responding to common objections to bible

[total relism]

Synopsis of Empire's post.

1) Jesus was not divine, but a human prophet after the manner of Buddha or Zoroaster.

2) The Catholic Church, during medieval times, distorted the message of Jesus for its own political ends, assigning meanings to his teachings that Christ would not have assigned and establishing doctrines and practices designed to promote and spread their power more than any faith effort.

3) (conjecture on my part) Since Jesus was a prophet and not divine, the Western Church is predicated on a lie and therefore invalid, however well or poorly intentioned.

4) Real geo-political power is in the hands of a quiet conspiracy/secret society comprised of Zionists (not all Jews, but those advocating an "Imperialist" Jewish agenda) and Free-Masons (that well-known secret society with so many "leading lights" among its membership).

5) Modern power has shifted from the theocratic imperialism (medieval church as controlled by #4 above) through nationalism/capitalism (still under #4 above, even in the "democratic" USA where it was better hidden) to the modern version of cultural imperialism (still controlled by #4 above and operating on an even more pervasive, albeit less militaristic, model of dominance).


So, TR and Siggy, he isn't so much arguing a point with either of you as he is attacking the basic given that Jesus is divine. Doesn't matter how elegant your arguments if the opponent can assert that your basic given premise is wrong. The arguments become moot.

the claim of church changing doctrine or creating jesus divinity is easily shown false. I wrote alittle on it in my op, this applies to pre 400 ad and earlier let alone middle ages.

Church change doctrine/edit bible?

we have manuscript evidence from before any of the councils so if they had changed any doctrine we would have known about it.
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2011...testament.html
the above link to video also shows the impossibility of any one group or council changing the NT documents.

We have manuscripts from different time/places that give evidence to the original as they all agree. How do muitple lines of manuscripts differ in country of orgigin/time agree on text if edited over time?


If the catholic church changed doctrine in 4th century , why not add or subistute doctrine to fit theology/church systems? Contradicts bible in many issues the church does?.

All the NT except 11 verses could be reconstructed from the writings of the Fathers
Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix,#A General Introduction to the Bible, Ch. 24. Moody, Chicago, Revised and Expanded 1986.
#"virtually the entire New Testament could be reproduced from citations contained in the works of the early church fathers. There are some thirty-two thousand citations in the writings of the Fathers prior to the Council of Nicea (325)" (Moreland,#Scaling the Secular City, p. 136).

Baseless claims. Argumentum ad ignorantiam.


Compared to denominical Christians, I am considered very objective. And I am an Agnostic, not a Mormon. I do have Mormon friends as I have Evangelical friends and even JW friends. An old friend of mine, a 70 year old JW woman from Glasgow, taught me near all I know about Egyptology.
And nice Argumentum ad Hominem by the way... I often do press born agains in debate so they show their true un-christian intolerant selves. Not all - I shall not generalize, but many do show their true colors.

You trying to tell me what the Bible says on these issues is... kinda contradictory of what you try to tell us not to do - to listen to what other people's interpretations are. I think you are indeed heavily influenced by what evangelical preachers write about e.g. the Mormons. Those preachers are today's Caiaphas, Ananias and the Sanhedrin. Judge ye by their fruits.

true baseless claim, supported by references,but as i said i dont care to argue if mormons are christian on this thread. I showed a few places where bible says no but we clearly have diffident authorities.


It was not attack on you,but your denial and bigotry against certain people references. That was directly related to your response. You claim to be objective, your last post shows otherwise.

you than say this
"I often do press born agains in debate so they show their true un-christian intolerant selves. Not all - I shall not generalize, but many do show their true colors."


yet you show how bigited you are by your post and intolerant of what you call born again christian. How is showing bionically and referencing debates intolerant? I am in no way intolerant of mormons, i do however as a christian object to the claim they have the truth or jospeh smith was a prophet. Otherwise i would be what you would call a bigoted mormon as i would think they are true.


i agree fully, that is why i only use bible for reasons not my opinions. Those debates you will not see opinions but biblical text used to make points. people just say that is your intepritation when the bible is clear on something they dont want to hear often.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

TR: one problem is that even while citing Biblical passages, you are presenting your own opinion. When approaching a verse one must decide whether it is literal, a metaphor, an allegory etc... Even if one takes a literal reading, the precise import is often unclear. Accepting the Bible as divinely inspired is all well and good, but how do you know whether your interpretation is correct?

