|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 16, 2009 14:49:03 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 16, 2009 15:47:59 GMT -4
Concerning the question of prophecy, my answers are clear. Those interested may want to re-read them. Obviously, they aren't. You think they are; those reading them disagree. |
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 16, 2009 17:13:02 GMT -4
Jason, I've answered your questions re inspiration of scripture and ancient manuscripts to the best of my ability. I am not educated in the area of ancient manuscripts but there are experts on the subject you can consult. Well, then it appears you don't in fact have any solid, consistant criteria for determining what is inspired writing. What you've outlined in prior posts doesn't suffice for determining why the Song of Solomon, for instance, should be considered inspired. You seem to be relying primarily on arguments from authority. "It's in the Bible, so it is scripture" for instance. That begs the question of why you should trust the judgement of those experts who believe the Bible is inspired and not the judgement of experts who don't believe the Bible is inspired scripture. Am I reading your position correctly? As for your links, the first link on prophets reverses your original position, that John the Baptist was the last prophet, but still argues that prophecy was "a temporary gift" restricted to the time of the apostles with no real scriptural support to that effect. The second link, again, claims there is no modern need for prophecy with no scriptural reason given as to why this is the case. The statement "God has given a complete revelation which is altogether sufficient in all matters of faith and practice," is itself completely without scriptural support. 1 Corinthians does not predict an end of prophecy in New Testament times, unless you also accept that tongues and knowledge also ceased in that time. It makes no refrence to a completed canon of scripture. In fact, 1 Corinthians 13 is a sermon on the value of charity (love) above that of prophecy, hope, knowledge, faith, and tongues, not a prediction of any specific event. Why does mainstream Christian thought have to restrict prophets to New Testament times? Because they have to admit that they don't have the gift of prophecy in their churches. They theorize "we don't have it, but we know we're good. Therefore it's lack must not be a bad thing. Therefore it must have been a temporary, stopgap measure and it isn't necessary in the modern church." Circular logic, essentially. |
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 17, 2009 4:43:20 GMT -4
Jason, I've answered your questions re inspiration of scripture and ancient manuscripts to the best of my ability. I am not educated in the area of ancient manuscripts but there are experts on the subject you can consult. Well, then it appears you don't in fact have any solid, consistant criteria for determining what is inspired writing. What you've outlined in prior posts doesn't suffice for determining why the Song of Solomon, for instance, should be considered inspired. You seem to be relying primarily on arguments from authority. "It's in the Bible, so it is scripture" for instance. That begs the question of why you should trust the judgement of those experts who believe the Bible is inspired and not the judgement of experts who don't believe the Bible is inspired scripture. Am I reading your position correctly? The consistent criterion for determining inspiration is, and has always been, the Holy Spirit that indwells God's people--not experts. Many people see the hand of God in the Song of Solomon. Others may not. It looks like those who have eyes to see were the ones to make the determination. God inspired the writings, but it's men who see God in the writings. No one person understands everything written. Yes, it does (make me wrong), if you limit prophecy to only new revelation of God's plan for mankind. The scriptural support has already been given. What was Jesus talking about when He said the law and the prophets were until John? Are you going to just dismiss it? Historically, there isn't any new revelation that has been uncovered. The reason given in the articles is that the church prophets filled a gap until the NT writings became available. Scriptural support is, again, Christ's statement that the law and the prophets were until John. Also: Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Any "new" revelation regarding salvation would have to be in agreement with the gospel preached by the apostles and therefore wouldn't be new (or necessary). Any new revelation concerning the last things is covered here: Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book. Do the LDS have a different gospel from the gospel preached by Jesus and the apostles? Do the LDS claim a different future for mankind other than that revealed by Jesus in Revelation? I know what 1 Corinthians says. It didn't need to predict the end of prophecy, but historically we know that there are no more prophets for the reason I gave above. It doesn't need to reference a completed canon of scripture either. We only need to hold fast to the doctrine already given, as we are instructed time and again. It's restricted only because there are no more prophets. There are self-proclaimed prophets, but they don't meet the test of a prophet. I've already shown that Joseph Smith doesn't pass that test with just the one failed prophecy I previously posted. "Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion,i which shall be the city of New Jerusalem. 3 Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased. 4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation. 5 For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house... 31 Therefore, as I said concerning the sons of Moses for the sons of Moses and also the sons of Aaron shall offer an acceptable offering and sacrifice in the house of the Lord, which house shall be built unto the Lord in this generation, upon the consecrated spot as I have appointed." (Doctrines and Covenants 84:2-5,31.) Mr. Smith claimed "Yea, the word of the Lord." That means he was speaking for God as a prophet. He claimed God told him that a temple would be built in Missouri. He claimed that temple would be built during the lifetime of the generation hearing the prophecy. It didn't happen. The test of a prophet claiming to speak for God is that the prophecy must come to pass. It didn't. A temple being built in Kirtland, Ohio doesn't fulfill the terms of the prophecy. God neither makes mistakes nor requires the assistance of men to make His words come true. God controls men and events in order to fulfill His words and He never fails. It only takes one failed prophecy to make a false prophet. |
