Just for you Olaf:

More Mormon theology:

D&C 18: 21-23, 33, 41, 47
21 Take upon you the aname of Christ, and speak the truth in soberness.
22 And as many as repent and are abaptized in my name, which is Jesus Christ, and bendure to the end, the same shall be saved.
23 Behold, Jesus Christ is the aname which is given of the Father, and there is none other name given whereby man can be bsaved;
• • •
33 And I, Jesus Christ, your Lord and your God, have spoken it.
• • •
41 And you must preach unto the world, saying: You must repent and be baptized, in the name of Jesus Christ;
• • •
47 Behold, I, Jesus Christ, your Lord and your God, and your Redeemer, by the power of my Spirit have spoken it. Amen.

Cold Steel on April 5, 2008 at 7:15 PM

Cold Steel:
You know the saying: Pearls before swine.

Bambi on April 5, 2008 at 7:23 PM

Okay, this has gone on for a long time, and I still haven’t gotten an answer to a simple question.

Tzetzes on April 5, 2008 at 6:17 PM

Neither have I. You’re slipping and sliding like a boxer. What I think you’re (maybe) trying to avoid recognizing is that for almost two millennia Christians have used the Holy Bible as their template in order to establish the definition of Christian. Christians believe the Holy Bible (ie, God’s Word) determines who Christ is. NO OTHER TEXT CAN DO THIS. If you want to use other books to establish God’s truth, leave me out. Jesus Christ, in the parable of the sower and the seed, said, “The SEED is the word of God… then cometh THE DEVIL, and TAKETH AWAY the word…”. (Luke 8:11-12) Satan has been trying to corrupt God’s Word since the beginning and you won’t see me having any part of it. How do you think we got all these different religions in the world? Proof positive Satan has been hard at work.

I ask you to tell me which Christians you approve of (as genuine Christians) and which you don’t; you won’t answer that, but just say basically “well, not the Mormons!”

Okay. I’m glad you brought this example up. This is a good place to start. Since we have our good friends the Mormons reading let us determine whether or not Mormons are Christians using the Bible. And this will work fine because one of the books Mormons rely upon is the Bible. As for those other “religions” on your list, it is not my responsibility to go through each one and show whether they are Christians or not. If you want to ask me about any particular one compared to Christianity I will try to answer, but for the sake of brevity let’s leave it at that. Besides, all you need to know is “what a Christian is” as defined by the Holy Bible and you will be able to answer this question yourself.

I’ll come back late tonight…

I might not be around tonight, but let’s start with are Mormons Christians, using the King James Bible as our template. Sound good? Ciao.

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 7:25 PM

Cold Steel: I agree with you.
It just seems that no matter what we say, we are told what we are and what we are not. Aren’t you glad they are not the final judge?

Bambi on April 5, 2008 at 7:36 PM

Bambi,
that’s what it truly comes down to. They talked about the dual nature of the church today: having a prophet and leadership within the church, and then the individual’s responsibility concerning testimony. I’m grateful for that understanding.

Cold Steel on April 5, 2008 at 7:38 PM

You mormons are NOT CHRISTIANS because:

A. You believe in a different god who used to be a man on another planet and had other gods above him and a goddess wife with whom he produces children.

B. You believe in a different jesus who is the BROTHER OF SATAN, was conceived in heaven by your false god and goddess wife.

C. You believe in a false extra Biblical doctrine that CONTRADICTS the Holy Bible and is therefore ANTI BIBLICAL.
Your false doctrine also compels you BREAK GOD”S LAW with polygamy and idolatry.

Therefore mormonism is not Christian AT ALL. Nothing like it at all actually.

Your faith in the false jesus, is faith misplaced, as your false jesus has NO SAVING POWER because he does not exist!

Do you want to talk about what you really believe or continue to mislead people(lie).

Do you want to talk about the SEER STONES?

Do you want to talk about the magical mormon underwear?

Do you want to talk about the angel demon moroni who “told Joseph Smith about mormonism?

SaintOlaf on April 5, 2008 at 8:11 PM

For me, listening to the LDS worldwide general conference this weekend, the question is easily answered. if these mormons follow a “different God,” then Different is Good.

if you have satellite or cable, tune in to byu-tv and judge for yourselves. see what the mormons are hearing and learning from the new Prophet.

it’s nothing secret. no converting, just mormons talking to mormons in their native habitat.

sulla on April 5, 2008 at 8:48 PM

tzetzes - I picked the name Sulla in 1998 when … well, marching on washington to hose down the white house was at least a fond daydream. :) a fascinating and horrifying man, sulla. 2000 years on, he still resonates, if less famous than caesar.

sulla on April 5, 2008 at 8:56 PM

Sekhmet: Gee, I guess you are safe then. It’s only the Mormons who worship the wrong Jesus, not those who don’t worship him at all who are going to hell. I bet you are relieved.