What makes your opinion on these verses superior to Sigurd's or Rhyf's? Each of you favours different authorities outside of the Bible itself to supplement your argument: the others will probably not agree with the those authorities. But you cannot claim that you present manifest facts by citing a passage which you interpret in a particular way and dismiss alternative readings as 'opinion': to do so is facetious at best.

For any given text, historical, religious, or fictional, there are as many readings as there are readers.

[Sigurd]

It was not attack on you,but your denial and bigotry against certain people references. That was directly related to your response. You claim to be objective, your last post shows otherwise.

you than say this
"I often do press born agains in debate so they show their true un-christian intolerant selves. Not all - I shall not generalize, but many do show their true colors."

yet you show how bigited you are by your post and intolerant of what you call born again christian. How is showing bionically and referencing debates intolerant? I am in no way intolerant of mormons, i do however as a christian object to the claim they have the truth or jospeh smith was a prophet. Otherwise i would be what you would call a bigoted mormon as i would think they are true.

I was not arguing for the Mormons having truth or Joseph Smith being a true prophet. I was arguing against your claim that they are not Christians. And I don't think you showed using the scriptures that Jesus was the last prophet. I am not saying that Joseph is one, but I can't see that there couldn't be any prophets after Christ. My argument was that if you believe the Bible to be 100% truth, then you must accept that the Apostles + Paulus was considered prophets in the early church. All lived after Jesus.
I am not intolerant of born agains, but I am intolerant of the fact that they spend time tearing down other denominations through their anti-literature. And Christians shouldn't support them by using what they wrote in their debate - at least not aquire these writings and distribute them. Had I been a man of faith - I would have called these things devil-born, inspired by the evil one himself.

There are wolfs in sheep clothing among you... and it doesn't take long to ferret them out. You just need to hint to certain inflamed issues, and all hell breaks loose.

[Rhyfelwyr]

@totar relism: Surely Jesus can't be the last prophet when revelation talks about the two prophets in the end times?

In fact, what about Paul's comments:

"Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith (Romans 12:6)"

Granted there might be some subtlety that has been lost in translation, I wouldn't know.

[total relism]

TR: one problem is that even while citing Biblical passages, you are presenting your own opinion. When approaching a verse one must decide whether it is literal, a metaphor, an allegory etc... Even if one takes a literal reading, the precise import is often unclear. Accepting the Bible as divinely inspired is all well and good, but how do you know whether your interpretation is correct?

What makes your opinion on these verses superior to Sigurd's or Rhyf's? Each of you favours different authorities outside of the Bible itself to supplement your argument: the others will probably not agree with the those authorities. But you cannot claim that you present manifest facts by citing a passage which you interpret in a particular way and dismiss alternative readings as 'opinion': to do so is facetious at best.

For any given text, historical, religious, or fictional, there are as many readings as there are readers.

true for sure, but given the passages sited i see no reason to take them any other way but literal,in fact what would they mean if not. But i really dont care of talking on mormons and if they are christian anymore,nothing to do with topic.

I was not arguing for the Mormons having truth or Joseph Smith being a true prophet. I was arguing against your claim that they are not Christians. And I don't think you showed using the scriptures that Jesus was the last prophet. I am not saying that Joseph is one, but I can't see that there couldn't be any prophets after Christ. My argument was that if you believe the Bible to be 100% truth, then you must accept that the Apostles + Paulus was considered prophets in the early church. All lived after Jesus.
I am not intolerant of born agains, but I am intolerant of the fact that they spend time tearing down other denominations through their anti-literature. And Christians shouldn't support them by using what they wrote in their debate - at least not aquire these writings and distribute them. Had I been a man of faith - I would have called these things devil-born, inspired by the evil one himself.

