Are Mormons Christians?

[Falcon60]

Hmmm. I was talking "good" or "bad", but rather "Christian" or "not Christian".

By the logic of "f we are truly Christians we would not 'tolerate' false doctrines" if the Holy Bible is correct then should we be intolerant of Hindus, Buddhists, and anyone else who holds a differing doctrine?

The apostle Paul said: "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" (Galatians 1:8)

We should love the lost no matter what their beliefs are. However, what Paul said above does not mince words.

 

[radarmark]

Ah, thank you. I am on the opposite end of the spectrum of Christianity... I do not accept any text or any person as infallible.

We live in a marvelous miracle which the D!vine has given to us. As too, we are given a mind. If my mind and the miracle contradict (in my interpretation) the words some long dead white men wrote, I refuse to close my eyes to the evidence of my own experiences.

 

[Falcon60]

Ah, thank you. I am on the opposite end of the spectrum of Christianity... I do not accept any text or any person as infallible.

We live in a marvelous miracle which the D!vine has given to us. As too, we are given a mind. If my mind and the miracle contradict (in my interpretation) the words some long dead white men wrote, I refuse to close my eyes to the evidence of my own experiences.

Can you explain why so many risked their lives and even were martyred for what you call the words of dead men?

 

[Thomas]

As for Catholics, I was raised in that church. Never not once did we bring our bibles.

What point would there be to that?

I refer you to Scripture:
"And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?" Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him."
Acts 8:30-31.
The point being, quoting the Bible is no proof of anything. Reading the Bible is no use if you don't understand what you're reading.

The priest read out of a huge heavy book and to this day I do not recall anything he taught.

Maybe his problem, maybe yours ...

The 'big heavy book' is the Lectionary, which is composed entirely of Biblical quotations, indeed, the words of the Liturgy are likewise composed.

They refer to so-called "traditions as if they were scripture.

Not quite. We hold tradition, which produced the scripture, as important as the scripture it produced. The tradition explains the scripture. Without it, you're all at sea without a compass or a chart ... I mean you can get the moral message — be good and kind to people — but the deep stuff is not so easily accessible.

Yet the problem is that they cannot prove which "traditions" were actually taught by the apostles.

Er, actually they can.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Falcon60]

The point being, quoting the Bible is no proof of anything. Reading the Bible is no use if you don't understand what you're reading.




Thomas

The Holy Scriptures is foolishness to those who are perishing because it is spiritually discerned, (1Cor. 1:18) meaning one must be born again to have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which teaches us God's Truth. Christ said we must be born again or we cannot see the kingdom of God. The Catholic church does not teach being born again. It teaches that salvation is found in the church, same as the Mormons who also believe they are the One True Church.

The Ethiopian Eunuch wasn't born again when Philip first approached him.

Some of these so called traditions of the catholic church are troublesome because they contradict the Bible such as Mary worship and the Mass itself which sacrifices Christ all over again.

Anyway, this thread is about Mormons, not Catholics.

Blessings...

 

[radarmark]

Suffice it to say we understand that you (Falcon60) to not believe those who disagree with your interpretation of the NT are true Christians, whether Mormon, Catholic, Orthodox, or non-evangelical Quaker.

I get it.

 

[Falcon60]

Suffice it to say we understand that you (Falcon60) to not believe those who disagree with your interpretation of the NT are true Christians, whether Mormon, Catholic, Orthodox, or non-evangelical Quaker.

I get it.

I believe in the Holy Scriptures and I believing in letting the Scriptures speak for itself. I do not believe in private interpretations which is why we have so many false religious groups. They bring to the scriptures their own belief system and then try to make the passage/verse match their beliefs. This is not how we approach God's word. Let scripture interpret scripture.

blessings...

 

[IowaGuy]

I believe in the Holy Scriptures and I believing in letting the Scriptures speak for itself. I do not believe in private interpretations which is why we have so many false religious groups. They bring to the scriptures their own belief system and then try to make the passage/verse match their beliefs. This is not how we approach God's word. Let scripture interpret scripture.

