Response to Josh

[_jskains]

Josh is an Evil Mormon = Josh is Brainwashed = Josh is ignorant

=Josh is feeling sorry for himself

That's it.. Simple is that. You summed it right up.

JMS

[_richardMdBorn]

Josh Perhaps the biggest to me is lack of athority. Christianity has been a product of political and social debate for decades. After the death of Christ, the books that were to become the Bible sparked the first Christian debates on which to include, which to ignore, and which were authentic.

Richard This is incorrect. The book of Acts shows that the first debate was over whether gentile converts to Christianity should have to obey the Jewish law.

Jason This was a non response. I do not think Josh was referring to the VERY FIRST DEBATE but rather that biblical compilation was an issue and problem.

At the very least, Josh’s words were imprecise. If Josh had written, “Christians debated what books to include in the New Testament”, the meaning would be clear. The interesting thing, though, is that LDS accept the 27 books in the New Testament. The apostate church must have done pretty well here. The first canon of the New Testament was by a dualist, Marcion, circa 140. He accepted ten of Paul’s epistles and about 2/3 of Luke. He rejected the Old Testament. I assume that the LDS would agree that the church did well to reject Marcion because he’s about the opposite of the LDS. More to follow.

[_huckelberry]

Richard when I read your comment about debate existing in the first century I thought that might or maybe might not address Joshes observation. The problem with a reply that I see is that neither LDS responder, Jason or skains bothered to explain why they see debate as a problem. It is after all an important hisorical element in Christian thought from the first century on. People outside of Mormons do not automatically see that as a problem though it seems LDS see it that way.

Whatever the problem may be.


It is like questions of authorship of Biblical books. Mormons frequenly note there is uncertainty of authorship of various New Testament books as if that was news. Or as if that is a problem without bothering to explain how or what problem the fact presents. We do not know who wrote Hebrews. So what? It is quite true we do not know who the author was.

[_jskains]

Richard when I read your comment about debate existing in the first century I thought that might or maybe might not address Joshes observation. The problem with a reply that I see is that neither LDS responder, Jason or skains bothered to explain why they see debate as a problem. It is after all an important hisorical element in Christian thought from the first century on. People outside of Mormons do not automatically see that as a problem though it seems LDS see it that way.

Whatever the problem may be.


It is like questions of authorship of Biblical books. Mormons frequenly note there is uncertainty of authorship of various New Testament books as if that was news. Or as if that is a problem without bothering to explain how or what problem the fact presents. We do not know who wrote Hebrews. So what? It is quite true we do not know who the author was.

I see it as a problem because it demonstrates the human element that is very well infused in early Christianity. LOTS of Evangelicals love to stamp their feet and tell Mormons that they are not Christian and the LDS beliefs are not Biblical. But I contend that it isn't that simple. The debates over which of the Christian texts to select, the political debates at Nicene, even Martin Luther, who wanted James tossed because it was out of context for some of his own ideas (James favors Mormonism, so I wonder who else wants it tossed).

I am just of the position no one can actually demand what is and what is not Christian, when that has BEEN debated ever since Christ's death.

NOTHING demands that the New Testament's final canon was divinely inspired. Nothing demands that Nicene was divinely inspired. Even the King James translation, the writers themselves declared the translation nothing more than a scholarly effort to bring an English text to the masses, that they even mentioned that it was not by any revelation.

All that is clear is mankind tried to figure out what was and was not Christian through human effort. Nothing demands that God even got involved. I think it is sad when people then say "Mormonism is not Biblical", when an entire councile had to be convened to appease Constantine who wanted to be a "defender" of Christian doctrine, but not a "definer" of such. They even had to debate over something that is classic LDS doctrine - The Trinity... That begs one question at least.... If Christian text was so clear on the Trinity, why did a debate even have to occur??? Isn't it right there?

But that is the point. I can never get someone in "Traditional" Christianity to pin down why I should even BELIEVE in the Bible. There is no trigger.. And when Mormonism presents one (prayer and revelation), it is automatically rejected. I think I prayed and got an answer.... But of course, that is wrong. So I ask what mechanism Christianity should have, and the best I got was "you just know".

So that is what I mean by a dead religion. All that needs to be said is said. The Bible/cannon is closed, and we just know....

Mormonism is about finding God through prayer and divine revelation with the assistance of a living prophet. In my feeling, that defines a living religion.

And as for the Bible, well, I feel that Joseph Smith had to work with that which was already accepted, and the KJV was well accepted. I also think it was the best translation for that day. Since it was to be followed by additional revelation, the Bible is the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly... A very accurate description since some Christians reject a lot of wording in that Bible.... Take the Lucifer debates for example...

JMS

[_guy sajer]

We do not know who wrote Hebrews. So what? It is quite true we do not know who the author was.

I'd say it's a problem any time the authorship of a text claiming to be historical/factual is unknown. It goes to the credibility of the content therein and our ability to assess it. (This doesn't mean it's necessarily not credible, although for the books of the Old Testament and New Testament, I'd say credibility is a serious problem, for this and a whole passel of other reasons.)