Hey, when I die, I’m going where the beer is!

What any of this has to do with politics is beyond me.

Bambi on April 5, 2008 at 9:00 PM

You wanna know something? I’m equally confused on that point. If they love this country and want to protect Her, I could give a toot whether their doctrine is correct by my sights. Jimmy Carter was the best Baptist among the Presidents in recent history, and that didn’t make him a good President.

Sekhmet on April 5, 2008 at 10:17 PM

I’m worried that allapundit (?) will close this site down. I bet he/she had no idea it would produce so many comments, even though I get the impression that he/she doesn’t like Mitt anyway.
So for Sulla, Cold Steel, Skinnervic, Roger Waters, Vanceone, Lugnutmegger, Edaglesdontflock, and especially Tzetzes thanks for all your posts (If I’ve missed any please forgive, I haven’t trolled through all the pages). I would like to read you on other posts, and hope I don’t loose you all.
As for st olaf - what can I say - I think your Bible says the same thing as mine does about judging, but you skip that part.
Apocalyps - I think there’s hope for you.
Anyway God Bless, I’ll be praying for you all.

Bambi on April 5, 2008 at 11:04 PM

Bambi,

Oh no don’t think I skipped that part, go back through the comments.

Jesus said:

“Judge not according to appearances, but JUDGE RIGHTEOUS JUDGEMENT!“

I quoted that in relation to some of the “good mormons” you just commended, when they openly sinned and in the same breath claimed to be saved.

Don’t think I’m singling out mormons here..all sinners will have their place in the lake of fire whether idolaters like mormons or adulterers or liars or blasphemers etc.

I don’t have to condemn you…you’re condemned already!

“He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God”.

Sekhmet will be in hell with you also unless he repents, turns from sin and believes in Jesus Christ,the lamb of God.

This is no joking matter Sekhmet and there is no beer in hell!

It is a place far worse than anything you can imagine..imagine your soul burning for eternity in 2000 degree flames. Well it’s worse than that.

I don’t want ANY of you to go there.

You think I like having you people dishonor me.

The easier route is for me to say nothing at all.

SaintOlaf on April 5, 2008 at 11:55 PM

SaintOlaf on April 5, 2008 at 11:55 PM

Does KJV specifically mention 2000° flames? What portion of the Beatitudes tell you to condemn idolatrous posters to hell? You are projecting your inadequacies (in your relationship with your beliefs). I agree with Bambi on this, you have a fundamentalist intolerance about you. You’re real quick with condemnation and vitriol. Think of what your projecting on Christ. Think of how you’re compartmentalizing Christ. Christ exists as He is, not as you define Him. Christ and His scripture define themselves. It’s an individual relationship between Christ and mankind(womankind too Bambi). He does not need you or other recruits to flame others into your belief system. His sheep hear His voice and they come to Him.

P.S. Thank you for grouping me with liars, blasphemers, and adulterers. This will all be news to my wife and kids. I foresee added counseling costs and lawyer fees. You truly are a Saint.

Cold Steel on April 6, 2008 at 12:52 AM

I truly appreciate that you are so worried about me/us. I believe that you are wrong. I have a testimony of the restored Church of Jesus Christ. I believe that an uneducated young man could not write the Book of Mormon (another witness for Christ). I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. I also believe that we have a prophet who leads our Church today.
Good Heavens you must be down on your knees by now or having the vapors.

I did not mean the prophets of the Old Testament when I asked you if the people who did not know Jesus are relegated to your fire in Hell. But I thought you tried to avoid the subject. I mean all those people (ordinary people) who lived before Christ and never heard of him. What is their fate? Even today - those people who are Muslim or whatever and never have had a chance to hear about Christ. Do they have a chance? If so how?
I know some of you know.
And don’t take so much room with your answer. Paragraphs are OK.
I know, I know where you think I’m going. I’ll still let God do the judging.

Bambi on April 6, 2008 at 1:41 AM

Idolatry is iniquity folks….face it you’re not Christians.