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Feb 17, 2009 11:41:20 GMT -4
The consistent criterion for determining inspiration is, and has always been, the Holy Spirit that indwells God's people--not experts. Many people see the hand of God in the Song of Solomon. Others may not. It looks like those who have eyes to see were the ones to make the determination. God inspired the writings, but it's men who see God in the writings. No one person understands everything written. Last time the criterion was prophesy, now it's "the Holy Spirit that indwells God's people". How is that consistent? I quite agree that "it's men who see God in the writings", whether God inspired them or not. |
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 17, 2009 12:34:35 GMT -4
The consistent criterion for determining inspiration is, and has always been, the Holy Spirit that indwells God's people--not experts. Many people see the hand of God in the Song of Solomon. Others may not. It looks like those who have eyes to see were the ones to make the determination. God inspired the writings, but it's men who see God in the writings. No one person understands everything written. Okay, so we're now abandoning all of your earlier criteria as invalid, correct? I asked you for some more explanation on what you mean by this earlier but you didn't respond (you were probably too busy responding to other points in the thread). What do you mean by "the Holy Spirit that indwells God's people"? How can it be relied upon if different people see it differently, as your post seems to imply? This is the most important part of my response here. You can ignore the rest of this post if you answer this part. I don't accept that the scriptures you cited support the idea that the gift of prophecy was a temporary stopgap measure that ended with the NT apostles. The divisions of the Old Testament in Jesus' time were the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." The Old Testament ended with the coming of John the Batpist. Jesus was also the fulfillment (or end) of the Law of Moses - after his coming, blood sacrifice and the other elements of the Law of Moses were no longer required of Christians, because the Law had been fulfilled. He was also the fulfillment (or end) of the collected prophecies of the Old Testament Prophets - called collectively "The Prophets" - of a messiah. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Wrong. Somewhat plausible, but also wrong. Granted. What is meant by "new" in this text? Was the New Testament in agreement with the Old, or was it a completely new gospel, and therefore by its own criteria to be accursed? "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." "This book" in this scripture cannot be taken to refer to the Bible - the Bible was not compiled at the time Revelations was written and many experts believe John's other writings were, as far as we can tell, written after the Book of Revelations, including the Gospel of John. Therefore "this book" can only refer to the Book of Revelations itself, unless you wish to reject the other writings of John. No and no. The LDS church has given the world a restoration of what was preached by Jesus and his apostles but was lost in the years between the death of the apostles and Joseph Smith's time, as prophecied in the scriptures; "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day [the second coming] shall not come, except there come a falling away first," "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." Those prophecies were fulfilled. As I said, this is circular logic. You are beginning with the assumption that there are no more prophets, so it's not surprising that you also end there. And I already showed you that if you use the same criteria for Jesus' words in Matthew 24 he also fails the test. Joseph Smith's prophecy about a temple being built and the spirit of God filling it like a cloud in his generation was fulfilled in Kirtland, Ohio. The Lord's commandment that a temple be built in Jackson County, Missouri in that generation was deferred to a later time because it could not then be fulfilled, as was explained in D&C 124, as I explained earlier. |
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 17, 2009 15:16:18 GMT -4
Which is it, DH, is the condition only that it be inspired by God, or that it be inspired byGod and also contain prophecy? Or is it only that it contain prophecy? There are several books in the Bible that don't contain any prophecies. Are they scripture? ... It isn't just one thing. THE condition is that the writing be inspired by God. One of the proofs that an author is speaking for God is fulfilled prophecy. These prophesies are not contained in every book, as you very well know. I guess neither you nor gwiz read this. Can we go on or do I have to keep repeating myself? |
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 17, 2009 16:42:27 GMT -4
John 14: 26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
First of all, the Holy Spirit is not an “it.” He is a person. Since Pentecost He indwells every born again believer. All Christians have received enough light to understand the gospel which was once and forever given. None of us are in disagreement with that. A believer’s understanding of scripture is related to how much scripture he is exposed to. A diligent student of the Word naturally understands more than someone who neglects study.
