You answered this yourself, Hoops. You say, right under this, that Jesus was the last prophet and "there is no other prophet we should be looking for. so His words are the end of the story, so to speak."
So you still need to explain yourself. It's no clearer to me than when we began.
Second, I think his follow up to Bill Maher was incomprehensible. He basically told Maher that, because both Christs words and Paul's are in the same book they carry the same weight.
What's so incomprehensible? They carry the same weight. They both contain the word of The Word.
They can't carry the same weight. Unless, of course, you believe that neither carry any weight at all.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
You answered this yourself, Hoops. You say, right under this, that Jesus was the last prophet and "there is no other prophet we should be looking for. so His words are the end of the story, so to speak."
So you still need to explain yourself. It's no clearer to me than when we began.
Paul's writings are Jesus' words.
How so? How is this different than a Mormon saying Thomas S. Monson's words are Jesus' words?
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Hoops wrote:Ah, I see your point. Well, we will have to agree to disagree.
That's my hang up, Hoops. I don't think we disagree about the principle (Jesus has some sort of higher authority over other's who may claim to speak in His Name) but for some reason we can't seem to agree that this should form a tight circle around the words we can most accurately attribute to Jesus himself.
If it were just a disagreement, I wouldn't have even posted the topic here. I'm sincerely puzzled by this and want to know - on what grounds do you give Paul's words equal weight with those you attribute to Christ? In this particular case it seems they would contradict one another if one takes Pastor Jeffress' view of the meaning of Romans 13.
I sincerely hope you'll take some more time to help me better understand. I am clearly in the dark here and can't see the beginning of the argument from the end.
ETA - I think the problem to me is that it's clear that Paul isn't quoting something Jesus said. He is saying something not otherwise rendered in the Gospels.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
harmony wrote:They can't carry the same weight. Unless, of course, you believe that neither carry any weight at all.
Exactly.
Since religion is based on faith, which is unfounded belief, the foundation writings of religion are of little, if any, real value to humankind.
If one insists that religious scriptures do carry weight (for whatever reason) then the writings in the Old Testament and New Testament clearly carry no more weight than the foundational writings of any other religion, including the dozens of organized non-Christian religions that still exist in the world today, along the hundreds that have passed into history.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
Hoops wrote:Ah, I see your point. Well, we will have to agree to disagree.
That's my hang up, Hoops. I don't think we disagree about the principle (Jesus has some sort of higher authority over other's who may claim to speak in His Name) but for some reason we can't seem to agree that this should form a tight circle around the words we can most accurately attribute to Jesus himself.
If it were just a disagreement, I wouldn't have even posted the topic here. I'm sincerely puzzled by this and want to know - on what grounds do you give Paul's words equal weight with those you attribute to Christ? In this particular case it seems they would contradict one another if one takes Pastor Jeffress' view of the meaning of Romans 13.
I sincerely hope you'll take some more time to help me better understand. I am clearly in the dark here and can't see the beginning of the argument from the end.
ETA - I think the problem to me is that it's clear that Paul isn't quoting something Jesus said. He is saying something not otherwise rendered in the Gospels.
I would begin with Peter's testimony. Here's where I enthusiastically embrace my RCC friends. I think even you will agree that there is a significant difference between Peter's testimony, who was an apostle and who was called (as an apostle) to set "the foundations" of the church, and Joseph Smith, who had only his own self revelation. Peter calls Paul's writing inspired and scripture, I don't see any apostle doing the same for Joseph Smith.
Since religion is based on faith, which is unfounded belief,
bull.
the foundation writings of religion are of little, if any, real value to humankind.
So you're going to claim that the Bible has no value to humankind?
If one insists that religious scriptures do carry weight (for whatever reason) then the writings in the Old Testament and New Testament clearly carry no more weight than the foundational writings of any other religion,
Actually, presupposing that there is a God so there is actually something called inspired scripture, there is one religion's writings that carry more weight than all the others. The one that is true.
Hoops wrote: Peter calls Paul's writing inspired and scripture, I don't see any apostle doing the same for Joseph Smith.
Peter was already dead for centuries. Duh.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.