SaintOlaf on April 5, 2008 at 7:12 PM

You’re talking about a different and false Jesus.

SaintOlaf on April 5, 2008 at 7:19 PM

SaintOlaf & Apacalyps, let me ask you something now with no reference to the Mormons.

You say that to be a (real) Christian one has to believe in the “right” Jesus. You’re certainly not alone in this and there have been great controversies over the years as to his nature, so much so that people who say they worship Christ have, over the matter, refused communion with others who also say they worship Christ.

Now, I don’t claim to know much about Christology: I think it’s quite literally a mystery (as in, something that one has to be initiated into) and it seems silly to me to squabble about it. Plus, except when something exciting happens, like monks and bishops at fisticuffs, it always makes my eyes glaze over when I hear about it (the person to ask here is my Byzantinist fiancée; I’m a Byzantinist too, but my specialty is the much more interesting secular, classical tradition). However, a lot of people take these things really seriously. You can say the following doesn’t matter, but it matters enough to some people who will use it to say that you (yes, you!) are not the real Christian.

At the Council of Chalcedon, called by the political leader Marcian nearly forty-two decades after Christ’s resurrection, majority vote ruled that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine. (We’ll get to that in a minute.) It also upheld another council of non-apostles called by a political authority, him who had founded Constantinople on the old Megarian colony of Byzantium (and whose name, by the way, rhymes with alkaline, not quarantine) a mere thirty decades after Christ.

That earlier council, at Nicaea, had denounced Arianism. Now, I don’t know much about Arius except that everybody seems to hate him and that one of his disciples, a Goth or half-Goth named Ulfilas, who had studied at Constantinople, translated the New Testament into Gothic (making this the oldest Germanic book, the only East Germanic book, required reading for anybody doing Germanistik, and a damn lot of fun for the philologist). But apparently he believed that Christ, while divine, was not co-eternal with the Father, but apparently had at one point in the preexistence been created by him; that he was, in other words, the Father’s only-begotten in the spirit as well as the flesh.

Related to the “temporal” aspect of the question (if one can speak of time in the eternities) was that of essence (being, οὐσία). Were the Father and the Son ὁμοούσιοι (same-essence) or ὁμοιούσιοι (similar-essence)? Majority vote ruled again, in favor of the former. (As others have pointed out, the matter was over an iota, a single jot.)

There were also a lot of other items of business there, such as the calendar and dates of feasts (which, if you don’t think is important, talk to an Old Calendar Russian!), some other various heretics, and matters involving bishops and elders and priests (which implies that the “Nicaean” church, to term it so, had such). Also self-emasculation was condemned: some, such as Origen another century plus back, had put Jesus’ words into literal practice, where the Lord said “there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

To skip back up to Chalcedon, it (besides declaring the New Rome at Byzantium equal to the Old Rome in Italy) said that the three members of the Trinity were of a single being (essence) but of three separate substances (hypostases), the heretic Origen’s position, in fact. How being and substance are different, I’ll let each man decide as he will.

Even more importantly though as far as ecclesiastical unity goes, the folks at Chalcedon looked further into the question not only of the Messiah’s relationship to the (unbegotten) Father, but to himself, his divine part with his human part. Some, considering matter evil, had said he was not human at all, but purely divine: only seeming, for our sakes, to be human. The Nestorians, on the other hand, said that there were in fact both a divine personality and a human personality in Jesus, but separate. (Nestorians are still around, most notably the Assyrian church.) Others said that Jesus did indeed (contra Gnosticos) have a human body, but that his nature was divine and only divine. This is known as the monophysite (μονοφυσιτής “believer in a single nature”) position, and is that of the Armenian, Coptic, Syriac and Ethiopian churches, among others. The council however, being in its way democratic, put the matter up once again for a vote and rejected each of the above, affirming that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine. Not half and half (if I understand aright), but each part superimposed (as it were) over the other.

And so, I’ve given a very brief and simplified overview of a dizzingly “nuanced” and complicated set of debates, debates which I honestly barely understand, but which resulted in a schism between the “Chalcedonians” and “non-Chalcedonians” which is at least as great as that later one between Constantinople and Old Rome.