There are wolfs in sheep clothing among you... and it doesn't take long to ferret them out. You just need to hint to certain inflamed issues, and all hell breaks loose.

i care not to talk of mormons anymore, i will say this last. they are completely diffident religion not a different denomination,the rest just shows again your bigotry and not wanting to see the truth of who/what Mormons are.

@totar relism: Surely Jesus can't be the last prophet when revelation talks about the two prophets in the end times?

In fact, what about Paul's comments:

"Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith (Romans 12:6)"

Granted there might be some subtlety that has been lost in translation, I wouldn't know.

great point sir,but who are the two witnesses? are they not Moses and Elijah?. They are not new sent, they are old returning. Also surely you would not claim this refers to jospeh smith?.


yes many gift given to some,not new prophet scripture added as mormons have done.

[Rhyfelwyr]

great point sir,but who are the two witnesses? are they not Moses and Elijah?. They are not new sent, they are old returning. Also surely you would not claim this refers to jospeh smith?.

yes many gift given to some,not new prophet scripture added as mormons have done.

I don't regard Joseph Smith as a prophet. Elijah and Moses are not new as such, although I guess they are still to come - but I guess there's no point arguing this because it really just depends on how you want to define things.

But what about what Paul wrote in Romans 12:6 - does that not indicate that prophecy was a gift that believers were granted, at least in the early (yet post-Resurrection) church?

[Sigurd]

I think TR realizes that he has been defeated on this issue and is trying to wiggle out of it without losing his position on the high horse.
To put a nail into this issue once and for all:

Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
(Acts 13:1)

And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.
(Acts 15:23)

And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judæa a certain prophet, named Agabus. And when he was come unto us, he took Paul’s girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.
(Acts 21:10-11)

Not going to interpret this. Let the Bible speak its literal KJV self.

[drone]

Thread needs moar Navaros.

[total relism]

I don't regard Joseph Smith as a prophet. Elijah and Moses are not new as such, although I guess they are still to come - but I guess there's no point arguing this because it really just depends on how you want to define things.

But what about what Paul wrote in Romans 12:6 - does that not indicate that prophecy was a gift that believers were granted, at least in the early (yet post-Resurrection) church?

agreed fully, but do you see a differences in a spiritual gift and new scripture being written?. These gifts were taken after apostle age as well. They were there to confirm who was from god or of god/holy spirit in early church. You can have gist of profacy in nt apostle times,without being a prophet.

I think TR realizes that he has been defeated on this issue and is trying to wiggle out of it without losing his position on the high horse.
To put a nail into this issue once and for all:

Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
(Acts 13:1)

And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.
(Acts 15:23)

And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judæa a certain prophet, named Agabus. And when he was come unto us, he took Paul’s girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.
(Acts 21:10-11)

Not going to interpret this. Let the Bible speak its literal KJV self.

I would say i make distinction from spiritual gift given and new scripture written as josph smith.These gifts were taken after apostle age as well. They were there to confirm who was from god or of god/holy spirit in early church. The fact remains basically jospeh smith/mormons are not christian. That is last post on off topic mormons for me. You can have gist of profacy in nt apostle times,without being a prophet. In fact i gave mutiple bible verse saying jesus was last such as matt 21,jude and duternomy, but here is another.

luke 16.16
heb 1 1-2

b-4
matt 21
jude
deuetrnomy

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't regard Joseph Smith as a prophet. Elijah and Moses are not new as such, although I guess they are still to come - but I guess there's no point arguing this because it really just depends on how you want to define things.

But what about what Paul wrote in Romans 12:6 - does that not indicate that prophecy was a gift that believers were granted, at least in the early (yet post-Resurrection) church?

I believe the general theory for most of the last 1800~ years is that one of the witnesses is Elias and the other Enoch.