Re: About the Mormons

Michael J Davis wrote:
> In message <1132079061.223483.75910@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> dianaiad <dianaiad@xxxxxxx> writes
> >Michael J Davis wrote:
> >> In message <1131987101.003134.69950@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> >> dianaiad <dianaiad@xxxxxxx> writes
> >> >Yoo hoo, over heeere....(grin)
> >>
> >> ;-) I said 'they' rather than 'you', since I assume it wasn't 'you' that
> >> made the decision! But make it personal, if you want.
> >
> >No, I was simply reminding you that I'm here, and can answer the
> >question, or rather, could correct a misconception.
>
> Good, I'm waiting.... ;-O
>
> [snip]
> >
> >Of course it is, and that's quite acceptable; as long as all in the
> >conversation are aware that we ARE talking about a 'collection of
> >writings', not a single book. Forgetting that gets us in trouble, as
> >has been seen. ;-)
>
> That must reflect on your discussions with others. I don't think I fall
> into that trap.
>
> >> That makes no difference to the argument. You, after all, include the
> >> Book of Mormon; on what grounds do you reject the Gospel of Thomas?
> >
> >Do we?
>
> Don't you know? ;-)

You are the one who a: assumed that we did not and then b; asked why we
didn't. Isn't that begging the question? Shouldn't you first have asked
whether we accept the book, and in what way, if we do?
>
> >
> >> The books have *no* validity other than by their acceptance by the
> >> Church. And don't tell me that it's *obvious* which books should be
> >> included!
> >
> >Not obvious at all.
>
> OK, so you are not answering my question.

Where is the question in this? I was agreeing with you that it wasn't
*obvious* which books should be included.
>
> >> >Shoot, even those men who compiled that collection do not pretend to
> >> >have had divine revelation as to which books to include, or in what
> >> >order, and the bible as a collection has had more than one incarnation;
> >> >that is, the Catholics include one set, the Protestants another, and if
> >> >I remember right, there was at least one Protestant sect that threw out
> >> >some of the books you guys put back in.
> >>
> >> The dispute is quite clear - certain *Old Testament* (note that - its
> >> very important) books that originated in Greek Judaism, were accepted by
> >> the Council of Carthage because they provided some clear teachings on
> >> specific Church doctrines. 1100 years later, the reformation rejected
> >> these, because they objected to those specific doctrines - including
> >> praying for the dead(!). Because of the Greek origins, these books were
> >> always seen as the 'Second canon' (deutero-canonical) by the RCC.
> >
> >You see, then, the problem.
>
> No, that's the explanation. Are you a Catholic Mormon or a Protestant
> Mormon? ;-)

Hmmn..I guess I would be a psuedo Catholic Mormon...;-) As are the
rest of us. We use the KJV, but are certainly willing to study those
other, apocryphal works, and by using the same method by which we
confirm the truth of the officially recognized scriptures, gain insight
and help from them.
>
> >> >In other words, it isn't the bible as a whole that is important, is it?
> >> >It is the individual books within it that are.
> >>
> >> I don't follow the argument. The Bible *is* the books!
> >
> >But you have here given a couple of examples of writings that may well
> >be scripture---and have been accepted as such at various times--but are
> >not in the bible.
>
> I can give you a long list of writings that circulated during the first
> century (I know little about them),

I don't know as much about them as I'd like to, myself.

> but that isn't the point (unless you
> regard them as scripture).

They could be...I don't know.

> The question is why do accept the authority
> of the Protestant Church in believing that the KJV is the authoritative
> collection of books that are divinely inspired.

We don't. We accept that the books of the bible are scripture because
we have examined them individually through study, thought and prayer.
We also accept the Book of Mormon to be true by the same process.

Practically, we use the KJV because those scriptures have been
confirmed as such, and because every other Christian also uses them.
But you will note that we are not shy about using scripture that other
Christians do not accept as such.

> (And, by implication, of the Catholic Church, who originally defined
> them as Scripture.)
>
> >> >...which does bring up a question, a rather large one. You realize that
> >> >EVERY book of the New Testament was written 'after Jesus' time", yes?
> >> >Every single one of the gospels, all the letters, Acts,
> >> >Revelation...all were written not only after Jesus died, but after His
> >> >resurrection. So. what happened? WHY wasn't there any more scripture
> >> >written?
> >>
> >> Ah! You want me to say something about eye-witnesses do you? Good, that
> >> rules out Mormon. :-(
> >
> >Paul was not an eye-witness. Or, if he was, he was such because he
> >recieved direct revelation from Christ. There is no evidence that he
> >ever set eyes upon Christ before His crucifixion, is there?
>
> Frankly, He wasn't a follower even if he did.
> >
> >Oops.
>
> No, because he was accepted as an apostle by Peter & Co, his writings
> were accepted as authentic messages to the Church.

Which is, of course, my point. He was not an eyewitness of the life of
Christ. He recieved revelation from the risen Christ, and was called to
be an apostle by those who had authority from Christ to do so. He wrote
scripture as a result of recieving revelation. Paul is, in fact, the
absolute argument against the idea that there couldn't be any more
revelation or scripture written by those who were not intimately
involved in the life of the mortal Christ, or that there was to be no
more revelation after His resurrection. What does it matter how much
time did or did not pass between one revelation and another?
>
> >> Actually, because the NT contains our understanding of the revelation of
> >> Jesus and His foundation of the Church (matt 16:18), and that tells us
> >> that He has sent the Holy Spirit, as our advocate to be with us forever
> >> (John 14:16-20) so as long as we have the apostolic Church we will be
> >> guided into all truth. (John 16:3)
> >
> >Oh, I'm not suggesting that the spirit of Christ was taken; the
> >faithful have always been able to have a personal relationship with
> >Him. I am saying that I believe the priesthood was taken, and that
> >there was an apostacy, and confusion in the organization.
>
> Yes, and I'm still waiting for you to state *when* and how you *know*.

When..as the men who held the priesthood died and could not pass that
specific authority on, with the death of the apostles and the original
organization of the church, as to how I "know", well....the facile word
is 'faith'.

Study, prayer and the answer to it. That's why I believe it.

Diana
>
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Any comments? (Deconstructing WBC)
    ... that by and large the books that have been incorporated into what we know as ... Most, *but not all*, Christian groups accept the familiar ... that these men allowed God to inspire them and guide their choices doesn't ... Roman Catholic today, but as far as the contents of Scripture goes, between ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: What is Intelligent Design?
    ... My views of Genesis are based on Augustine. ... to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy ... Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; ... about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What is Intelligent Design?
    ... Quote mining a Gift Minister of his caliber is a bad idea. ... to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy ... Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; ... about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: About the Mormons
    ... >> based upon SCRIPTURE, ... > yourself outside the Christian communion. ... Protestant faith that threw out many of the NT books that modern ... >> it is the 'inerrant' one, ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Who wants to talk about Jesus Christ?
    ... Scripture does say that old men will dream and ... In your terms the end (Christian end in Revelation etc.) failed to ... to dismiss anything said about Him. ...
    (soc.religion.quaker)
Loading