And now, Apacalyps (with your “intellectual integrity” and “philosophical tenets”) and SaintOlaf (thou saint who decidest who is and who is not a Christian), if either of you is still reading, bear this in mind when you talk about authentic and inauthentic Christs: if you affirm the christology of the Council of Chalcedon, you’ll have to look in the eyes of a Copt (whose Christianity goes back to Saint Mark) or a Syriac (a native-speaker of Jesus’ own tongue) and tell him he follows the “wrong” Jesus and so can’t be saved. If on the other hand you deny the Council’s pronouncements, then expect the Greeks (whom Paul taught in their own language) and the Italians (heirs of Peter) to call you the heretic.

So, which one is it?

Tzetzes on April 6, 2008 at 5:50 AM

And so, I’ve given a very brief and simplified overview of a dizzingly “nuanced” and complicated set of debates, debates which I honestly barely understand, but

Tzetzes on April 6, 2008 at 5:50 AM

Tzetzes, no offense, you seem like a really smart guy, but you’re making this way too complicated than it is. Look, I agree with you in part, what you just wrote was dizzying. Sadly, you’re using the same tactic the Mormons do. You’re attempting to redefine Christianity and quite frankly, it is an utter insult to fairness and to our intelligence.

The requirements for being a Christian is that he/she believes and accepts the whole teaching of the Bible. I would daresay that the main historic position of the Church has been in agreement with this. It has been like this for almost two millennia. It is primarily only in more recent times that groups like the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, Scientology, and other non-Christian religions in the world have sprung up (see Matthew 24:24). They all claim special revelation and privilege, and those that use the Bible invariably interpret it in disharmony with standard biblical understanding.

It is equally important for you to know that Mormons redefine basic Christian terminology. Mormons use Christian terminology but completely redefine everything. For Christians the final written authority is the Bible. Mormons have their own “inspired” scriptures. Mormons claim “As man is now, God once was; as God is now, man may become”. This is not Christianity. Jehovah’s Witnesses do the same thing; they redefine Christian terms and have their own “Scriptures”.

Now you know why I started this debate by saying “Enter The Matrix/We Are Going Down A Rabbit Hole”. I’ve been down this road before. I know why you want to “redefine Christianity”. You, not unlike the Mormons, are unable to defend your position otherwise. What you argue does not line up with the Bible so you must twist Scripture or completely ignore so they fit your beliefs.

The definition of Christian is in the Bible. End of story. Period. If you want to ignore this, or redefine it, like the Mormons do, then I we might be wasting our time in this discussion.

apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 1:27 PM

Exit questions for Saint Olaf:

1) Where does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible. Quit generalizing…give chapter and verse.

Cold Steel on April 6, 2008 at 9:52 AM

I would like to answer this.

apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 1:51 PM

apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 1:27 PM

We all understand you don’t like Mormonism. Fine, we get it! I asked you a question specifically without reference to the Mormons, and you answered it by diving back into an attack on them. But before that, you say that

The requirements for being a Christian is that he/she believes and accepts the whole teaching of the Bible. I would daresay that the main historic position of the Church has been in agreement with this. It has been like this for almost two millennia.
apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 1:27 PM

I don’t know what “main historic position” is supposed to mean (or why you, as a sola scriptura person, are even invoking extra-biblical tradition at all). I believe that God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life, and I entertain ideas about, but suspend judgement on, a lot of the details. If you mean to say that the position of “the Church” (for which read “churches”) is actually simply that “the requirements for being a Christian is that he/she believes and accepts the whole teaching of the Bible”, then you’re wrong: such is not the position, as shown by my abbreviated account above of some of the fierce doctrinal debates that have caused Christians to anathematize other Christians. And (let us pass over the highly problematic nature of what accepting “the whole teaching of the Bible”, or even the word Bible, means) you show by your own statements that you do not hold that believing in Christ is enough, but believing in the right kind of Christ:

Now, the question is do Mormons have the right Jesus? The right God? Since you want to defend Mormons Tzetzes, you can see the importance in this can’t you? Because the idea here is often in the discussion Christians are talking about Jesus Christ and it has become very apparent to me that the Jesus they are talking about and the jesus Mormons are talking about are completely two different people. Why is that important? Because the power of faith does not just rest in the act of believing. That is very much a core part of it, but more so what you’re putting your faith into. The greatest faith in someone false is not gonna be faith that saves you. A false messiah, a false jesus, does not bridge the chasm between God and man, only the Jesus of the Bible does that. The real Jesus.

Would you agree Tzetzes?

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 4:36 PM

As an example Mormons believe in a different jesus a different god. They are not Christians as defined in the Bible. They have changed the nature of God.

