Jesus Christ / Joseph Smith

[Albion]

Ok, we can stay focused on manuscripts for now.

Exactly what I was doing. I am interested in some consistency here. If the originals of the Bible are not available, and that's somehow to be viewed as a problem, how can the person making the claim--a Mormon--explain that the logic doesn't apply to the LDS faith as well?

 

[Jane_Doe]

If the originals of the Bible are not available, and that's somehow to be viewed as a problem, how can the person making the claim--a Mormon--explain that the logic doesn't apply to the LDS faith as well?

Actually, I don't view the existence of any old manuscript to be the proof that what it says is correct. My faith is not rooted in the manuscript's existence, nor in what people says it says (no matter how long they said it). So this debate is not something I personally have a stake in. Rather, my faith is rooted in reading scripture myself, seeing the Word act in my life, and fostering a relationship with God.

What I was wondering about though, was other people's perspectives, whom do view the existence of old manuscripts as proof of authority.

 

[Ironhold]

No. What does it matter if it was assembled at that point or not? The cannon wasn't being added to, so I don't see your point? It didn't change after 70AD.

You're sounding like Hillary Clinton here.

It does matter because not everyone believes that the last books of scripture were finished by 70 AD. We've already gone over the dispute concerning 2 Peter, after all.

 

[Albion]

Actually, I don't view the existence of any old manuscript to be the proof that what it says is correct. My faith is not rooted in the manuscript's existence, nor in what people says it says (no matter how long they said it). So this debate is not something I personally have a stake in. Rather, my faith is rooted in reading scripture myself, seeing the Word act in my life, and fostering a relationship with God.

What I was wondering about though, was other people's perspectives, whom do view the existence of old manuscripts as proof of authority.

I guess I'm surprised at the answer, but I'll take up your question. I don't think the existence of the original manuscripts concerns most people. However, that was raised as an issue by someone who thought that unless the originals ARE available for viewing, the copies and translations shouldn't be trusted.

Apparently you and I are on the same side of that issue.

 

[ToBeLoved]

You're sounding like Hillary Clinton here.

It does matter because not everyone believes that the last books of scripture were finished by 70 AD. We've already gone over the dispute concerning 2 Peter, after all.

There is no dispute in 2 Peter.

That was your straw man argument from the start.

 

[Ironhold]

There is no dispute in 2 Peter.

That was your straw man argument from the start.

How can it be a "straw" argument if I - and a few others - posted links and gave evidence?

 

[Albion]

You're sounding like Hillary Clinton here.

It does matter because not everyone believes that the last books of scripture were finished by 70 AD. We've already gone over the dispute concerning 2 Peter, after all.

Who DOES think that all the books of the Bible were finished by AD 70? It's almost universally believed that Revelation, for example, came later.

 

[Jane_Doe]

I guess I'm surprised at the answer, but I'll take up your question. I don't think the existence of the original manuscripts concerns most people. However, that was raised as an issue by someone who thought that unless the originals ARE available for viewing, the copies and translations shouldn't be trusted.

Apparently you and I are on the same side of that issue.

 

[withwonderingawe]

No. What does it matter if it was assembled at that point or not? The cannon wasn't being added to, so I don't see your point? It didn't change after 70AD. So let's talk apples and apples here.

Stop trying to mislead. If you want to to mislead yourself, by all means jump on that train, but let's talk facts here.

Iron is right, the passage you quoted in 2 Tim 3 was simply a personal letter at the time it was written. The only scripture they had was the Old Testament.

 

[withwonderingawe]

If we are equipped for every good work, than that pretty much says it all, does it not?

What does not make sense about being fully equipped? God cannot lie, right? So how can we be fully equipped, yet need something? See what I mean?

You said that you take the Bible very seriously, so what did God lie about?

I'm asking you does

If we are equipped for every good work, than that pretty much says it all, does it not?

What does not make sense about being fully equipped? God cannot lie, right? So how can we be fully equipped, yet need something? See what I mean?

You said that you take the Bible very seriously, so what did God lie about?

I'm asking you;
Jesus promised
“ I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you….He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him…Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.”

Did this promise come to an end or does he not keep his promises?
How many people do you know have Jesus and the Father making their abode with them? When's the last time in history Jesus manifest himself to anyone?

 

[Ran77]

And what trend is that?

I spent a lot of time wandering around to different religions seeking the truth.

I spent a bit of time studying Scientology and Buddhism. I also attended Calvary Chapel, the Church of the Nazarene, Roman Catholic, and United Pentecostal. I've visited a host of other Churches as well.

I've settled in Lutheranism (LCMS) for 3 years now and find it to be the most correct of any religion.

If you spent 5 years as a Theistic Satanist it'll be interesting to see where you are in a couple more years.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Who DOES think that all the books of the Bible were finished by AD 70? It's almost universally believed that Revelation, for example, came later.

Me.

 

[Ironhold]

Me.

Anyone else?

 

[drstevej]

John's writings ca. AD90

 

[Ironhold]

John's writings ca. AD90

If John wrote circa 90 AD, then that means the canon was not closed in 70 AD.

You just undermined his own post.

 

[drstevej]

If John wrote circa 90 AD, then that means the canon was not closed in 70 AD.

You just undermined his own post.

So what? We have the same canonical books. We differ on when John wrote.
Neither of us are cutting and pasting the NT to fit Mormonism like Joseph Smith did.

 

[Jane_Doe]

So what? We have the same canonical books. We differ on when John wrote.
Neither of us are cutting and pasting the NT to fit Mormonism like Joseph Smith did.

The LDS edition of the Bible is the standard KJV, word for word. The JST are in there as footnotes, nothing more.

