responding to common objections to bible

[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

[Sigurd]

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.

Clearly Agabus was not just confirming what was from God and what was not.. He gave a specific prophecy about what would happen to Paul.
The Bible name them prophets. All after Christ's death. I am not even interpreting these scriptures. You said Jesus was the last prophet. Yet the Bible name several people prophets in Acts.. the book written about the time after Christ's ministry. And it is you who keep bringing in Mormons here... I didn't even mention them in my last post.
Does the Bible name these men as prophets or not?

[Kadagar_AV]

Clearly Agabus was not just confirming what was from God and what was not.. He gave a specific prophecy about what would happen to Paul.
The Bible name them prophets. All after Christ's death. I am not even interpreting these scriptures. You said Jesus was the last prophet. Yet the Bible name several people prophets in Acts.. the book written about the time after Christ's ministry. And it is you who keep bringing in Mormons here... I didn't even mention them in my last post.
Does the Bible name these men as prophets or not?

Oh c'mon, it aint no fair to bring logicalz inta a godheads talkin!

[Rhyfelwyr]

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

Maybe so, I guess it's just speculation though. Maybe I've been lazy in just going along with the Evangelical trend of thinking it is Elijah and Moses - come to mention it I've no idea why we set on those two.

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 thought your claim was that Jesus was the last prophet of any sort - rather than anything relating in particular to scripture.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Maybe so, I guess it's just speculation though. Maybe I've been lazy in just going along with the Evangelical trend of thinking it is Elijah and Moses - come to mention it I've no idea why we set on those two.

Elijah and Enoch are the only Prophets recorded as ascending to heaven alive. Most theologians agree that Moses died, although it is euphemistically stated, because no other fate is recorded for him. Enoch was carried up in a whirlwind and Elijah rode a chariot of fire into heaven.

In traditional Christian theology, Moses would have been in Hell, possibly still is.

[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.