogical. If something is illogical, isn't it, by definition, false? So how can this be true?
I'd say that generally, yes, if something defies the laws of logic, which are the most basic laws of our universe, it must be false."
source​

I think that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are well within their rights and are quite logical when they explain that since they are so incredibly united, so perfect, and so on the same page, that we should think of them as "one" God. You're being silly to suggest that the Mormon doctrine of the Godhead can't be true, since you find it illogical. I get the impression that you're not trying to understand it. And remember, just because you come to understand and accept the logic of a position, does not mean that you have to accept it as true.

 

[Katzpur]

I think that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are well within their rights and are quite logical when they explain that since they are so incredibly united, so perfect, and so on the same page, that we should think of them as "one" God. You're being silly to suggest that the Mormon doctrine of the Godhead can't be true, since you find it illogical.

Actually, it's so much more logical than trinitarian logic it's not even funny.

I get the impression that you're not trying to understand it.

Scott, you are obviously a faster learner than I am.

 

[psychoslice]

Actually, the first council of Nicaea had nothing to do with what should be included in the biblical canon. It was to determine the nature of God. If you're seeking for even greater accuracy, you might say that the first council of Nicaea convened to enable Constantine to solidify his empire by putting an end to Christian bickering about Jesus Christ's relationship to His Father. It's really pretty interesting to consider the fact that the Pope at that time wasn't even in attendance.

No there was hundreds of books, and everyone fighting over what books to throw away and what books to use in the book of books, all controlled by Constantine, its common knowledge, but yea, the church will have their own interpretation, after all they have everything to hide lol.

 

[Katzpur]

No there was hundreds of books, and everyone fighting over what books to throw away and what books to use in the book of books, all controlled by Constantine, its common knowledge, but yea, the church will have their own interpretation, after all they have everything to hide lol.

I'm sorry but you're just flat out wrong about that. Yes, the Christian canon was most definitely decided by a council of men at Nicea. It just didn't happen in the first council that was held in 325 A.D. Refer back to your post #83, and then read Skwim's post #102.

 

[Skwim]

I think that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are well within their rights and are quite logical when they explain that since they are so incredibly united, so perfect, and so on the same page, that we should think of them as "one" God. You're being silly to suggest that the Mormon doctrine of the Godhead can't be true, since you find it illogical. I get the impression that you're not trying to understand it. And remember, just because you come to understand and accept the logic of a position, does not mean that you have to accept it as true.

My apologies.

I stepped in here under the impression that Mormons accepted the standard Catholic and protestant trinity. Looking into it I found

"The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. "That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man," (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35).
source

Mea culpa

 

[psychoslice]

Joseph Smith's own interpretation of what?

Of how he saw god, just like mahamunhnd had his also

Scripture quoting atheists, aren't there laws against such nonsense. And no the concept of the Trinity as taught by the catholic church is NOT in the Bible.

But its surprising how many atheist know more about scripture than the actual believe of scripture, I think a lot of it is emotional, something they needed at a time when their life wasn't working out for them ?.

 

[Katzpur]

My apologies. Mea culpa

I'm impressed.

 

[psychoslice]

I'm sorry but you're just flat out wrong about that. Yes, the Christian canon was most definitely decided by a council of men at Nicea. It just didn't happen in the first council that was held in 325 A.D. Refer back to your post #83, and then read Skwim's post #102.

And again your wrong, look for knowledge on the subject outside of your church, you will be surprised what you will find.

 

[Katzpur]

And again your wrong, look for knowledge on the subject outside of your church, you will be surprised what you will find.

My knowledge on the subject is coming from outside of my church. Please provide a source for your statement. And try to do better than to insist that it's "common knowledge" when it's quite easy to prove you wrong. If you don't believe me, believe Skwim. Or do you think he got his knowledge on the subject from Mormonism, too? Google "First Council of Nicaea" and you'll find hundreds of articles supporting what I have said.

 

[Skwim]

I'm impressed.

Of course Mormons aren't without their own strange beliefs, such as the planet/star Kolob which is, or is near, the physical throne of God.


.

 

[psychoslice]

My knowledge on the subject is coming from outside of my church. Please provide a source for your statement. And try to do better than to insist that it's "common knowledge" when one Mormon, one agnostic and one atheist on this forum have already taken issue with your position.

Ha, you only want to hear what you want to hear just like all the rest, you can never be wrong can you ?.

 

[Katzpur]

My knowledge on the subject is coming from outside of my church. Please provide a source for your statement. And try to do better than to insist that it's "common knowledge" when it's quite easy to prove you wrong. If you don't believe me, believe Skwim. Or do you think he got his knowledge on the subject from Mormonism, too. Google "First Council of Nicaea" and you'll find hundreds of articles supporting what I have said.