[_Jason Bourne]

At the very least, Josh’s words were imprecise. If Josh had written, “Christians debated what books to include in the New Testament”, the meaning would be clear. The interesting thing, though, is that LDS accept the 27 books in the New Testament. The apostate church must have done pretty well here. The first canon of the New Testament was by a dualist, Marcion, circa 140. He accepted ten of Paul’s epistles and about 2/3 of Luke. He rejected the Old Testament. I assume that the LDS would agree that the church did well to reject Marcion because he’s about the opposite of the LDS. More to follow.

Richard


So what if the LDS Church accepts the 27 books. That does not mean they think that is all there is/was or could have been nor does it mean there may not be problems with them or how they came to be in the canon. Look, I may be LDS but I do not think the LDS Church is not without problems. Why don't you argue your points without reference to what the LDS Church thinks about these things. How does that help your point?

[_Jason Bourne]

Richard when I read your comment about debate existing in the first century I thought that might or maybe might not address Joshes observation. The problem with a reply that I see is that neither LDS responder, Jason or skains bothered to explain why they see debate as a problem. It is after all an important hisorical element in Christian thought from the first century on. People outside of Mormons do not automatically see that as a problem though it seems LDS see it that way.

Whatever the problem may be.


It is like questions of authorship of Biblical books. Mormons frequenly note there is uncertainty of authorship of various New Testament books as if that was news. Or as if that is a problem without bothering to explain how or what problem the fact presents. We do not know who wrote Hebrews. So what? It is quite true we do not know who the author was.

The compilation porcess for the Bible certainly is seen as a problem for the integrity of the Bible by more then just LDS. Start with Bart Ehrman a New Testament scholar and go from there. And authorship is not simply a problem of who wrote Hebrews. How many Christians are aware that most likely three of the four gospels are not authored by those they attribute them too?

[_guy sajer]

Richard when I read your comment about debate existing in the first century I thought that might or maybe might not address Joshes observation. The problem with a reply that I see is that neither LDS responder, Jason or skains bothered to explain why they see debate as a problem. It is after all an important hisorical element in Christian thought from the first century on. People outside of Mormons do not automatically see that as a problem though it seems LDS see it that way.

Whatever the problem may be.


It is like questions of authorship of Biblical books. Mormons frequenly note there is uncertainty of authorship of various New Testament books as if that was news. Or as if that is a problem without bothering to explain how or what problem the fact presents. We do not know who wrote Hebrews. So what? It is quite true we do not know who the author was.

The compilation porcess for the Bible certainly is seen as a problem for the integrity of the Bible by more then just LDS. Start with Bart Ehrman a New Testament scholar and go from there. And authorship is not simply a problem of who wrote Hebrews. How many Christians are aware that most likely three of the four gospels are not authored by those they attribute them too?

That and the fact that they were authored years and years after the events described therein supposedly happened (many of which probably never happened). The exercise often seen in Church of microanalyzing quotes and specific word choices in the New Testament is ludicrous. As if Christ actually said and he used those exact words. Hell, I can't remember the exact wording of a conversation that occured a few minutes ago, let alone four score and seven.

[_huckelberry]

Richard when I read your comment about debate existing in the first century I thought that might or maybe might not address Joshes observation. The problem with a reply that I see is that neither LDS responder, Jason or skains bothered to explain why they see debate as a problem. It is after all an important hisorical element in Christian thought from the first century on. People outside of Mormons do not automatically see that as a problem though it seems LDS see it that way.

Whatever the problem may be.


It is like questions of authorship of Biblical books. Mormons frequenly note there is uncertainty of authorship of various New Testament books as if that was news. Or as if that is a problem without bothering to explain how or what problem the fact presents. We do not know who wrote Hebrews. So what? It is quite true we do not know who the author was.

The compilation porcess for the Bible certainly is seen as a problem for the integrity of the Bible by more then just LDS. Start with Bart Ehrman a New Testament scholar and go from there. And authorship is not simply a problem of who wrote Hebrews. How many Christians are aware that most likely three of the four gospels are not authored by those they attribute them too?

Having read several books by Mr Ehrman I am not going to be able to start with him. I started with some books more critical and detailed than him.

I was really hoping to hear what you feel the problem is. It is not that I cannot concieve of somebody thinking there could be a problem but that without somebody saying what problem they feel is important I am left trying to imagine what somebody else sees as a problem


We don't know the name of the author. So is Luke more reliable than Mark because we know the author. Is Romans more reliable somehow than Hebrews because in the case of Romans we know the author?

I find myself puzzled by Josh comment about no reason to believe the Bible. Tradition Christian view of the problems is we believe throug personal revelation with prayer with the assistance of the Church, body of believers. The difference between that view and Josh is that the body of believers takes the place of the office of prophet in the description.

[_richardMdBorn]

Josh But that is the point. I can never get someone in "Traditional" Christianity to pin down why I should even BELIEVE in the Bible.

That's very surprising. There are many books/articles presenting arguments for belief in the Bible. An example in my library is Scripture and Truth, edited by Carson and Woodbridge (I studied under John Woodbridge).