No argument. And yet Jesus never once spoke of prophets to come. Jesus is the prophet who detailed the future of His church and the end of the world
Right. Show me.
And Jesus is a prophet, right?
Jason, I’m treating you like a person who has some understanding of the bible. Naturally I assume that you understood I was referring to Revelation as the book in question. My point is that, even if an organization doesn’t change the writings of the book by addition or deletion of the text, they still stand condemned if, by any of their writings, they teach a different destiny of mankind, which your church does. There’s heaven and hell. The saved and the damned. The eternal destination of the believer is to be with God on the new earth as His beloved child—not as a god on his own planet.
2Th 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and [by] our gathering together unto him,
2Th 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
2Th 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;
2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
2Th 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way.
These verses refer to the rapture of the Church, not the second coming of Christ. The gathering comes before the antichrist is revealed—then the great tribulation. And the rapture doesn’t come until there first comes a falling away. I believe this falling away is apostasy of the church in departing from the scriptures. Christianity in general is falling away from the truth and is giving heed to false prophets and bad doctrine. The Latter Day Saints never had the truth so they have nothing to fall away from.
By what authority do the LDS claim that Christ’s teachings were lost between the death of the apostles and Joseph Smith?
Yes, but God’s Word wasn’t lost, was it? Hardened hearts blinded them His Word. The people were also dispersed.
You haven’t proven that there were any prophets after the 1st century.
Your explanation is just an excuse for the failed prophecy. If it doesn’t happen the way God says it will happen, then the prophecy is false. Joseph Smith, claiming to speak for God, gave a clear time frame and location for the building of the temple and it didn’t happen that way. There is no excuse. God is in control of men and events and causes His Word to be fulfilled. Period.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 17, 2009 17:25:13 GMT -4
No argument. And yet Jesus never once spoke of prophets to come. Jesus is the prophet who detailed the future of His church and the end of the world. Revelations speaks of two prophets coming in the future. The Book of Mormon. The Doctrine & Covenants. The Pearl of Great Price. Numerous declarations and prophecies of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that have not been canonized. If we want to go even further afield, what disqualifies the Koran or Nostradamus? Yes. Which means that there is something wrong with the criteria you are trying to use to determine a failed prophecy. When did this thread become an attack on my beliefs? When you couldn't come up with any justification for your own? What is commonly called "The rapture" is not scriptural. The verse is referring to the second coming. God's own words to that effect. "I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: 'they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.'" In particular, they deny that God can speak to man again. Amos speaks of a lack of hearing God's word, not a lack of written scripture. He is speaking of a lack of living prophets. One might say that your explanation of Jesus' words in Matthew 24 is just an excuse for the failed prophecy with equal credibility. You are supporting a double standard if you allow one prophet a different meaning for "this generation" without granting it to the other. |
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 17, 2009 17:38:32 GMT -4
John 14: 26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. Good. Yes, the Holy Spirit is in fact the key to determining what are and what aren't inspired writings. The Holy Spirit has testified to me that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and other scriptures of the LDS church are true. That's how I know that they are inspired writings - not because they contain accurate prophecy (though they often do), or are of ancient origin (though some of them are), or because they were written by prophets (though they were), or because they give glory to God (though they do), or because they condemn sin (though they do), or because they have a miraculous element in them (though they do) - I know they are inspired because the Spirit of God testifies of that fact to me whenever I read them. You have found the answer that I consider correct. The only valid basis for determining that the Bible is the word of God is that the Holy Spirit has testified of that fact to you. Other criteria can be seen as proofs of that fact, but should not be the basis for your belief, as they are fallible in a way the testimony of the Spirit is not. It is also the basis of my belief in the LDS scriptures and the reason for my affiliation with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. |
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 19, 2009 23:44:45 GMT -4
Jason,
I'm very tired. I want to answer your last 2 posts very much, but it's going to be a few more days.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 20, 2009 14:41:14 GMT -4
Or we could just call this thread done, since we've arrived at what I consider the conclusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Feb 20, 2009 19:32:27 GMT -4
Maybe, its best to just leave it to God to decide....
|
|