 

[Katzpur]

Of course Mormons aren't without their own strange beliefs, such as the planet/star Kolob which is, or is near, the physical throne of God.

That's an interesting thought. If Heaven is a real place (as I believe it is and as most Christians believe it is), it would only stand to reason that it's near something or other. Why not a star?

 

[Katzpur]

Ha, you only want to hear what you want to hear just like all the rest, you can never be wrong can you ?.

Actually, I can quite easily be wrong, and have been on many occasions. I'm just not wrong this time.

 

[psychoslice]

My knowledge on the subject is coming from outside of my church. Please provide a source for your statement. And try to do better than to insist that it's "common knowledge" when it's quite easy to prove you wrong. If you don't believe me, believe Skwim. Or do you think he got his knowledge on the subject from Mormonism, too? Google "First Council of Nicaea" and you'll find hundreds of articles supporting what I have said.

there is nothing to be saved from. You are SOUL - an Infinite aspect of ALL THAT IS - choosing your experience of life with each decision that you make.

At the council of Nicaea in 325 AD, more than two thousand presbyters fought, cajoled, bribed and intimidated each other to try and have the particular deity that they each followed chosen as the official god of the Roman empire. The Emperor Constantine called them to Nicaea, ordering them to bring with them the writings of their faiths. After poisonings, bashings and the ejection of 1730 presbyters by Constantines army, a vote was held. Judas Khrestus and Rabbi Jesus both became God - 161 votes to 157. Stories and extracts from the religious texts that the elders brought to Nicea were compiled into a single volume by, under Constantines command, biscop Eusebius. The original texts that were brought to Nicaea were then destroyed. The life stories of the twins, Rabbi Jesus and Judas Khrestus, who lived three hundred years earlier were combined to form a single fictitious character who was proclaimed a god and officially ratified by Emperor Constantine. There were several early names for this character, including Yeshoua Krst and Yeshu Kristos. The name Jesus Christ wasn't cemented down until the time of the Reformation - 14th to 17th Centuries. Second, third and early fourth Century biscops argued constantly about the dual nature of Jesus Christ, a concept they couldn't understand because they were unawre that their writings embraced two seperate life stories.Emperor Constantine was looking to create a single religion to help strengthen the Roman empire which at the time contained followers of various sun worship cults. Each cult's story included a trinity, a virgin birth and a resurrection. See the youtube clips below for more info. Early followers of Judas Khrestus were called Khrestians (hence Christians). Source: The Bible Fraud by Tony Bushby.Tony Bushby

 

[psychoslice]

Actually, I can quite easily be wrong, and have been on many occasions. I'm just not wrong this time.

Of course not.

 

[Katzpur]

there is nothing to be saved from. You are SOUL - an Infinite aspect of ALL THAT IS - choosing your experience of life with each decision that you make.

Can't imagine why you decided to throw this little tidbit into your post, but thanks anyway.

At the council of Nicaea in 325 AD, more than two thousand presbyters fought, cajoled, bribed and intimidated each other to try and have the particular deity that they each followed chosen as the official god of the Roman empire. The Emperor Constantine called them to Nicaea, ordering them to bring with them the writings of their faiths. After poisonings, bashings and the ejection of 1730 presbyters by Constantines army, a vote was held. Judas Khrestus and Rabbi Jesus both became God - 161 votes to 157. Stories and extracts from the religious texts that the elders brought to Nicea were compiled into a single volume by, under Constantines command, biscop Eusebius. The original texts that were brought to Nicaea were then destroyed. The life stories of the twins, Rabbi Jesus and Judas Khrestus, who lived three hundred years earlier were combined to form a single fictitious character who was proclaimed a god and officially ratified by Emperor Constantine. There were several early names for this character, including Yeshoua Krst and Yeshu Kristos. The name Jesus Christ wasn't cemented down until the time of the Reformation - 14th to 17th Centuries. Second, third and early fourth Century biscops argued constantly about the dual nature of Jesus Christ, a concept they couldn't understand because they were unawre that their writings embraced two seperate life stories.Emperor Constantine was looking to create a single religion to help strengthen the Roman empire which at the time contained followers of various sun worship cults. Each cult's story included a trinity, a virgin birth and a resurrection. See the youtube clips below for more info. Early followers of Judas Khrestus were called Khrestians (hence Christians). Source: The Bible Fraud by Tony Bushby.Tony Bushby

This says nothing about the canon being determined in 325 A.D. The council was convened in order to come to an agreement as to the nature of Jesus Christ and to determine His relationship to His Father. Oh, and there were actually only about 300 attendees.