How many correct interpretations of scripture are there? i.e. if you and I interpret a certain piece of scripture differently (because of our different backgrounds & life experiences), who is interpreting it "correctly"? Or is there no "correct" interpretation of scripture?

 

[radarmark]

Even more basic is the question "which Holy Scripture"? The Samaritan Torah, the Karaite Tankah, the Masoritic Bible, the Septuagint, the Beta Israel Bible, the Armenian Bible, the Peshitta, the Greek Orthodox Bible, the Ethiopian Bible, the Vulgate, the Wycliffe Bible, the Lutheran Bible, the KJV, or one of the 200 or so "other bibles" in English since the KJV?

Which is "the scripture" which "interpret scripture"?

 

[Falcon60]

How many correct interpretations of scripture are there? i.e. if you and I interpret a certain piece of scripture differently (because of our different backgrounds & life experiences), who is interpreting it "correctly"? Or is there no "correct" interpretation of scripture?

There are reasons why different people interpret a verse or passage differently. Problems happen when people try to make them fit their preconceived ideas. You mentioned different experiences and backgrounds which can affect how one read things. Forcing the Bible to say what they want it to say is wrong. The disagreement is not so much with the interpretation, but with application and taking verses out of context.

The unsaved cannot understand the truth of the Bible because of unbelief and they have no illumination from the Holy Spirit.

There is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

 

[Falcon60]

Even more basic is the question "which Holy Scripture"? The Samaritan Torah, the Karaite Tankah, the Masoritic Bible, the Septuagint, the Beta Israel Bible, the Armenian Bible, the Peshitta, the Greek Orthodox Bible, the Ethiopian Bible, the Vulgate, the Wycliffe Bible, the Lutheran Bible, the KJV, or one of the 200 or so "other bibles" in English since the KJV?

Which is "the scripture" which "interpret scripture"?

I will let my late pastor, David Reagan, answer this. Below is an excerpt from his "A Tale of Three Cities: Where the Bible Versions Began"


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The first principle is that God has promised, without exception, to preserve not only the Word which He has given to man, but also the words. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This promise is confirmed every time God commands us to read, memorize, meditate upon, learn, or obey the words which He has given us.[/FONT]

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The second principle which must be understood is that many will "corrupt the word of God" as stated by Paul in II Corinthians 2:17

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Alexandrian scholarship subtracted from the Word, Roman tradition added to the Word. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Rome took Alexandria’s diluted bible and added to it according to its traditions. This resulted in the corrupted bibles which we still have with us today.

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Antioch was located in Syria on the Asian continent. The native inhabitants of Antioch descended from Shem, one of the sons of Noah. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Most of the New Testament books were either written or received in this part of the world. By His wonderful providence, God had placed Antioch in a special place of importance. Antioch became the early center for Bible-believing Christians and Bible preservation. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The founding and early ministry of the church at Antioch are described in Acts 11:19-30. Acts 13:1-4 narrates the calling and sending of the first missionaries out of Antioch:
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There are about 4,000 or 5,000 existing manuscripts of the New Testament. They have been classified according to their characteristic readings by various scholars and divided into families. [/FONT]These families are called the Western, the Alexandrian and the Syrian. The Western Text is related to Rome, the Alexandrian Text is related to Alexandria and the Syrian Text is related to Antioch. The Western and Alexandrian Texts are represented by a minority of manuscripts and corrupt the pure Word of God. The Syrian Text represents the great majority of manuscripts and, as a whole, preserves the pure Word of God. This pure text is still preserved for us today in the English of the King James Version of 1611."[/FONT]
[/FONT]

 

[radarmark]

You do realize that II Peter, II & III John, Jude, Revelations, and parts of Matthew, Luke and huge sections of Revelations in the KJV are clearly from the Textus Receptus (based on the Greek not Aramaic versions). KJV is, in this sense, merely a translation of the Erasmus' Latin translation of the Greek, not the Syriac text known as Peshitta.

So the quote in your post #57 is entirely spurious. KJV did not use the Peshitta but a "quick get it into print" version (Erasmus) based on six divergent Greek texts (nor Aramaic) which did not even include all the books of the NT (which were "filled in" with the Latin Vulgate)?