I know you've been told this before. Why do you then keep repeating false information?

 

[smaneck]

There is no dispute in 2 Peter.

There are absolutely disputes about 2 Peter. It was the last book included in the NT canon because authorship was so questionable.

Antilegomena, a direct transliteration of the Greek ἀντιλεγόμενα, refers to written texts whose authenticity or value is disputed.[1]

Eusebius in his Church History written c. 325 used the term for those Christian scripturesthat were "disputed" or literally those works which were "spoken against" in Early Christianity, before the closure of the New Testament canon. It is disputed whether or not Eusebius divides his books into three groups of homologoumena/accepted, antilegomena, and heretical — or four by adding a notha/spurious group. These antilegomena or "disputed writings" were widely read in the Early Church and included the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, the Apocalypse of John, the Gospel of the Hebrews, theApocalypse of Peter (unique in being the only book never accepted as canonical which was commentated upon by a Church Father), the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, theEpistle of Barnabas and the Didache

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antilegomena

 

[ViaCrucis]

There is no dispute in 2 Peter.

That was your straw man argument from the start.

Except the dating of 2 Peter is disputed.

Further, 2 Peter was one of the books that belonged to the Antilegomena, that is, "Disputed Books" along with 2 and 3 John, Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation; as well as Clement, Barnabas, the Shepherd, and the Didache.

The issue of the Antilegomena was one that continued for centuries. As an early example of the disputed nature of these books, let's look at the Muratorian Fragment (~200 AD):

"...The third book of the gospel is that according to Luke. Luke the well know physician wrote it in his own name, according to the general belief after the ascension of Christ when Paul had associated him with himself as one zealous for correctness. One who took pains to find out the facts. It is true that he had not seen the Lord in the flesh. Yet having ascertained the facts he was able to being his narrative with the nativity of John.

The fourth book of the gospel is that of John's, one of the disciples. In response to the exhortation of his fellow disciples and bishops he said "Fast with me for three days then let us tell each other whatever shall be reveled to each one." The same night it was reveled to Andrew, who was one of the apostles, that it was John who should relate in his own name what they collectively remembered. Or that John was to relate in his own name, they all acting as correctors. And so to the faith of believers there is no discord even although different selections are given from the facts in the individual books of the gospels. Because in all of them under the one guiding spirit all the things relative to his nativity, passion, resurrection, conversation with his disciples, and his twofold advent, the first in humiliation rising form contempt which took place and the second in the glory of kingly power which is yet to come, have been declared. What marvel it is then if John induces so consistently in his epistles these several things saying in person "what we have seen with our eyes and heard with our ears and our hands have handled, those things we have written." For thus he professes to be not only an eye witness but also a hearer and a narrator of all the wonderful things of the Lord in their order.

Moreover the acts of all the apostles are written in one book. Luke so comprised them for the most excellent Theophilus because of the individual events that took place in his presence. As he clearly shows by omitting the passion of Peter. As well as the departure of Paul, when Paul went from the city of Rome to Spain.

Now, the epistles of Paul, what they are and for what reason they were sent they themselves make clear to him who will understand.

First of all he wrote at length to the Corinthians to prohibit the system of heresy, then to the Galatians against circumcision. And to the Romans on the order of scriptures intimating also that Christ is the chief matter in them. Each of which is necessary for us to discuss seeing that the blessed apostle Paul himself, following the example of his predecessor John, writes to no more that seven churches by name, in the following order: Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Galatians, Thessalonians, and Romans. But he writes twice for the sake of correction to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians.

That there is one church defused throughout the whole earth is shown. by this seven fold writing and John also in the Apocalypse. Even though he writes the seven churches, he speaks to all. But he wrote out of affection and love one to Philemon, one to Titus, two to Timothy and these are held sacred in the honorable esteem of the church catholic, in the regulation of Ecclesiastical discipline.

There are adduced one to the Laodiceans another to the Alexandrians, forged in the name of Paul against the heresy of Marcion. And many others which can not be received into the church catholic for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey.

Further an epistle of Jude and two bearing the name of John are counted among the catholic epistles. And Wisdom written by the friends of Solomon in his honor.

We receive the Apocalypses of John and Peter only. Some of us do not wish the Apocalypse of Peter to be read in church.

But Hermas wrote "the Shepherd" in the city of Rome most recently in our times, when his brother bishop Pious was occupying the chair in the church at Rome. And so indeed it ought to be read but that it be made public to the people in the church and placed among the prophets whose number is complete or among the apostles is not possible to the end of time.

Of Arsenus, Valentinus, or Miltiadees we receive nothing at all. Those also who wrote the "new book of Psalms," Marcion together with Basilides, and the Asian Cataphrigians..."

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ToBeLoved]

There are absolutely disputes about 2 Peter. It NT canon because authorship was so questionable.

Antilegomena, a direct transliteration of the Greek ἀντιλεγόμενα, refers to written texts whose authenticity or value is disputed.[1]

Eusebius in his Church History written c. 325 used the term for those Christian scripturesthat were "disputed" or literally those works which were "spoken against" in Early Christianity, before the closure of the New Testament canon. It is disputed whether or not Eusebius divides his books into three groups of homologoumena/accepted, antilegomena, and heretical — or four by adding a notha/spurious group. These antilegomena or "disputed writings" were widely read in the Early Church and included the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, the Apocalypse of John, the Gospel of the Hebrews, theApocalypse of Peter (unique in being the only book never accepted as canonical which was commentated upon by a Church Father), the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, theEpistle of Barnabas and the Didache

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antilegomena

I still do not see a problem because the books that God wanted in the canon of 66 are in that canon. God knows what He is doing. In the end, the books God wanted to be in there are in there.