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 5:38 PM

A Christian is any person, no matter what his colour, class or creed may have been, who believes the Record that God has given of His Son in the Word of God.

But, as I said before you need the right Jesus.

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 5:38 PM

Now, if you want, we can establish what a Christian is — using the Bible.

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 5:45 PM

relying solely on the Scriptures

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 6:06 PM

…for almost two millennia Christians have used the Holy Bible as their template in order to establish the definition of Christian. Christians believe the Holy Bible (ie, God’s Word) determines who Christ is. NO OTHER TEXT CAN DO THIS. If you want to use other books to establish God’s truth, leave me out.

apacalyps on April 5, 2008 at 7:25 PM

Which returns us to the importance for you of these oecumenical councils. (Not for me: as I say, I consider it a bunch of malarkey over intractable questions, and not useful.) They are important to anyone who says that salvation and life come not through believing that Jesus of Nazareth is God’s son and our redeemer, but that such come through believing in the right kind of Jesus.

The people in these councils took the nature of Christ extremely seriously, and they had access to the scriptures and used the scriptures to support their positions. They were (as you direct) working from the scriptures, yet came up with mutually contradictory positions! These positions still divide their spiritual heirs, with Chalcedonians and Monophysites each still saying that the other is not worshiping what you call “the right Jesus”.

You also call people heretics for not having “the right Jesus”, and yet with a wave of the hand you dismiss those discussions of what that correctitude entails, and point us (who have smaller intellects than them of old) instead to the scriptures, which have not for two millennia sufficed to resolve the matter.

Tzetzes on April 6, 2008 at 4:30 PM

Just for you apacalyps:

Why did the Israelites receive prophets and we don’t? Were the prophets Abraham, Moses, Jacob, Isaiah all real men? Were they set apart by Jehovah to minister to his people? You can’t pick and choose passage, verse, and your favorite apostle, without taking the totality of God’s interactions.

Cold Steel on April 6, 2008 at 4:17 PM

This appears to be an attempt to defend the prophets of the Mormon church, starting with Joseph Smith right down the line to the late Gordon B. Hinckley. Joseph Smith, often referred to as the Prophet Joseph Smith, was the founding prophet of the Mormon religion (ie, your argument is since the prophets of the Holy Bible were were real men, then why couldn’t we have prophets today?).

This is a good place to start. Let’s examine Mr. Smith and some of the other Mormon prophets since in 1830 when Mormonism was invented. Either Joseph Smith was the greatest prophet who ever lived, or he had a tremendous imagination and was a deceiver from the beginning. Read the next post.

apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 6:39 PM

apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 6:39 PM

Don’t get caught in semantics and back handed positions. Joseph Smith never invented any religion. Christ re-established His church through Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith received all the keys and ordinances of the early church as constituted by Christ. Read the Doctrine and Covenants before you jump into such an assertion. Look at each prophet from Adam to Moses. They did not invent. They were trained, ordained, and set-apart by Christ (Jehovah) as prophets.

Cold Steel on April 6, 2008 at 6:51 PM

You’re not refuting the actual text of the Book of Mormon as discussed. Where does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible? We consistently assert its companionship with the Bible. You misrepresent by speaking of the Book of Mormon and it’s translation.

And let me get this straight…. a prophet using a seer stone is hard for you to digest, but a basket of fish, a river of blood, a flooded earth….those are all in you’re wheel house? When John the Revelator saw our day, how do you think he felt? How could he comprehend all the advances brought about in our days? You really love compartmentalizing and limiting God. Open yourself to the all-knowing omniscient God, not one of your invention and bias.

Cold Steel on April 6, 2008 at 7:00 PM

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:6-9

The only way you can get out of this is by twisting the meaning of this Scripture.

apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 6:54 PM

Thankfully this is the same Gospel instituted by Christ since the beginning. Christ restored His gospel through Joseph Smith. There is no change. Thank you for supporting my assertion. There is nothing within the Book of Mormon which contradicts Christ’s gospel. Please refer to 3Nephi 11 and you will read Christ’s direct interactions with the people of the Book of Mormon. If Christ is truly unchangeable, which I assert He is, then I take Him at His word and I have the same expectations and faith as the ancients.

Cold Steel on April 6, 2008 at 7:11 PM

The people in these councils took the nature of Christ extremely seriously, and they had access to the scriptures and used the scriptures to support their positions. They were (as you direct) working from the scriptures, yet came up with mutually contradictory positions!