If you believe the claim true, fine. Just realize most of us have good basis to disagree with KJV being "pure text". Scholarship clearly shows it ain't.

 

[Falcon60]

You do realize that II Peter, II & III John, Jude, Revelations, and parts of Matthew, Luke and huge sections of Revelations in the KJV are clearly from the Textus Receptus (based on the Greek not Aramaic versions). KJV is, in this sense, merely a translation of the Erasmus' Latin translation of the Greek, not the Syriac text known as Peshitta.

So the quote in your post #57 is entirely spurious. KJV did not use the Peshitta but a "quick get it into print" version (Erasmus) based on six divergent Greek texts (nor Aramaic) which did not even include all the books of the NT (which were "filled in" with the Latin Vulgate)?

If you believe the claim true, fine. Just realize most of us have good basis to disagree with KJV being "pure text". Scholarship clearly shows it ain't.

The KJB was translated from original languages. (Hebrew, Greek and yes, some Aramaic) It did use other versions as a reference, but did not *rely* on those other versions for accuracy.

We can agree to disagree respectfully. But I don't worry about which "bible". I trust God. He promised to preserve His Word and he has.

 

[Thomas]

I believe in the Holy Scriptures and I believing in letting the Scriptures speak for itself.

Huge error — a self-serving and non-scriptural assumption.

Read Acts 8:30-31 — that says beyond doubt that Scripture does not 'speak for itself'.

By 'speak for itself' one means 'what it means to me'. The Ethiopian was sensible enough to realise that there's probably more to the Word of God than meets the eye, that's why he asked for the commentary of the Tradition that gave rise to Scripture in the first place.

I do not believe in private interpretations which is why we have so many false religious groups.

On what basis do you put forward your interpretation as any different from another 'private interpretation'?

Which group do you represent?

They bring to the scriptures their own belief system and then try to make the passage/verse match their beliefs. This is not how we approach God's word.

Really? Then you accept you must put your beliefs aside and receive the word from whom? Who is this 'we'? It seems to me you're saying 'opinions which are not mine are wrong, mine are right, and they're right, because they're mine' ... which is hardly a sound argument?

The origin of Scripture is a community that accepted those testimonies that reflected their beliefs. What d'you think Christians did before Scripture, and what rule did they apply when someone said 'this is scripture'?

We can safely assume that an 'orthodox' church emerged before the close of the first century. This church was based on the teaching of the apostles after Pentecost, Scripture itself reflects that, and by 80AD (the accepted date of Acts) we have scriptural evidence to indicate that there was an 'Apostolic Teaching' which was superior to the teachings of the disciples who had gone out before. We have a Trinitarian Rite of Baptism, which was superior to the baptism of John (the Baptist), the Baptism of Apollos (cf Acts 18:25) ... even baptism in the name of Jesus ...

By at least the mid first century we have the Didache, an orthodox and exoteric teaching, a catechism if you will, given prior to the 'esoteric' teaching given to the catechumenate prior to Baptism and the reception of the Eucharist which was, at that time, an oral teaching, and the catechumen was bound to silence by the Disciplina Arcani.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

The KJB was translated from original languages.

Let's have a reality check here ... the KJV was commissioned because the King "could never yet see a Bible well translated in English", and the translators agreed: "Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one ... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against, that hath been our endeavour."

God bless

Thomas

 

[Falcon60]

Huge error — a self-serving and non-scriptural assumption.

Read Acts 8:30-31 — that says beyond doubt that Scripture does not 'speak for itself'.

By 'speak for itself' one means 'what it means to me'. The Ethiopian was sensible enough to realise that there's probably more to the Word of God than meets the eye, that's why he asked for the commentary of the Tradition that gave rise to Scripture in the first place.


On what basis do you put forward your interpretation as any different from another 'private interpretation'?

Which group do you represent?


Really? Then you accept you must put your beliefs aside and receive the word from whom? Who is this 'we'? It seems to me you're saying 'opinions which are not mine are wrong, mine are right, and they're right, because they're mine' ... which is hardly a sound argument?

The origin of Scripture is a community that accepted those testimonies that reflected their beliefs. What d'you think Christians did before Scripture, and what rule did they apply when someone said 'this is scripture'?

We can safely assume that an 'orthodox' church emerged before the close of the first century. This church was based on the teaching of the apostles after Pentecost, Scripture itself reflects that, and by 80AD (the accepted date of Acts) we have scriptural evidence to indicate that there was an 'Apostolic Teaching' which was superior to the teachings of the disciples who had gone out before. We have a Trinitarian Rite of Baptism, which was superior to the baptism of John (the Baptist), the Baptism of Apollos (cf Acts 18:25) ... even baptism in the name of Jesus ...

By at least the mid first century we have the Didache, an orthodox and exoteric teaching, a catechism if you will, given prior to the 'esoteric' teaching given to the catechumenate prior to Baptism and the reception of the Eucharist which was, at that time, an oral teaching, and the catechumen was bound to silence by the Disciplina Arcani.

God bless,



Thomas

A huge error is when we read into the scriptures what is not there. When we bring in our preconceived ideas and try to make the scripture say what we want.

Nehemiah 8:8, gives a good description of Biblical interpretation: "So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly (What does it say?) and gave the sense (What does it mean?) and caused the people to understand the meaning (How does it apply?)." Every interpreter of Scripture is to bridge the gap of understanding by both faithfulness to the ancient word and sensitivity to the contemporary world so that God's word is handled with both accuracy and relevance. Interpretation is really God's meaning, not ours.


The Ethiopian Eunuch was not spiritually born again and thus could not understand the scriptures. The unregenerate do not have the illumination of the Holy Spirit that Christ said would come and teach and guide those who are children of God (the saved believers).

 

[radarmark]

Let me repeat, Falcon60, your source and, therefore, you view is not probable. The KJV is based on the Eramus text (Erasmus, King James, and His Translators (1/3) and two subsequent essays) not "many sources".

Similarly, Textus Receptus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/ERASMUS.PDF, shows that Erasmus based his work on painfully few texts and used the Latin Vulgate to "fill in".

In the scientific method, one makes conjectures that are objectively meaningful and verifiable. Your source and you fail this simple test:

"This is Holy Scripture". But the this is not defined or is "left floating". Therfore it is fair for me to reply, first, your facts are wrong and , second, this leads to in credibly subjective comments like "But I don't worry about which 'bible'. I trust God. He promised to preserve His Word and he has." Since you have no bible and no tradition (KJV only is a 20th century invention of Seventh Day Adventists) you must be trusting your conception of "G_d" and the "H_s Word" is your interpretation of what (a fair guess here) H_ told you.

We know where you stand.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I have to say Falcon60 that you appear to base your beliefs on your understanding that some people, regenerate, are better then other people. The fact that they are regenerate seem to be based on nothing more that they understand the bible the way you do. A circular argument in other words.

I'm sorry for joining in and ganging up on you but I felt it needed to be said. I hope you enjoy the spiritual and/or intellectual stimulation here and stay a while.

 

[Falcon60]

I have to say Falcon60 that you appear to base your beliefs on your understanding that some people, regenerate, are better then other people. The fact that they are regenerate seem to be based on nothing more that they understand the bible the way you do. A circular argument in other words.

I'm sorry for joining in and ganging up on you but I felt it needed to be said. I hope you enjoy the spiritual and/or intellectual stimulation here and stay a while.

It's not MY understanding. This is what the Holy Scriptures says. Those who are born again are children of God. Those who are not are an enmity of God. It seems that if someone makes an absolute statement of faith, others consider this to mean the person thinks he is better than everyone else. It's your prerogative to not believe the teachings of the Holy Scriptures, but please don't attack someone who does

Anyway, this thread is about Mormons and I apologize for not sticking with the topic. Therefore I am not gonna post anymore on here.

Blessings...

 

[Dream]

I'm sorry for joining in and ganging up on you but I felt it needed to be said. I hope you enjoy the spiritual and/or intellectual stimulation here and stay a while.

Its ok we're in the Christianity section, but when you gang up on someone you are supposed to make sure they have some money first. Then you must turn them upside down and shake thoroughly.