Tzetzes on April 6, 2008 at 4:30 PM

We have in our hands today, in the 1611 King James Bible, the same Scriptures they used at the time of Christ. You can have all the Scholars in the world try to word crunch me all day long.. The King James 1611 is Safe!.. So if you want to use the Holy Bible (as I’ve been saying from the beginning to resolve the nature of Christ) I have no problem with that. This is what I have been saying from the beginning.

You also call people heretics for not having “the right Jesus”, and yet with a wave of the hand you dismiss those discussions of what that correctitude entails, and point us (who have smaller intellects than them of old) instead to the scriptures, which have not for two millennia sufficed to resolve the matter.

What seems to be going completely over your head is the fact that Scripture clearly explains the identity of Jesus Christ. Yes, I point people to the Scriptures. Of course! It appears to me you do not believe it to be sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine. That is, of course, a tactic used by the scoffers to undermine the nature of Christ and the Christian religion. They deny the inspiration of Scripture. However the Bible says God is unchangeable. God’s word is unchangeable too. In Matthew 24:35, the Lord Jesus said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

Psalms 12:6-7 says, “The words of the LORD are PURE words… Thou shalt KEEP them, O LORD, thou shalt PRESERVE them from this generation for ever.”

“But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word
which by the gospel is preached unto you.” I Peter 1:25

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. Is. 40:8

A few more verse showing God did preserve His Words for us.

“For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake (as they were) MOVED by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Peter 1:21

“All scripture (is) given by inspiration of God, and (is) profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” 2 Timothy 3:16

Think for a while about Christ’s words: “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God… Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” (Mt 4:4; 24:35)

These verses above clearly tell us that the Scriptures are God-breathed and are not fables written by men, and we read “it was impossible for God to lie” (Heb 6:18). The KJV is perfect historically, geographically, scientifically, grammatically and numerically, and “every word of God is pure” (Pr 30:5).

My prayer is that the Lord helps you understand this in your studies.

apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 7:49 PM

(Joseph Smith) also utilized seer stones as you outlined in your previous post.

Cold Steel on April 6, 2008 at 7:05 PM

Yes, he did. He wrote the Book of Mormon with a magic stone and and some golden plates. He did this around 1500 years after the Bible was written. You’re not a little supsicious? And we haven’t even scratched the surface yet! What if Joe went on Larry King Live and said that by placing a rock into a hat, and with his face in the hat, he got messages from God and needed to write the sequel to the Bible? Click here and scroll down page to learn about the 1826 court trial held in Brainbridge, New York where Joseph Smith was arrested, tried, and found guilty of using a magical stone for the purpose of finding hidden treasure buried in the earth.

But, as I wrote before, there are other clear warnings in the Bible about false prophets that you clearly ignore ColdSteel.

2 Peter 2:1 warns us,

“But there were false prophets (Joey Smith) also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies (Mormonism), even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.” 2 Peter 2:1

All throughout Scripture, the Lord unequivecally condemns consultations with spirit mediums, fortunetellers, astrologoers, witches, and all other occult sources of supposed knowledge and guidance.

Psalm 90:2 says, “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.”

God has existed for eternity. He alone is the the Eternal, Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipetent, Creator.

Amazingly, in the “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” page 345, Mr. Smith tells us,

“I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity, I will refute that idea, and will take away and do away the vail, so that you may see… he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did.”

For you to ignore God’s warnings just to follow a blaspheming, plagiarizing, lying, heretic with a magic rock and a hat, is… is…. it’s just mind-boggling.

apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 8:44 PM

If you’re a Mormon get out of this cult.

apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 9:00 PM

We have in our hands today, in the 1611 King James Bible, the same Scriptures they used at the time of Christ. You can have all the Scholars in the world try to word crunch me all day long.. The King James 1611 is Safe!.. So if you want to use the Holy Bible (as I’ve been saying from the beginning to resolve the nature of Christ) I have no problem with that. This is what I have been saying from the beginning.

What seems to be going completely over your head is the fact that Scripture clearly explains the identity of Jesus Christ.

apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 7:49 PM

Why not the Bishops’ Bible, or Wycliffe’s? But, more to the point is what I’ve already said and you haven’t addressed: we have these scriptures and yet people do in fact come up with different interpretations!

The Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians appealed to the same scriptures and came up with different positions. You and the Mormons both use the KJV and come up with different positions. Calvinists and the Orthodox both have access to the same Greek biblical texts, and yet come up with different positions (ἕτεραι γνῶμαι, if you like the word (h)eteros).

You may think that your interpretations of one translation of one recension of one set of books (which did not spring out of nothing) are obvious, and should be obvious to everybody, but the fact that there are in fact so many interpretations (whether you approve of them or not) demonstrates that an appeal to the Bible (any translation of any recension of any canon) does not by itself settle every question.

Tzetzes on April 6, 2008 at 9:20 PM

You may think that your interpretations of one translation of one recension of one set of books (which did not spring out of nothing) are obvious, and should be obvious to everybody, but the fact that there are in fact so many interpretations (whether you approve of them or not) demonstrates that an appeal to the Bible (any translation of any recension of any canon) does not by itself settle every question.

Tzetzes on April 6, 2008 at 9:20 PM

It’s painfully obvious to me you do not understand the history of the Bible, either that, or you are being willfully ignorant (that means dumb on purpose, in the Greek). I tried to explain it is a well established fact that there are only two lines of Bibles: one coming from Syria, and one coming from Egypt. This is where all the different Bible versions come from. The King James came from Syria. All the other versions came from Egypt. If you want to know the truth about something you have to search out it’s history.

Furthermore, over the past few decades, new Bible translations have been popping up like popcorn and a lot of these authors do not believe God perfectly preserved His Words. Since 1880, over 200 different translations have appeared!

Time Magazine writes “…there is an unprecedented CONFUSION of choices of the Bibles.”

1 Corinthians 14:33, clearly says, “God is not the author of CONFUSION.”

Watch a few minutes of this for an idea of what I’m talking about. Gail Riplinger - New Age Bible Versions

apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 10:21 PM

Tzetzes,

Just wanted to let you know I’m not the enemy bro, I really hope you get saved and are in heaven with the rest of us worshipping the LORD. No sickness there. You can eat as much as you want and not get overweight. You can play with lions and tigers and bears oh, my. And your knowledge will grow beyond imagination. etecetera, etcetera. Just off the top off my head those are some of the things we’ll be able to do. Oh, yeah, and live for eternity. Almost forgot that. It’s going to be a great. I’m praying for you that your eyes will open to God’s truth and you will receive His reward, before it’s too late.

“Eyes have not seen, and ears have not heard, what God has prepared for those who love Him.” 1 Corinthians 2:9

apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 10:39 PM

apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 10:21 PM

Fine, let’s say for the sake of argument that critical apparatuses are of no importance, that any textual deviation from Erasmus’ New Testament or the Masoretes’ Old Testament are unimportant, that other witnesses such as the Peshitto and the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint are to be dismissed. And that the only acceptable Christian canon is the Western one (either with or without the KJV Apocrypha).

Let’s say further that any differences between the Erasmian and Masoretic texts and the Authorized Translation are inspired corrections. (I still don’t see why it can’t be the Coverdale or Tyndale version, or that delightful one by Wycliffe.)

Let’s say further that we declare the KJV to be the perfect Bible for the English-speaking world. It’s so perfect, in fact, that it’s inerrable, and so clear that any appeal thereto will resolve any question.

How then is it that people using the exact same translation of the exact same recensions of the exact same selections of texts can, while all referring to the 1611 KJV, differ in opinion on matters ranging from whether the plague-choices offered to David are those of 1Chronicles 21.12 or 2Samuel 24.13, to why God uses the plural when he says “form man in our image”, to the christological questions you’ve refused to address.

I’m not asking you to answer those questions; I’m asking why such questions even arise. I’m sure you can posit explanations, but I’m asking why explanations are even necessary. I’m asking you, if everything in the King James (or any other version) is as self-evident and clear as you make it out to be, how such puzzlements and disagreements and need for exegesis and context can come about at all. You haven’t answered my other questions; will you answer this one?

Tzetzes on April 6, 2008 at 11:33 PM

Hopefully I run into more of your discussions in the future. Godspeed your studies and pursuits.

Cold Steel on April 6, 2008 at 11:08 PM

Likewise, on both counts. I’m sure you and I, if we sat down, would also see biblical passages (some at least) in different, perhaps contradictory ways. (I can’t think of anybody I wouldn’t disagree with on something!) But I wouldn’t say you’re not a Christian over the matter, and I don’t think you’d do that either. Nor do I think it a Christian approach to say “we both look to Jesus for our salvation, but since we disagree about [any of the matters I've mentioned], you’re not a Christian.” I consider him a Christian who considers himself a Christian, and take him at his word, as I take you at yours. For any of the details, I’ll note your opinion down and either give a preliminary judgement, or just file it away for later.

But this sola scriptura position is on the one hand staggering, but on the other hand not so surprising. I mean that one tends to want some sort of absolute whereby to judge. Catholics & Orthodox have scripture, tradition and reason. The Jews likewise, though they have lost their temple, their priesthood and their prophets, have scripture, tradition(s) and reason. But folks like Apocalypse and St. Olaf claim to reject tradition (though they actually do use it in accusing others) and not to need reason (and admittedly neither is and Aquinas or Maimonides!).

And so, leaving themselves with, well, sola scriptura, they cling to that with the greatest of ferocity. As it’s the only thing they recognize, it has to be perfect and firm, and can brook no variation (say, in the selection of works, or the editions of those works). They do not take scriptural books as works written down by inspired men yet transmitted by ordinary men and copied out with scribal lapsus oculorum or with interpolations or omissions either cultural or dogmatic.

That is, they don’t take them as I do, as important treasures and as imperfect witnesses of a perfect God, but as themselves perfect, the direct dictation from God’s mouth (through some unimportant centuries-old transmission that had no effect on that dictation) to their own printing-presses. They and I both believe that God is perfect, and that his word (when proceeding from his mouth) is perfect, but they believe that the records they have, as they have them and to the exclusion of other records or of other versions of their own records, are that exact divine dictation (and that to question that process of transmission shows a lack of faith and brings damnation). In fact, such a position reminds me less of anything recognizable as Christian than of the Mahometan attitude towards their book, which the latter revere as perfect and inerrable and unquestionable.

…And yet these people here call us idolaters!

Tzetzes on April 7, 2008 at 12:09 AM

P.S. I’ll be back tomorrow (Monday) evening, to see if anybody’s said anything interesting or enlightening.

(And saying “check yourself before you wreck yourself” doesn’t count.)

Tzetzes on April 7, 2008 at 12:20 AM

Thanks, I will book mark the page - good to find you all again. I’m a recent convert from Captain’s Quarters. You know we just had a conference - Saturday and Sunday and I’m sure stolaf and apocalyse were there with their signs telling us what awful people we are. Some time they even used bull horns to call us worse names than they used above. At weddings when the bride and groom and family come out of the Temple to have pictures taken they refuse to move and call the young brides “whores”. Mothers begged them to move so they could have a picture taken on the steps and they refused. When they are shouting these lovely invectives, the ACLU lawyer is standing beside them so that no one can interfere with them. They drag our B of M on a string in the dirt and taunt anyone to try and grab it. We have been asked by our Prophet to pass and show Christian love and not confront them. I must admit it’s difficult. There are many families with young children passing. Some of the churches (not LDS) have even come down and stood and sang hymns to try and drown out their fellow evangelicals. They show up every night at our pageants in Palmyra, NY and Nauvoo, Ill and do the same thing.
I don’t see them doing that a synagogues or Muslim places of worship.
Anyway, I’m off to work as well. See you all on the other side. By the way, it’s snowing here. We are supposed to get another 16″ in mountains today, so have fun in your good weather.

Bambi on April 7, 2008 at 9:37 AM

Good work, Tzetzes! I note that Apocalyps and Saint Olaf had absolutely no answer for you. Their position crumbles further once they have to realize that their conception of Christ, the Creedal theology, is not what the early saints believed. In reality, current “Sola Scriptura” theology is the KJV + the creeds. LDS faith is amply rooted in the bible; including the KJV. What it contradicts is the creeds. Protestants of Apocalpys and St. Olaf’s ilk have not realized that the creeds are not the same as the Bible. Once they realize this simple fact, they have to realize that the LDS faith is quite Biblical.

Again, are Catholics Christian, are Greek or Russian or Romanian Orthodox believers Christian? They cannot be, under the Apocalyps position.

Vanceone on April 7, 2008 at 1:33 PM

Nor do I think it a Christian approach to say “we both look to Jesus for our salvation, but since we disagree about [any of the matters I’ve mentioned], you’re not a Christian.” I consider him a Christian who considers himself a Christian, and take him at his word, as I take you at yours.

Tzetzes on April 7, 2008 at 12:09 AM

Tzetzes, you’re misrepresenting the facts. I’ve never said what you imply here. What I’ve said from the beginning