LDS LDS: Proxy Baptism -- Basis in the Bible.

[Truthseeker1971]

You know what gets me is that you can beleive that Joseph Smith pulled baptism for the dead out of his something or other. A doctrine that was so foreign to modern Christianity. From one verse in the bible build a whole doctrine that included the endowment as well. Belief in a pre existence or God Has Glorified body of flesh and bones or the importance of the priesthood or apostles and prophets or the Book of Mormon or the doctrine and covenants or we were all brothers and sisters in the pre existence and on and on and on. And now ancient discoveries of ancient writings confirm every teaching brought about by the restoration. Writings that Joseph Smith never had access to. If you guys want to cling to the bible and beliefs that have been watered down and made to fit mans own mortal ideas of God then have at it. For me God has revealed much more to man and I want to take advantage of that knowledge.

ALL SCRIPTURE is given under inspiration of God, it is the word of God, not men and it has not been altered. To deny this truth is to call God a liar and an incompetent fool, incapable of keeping His Word, spoken by Him alone, committed to paper by man by inspiration of the Spirit, accurate and true. You are calling the word of God a lie. Because the bible isn't good enough for you.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

ALL SCRIPTURE. The bible alone, not man's laying traditions and fantasies.

And there is absolutely, nothing, nothing that confirms JS's teachings.

 

[fatboys]

ALL SCRIPTURE is given under inspiration of God, it is the word of God, not men and it has not been altered. To deny this truth is to call God a liar and an incompetent fool, incapable of keeping His Word, spoken by Him alone, committed to paper by man by inspiration of the Spirit, accurate and true. You are calling the word of God a lie. Because the bible isn't good enough for you.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

ALL SCRIPTURE. The bible alone, not man's laying traditions and fantasies.

And there is absolutely, nothing, nothing that confirms JS's teachings.

Since the New Testament didn't exist when this was written which scripture do you think he was referring to?

 

[Hammster]

Since the New Testament didn't exist when this was written which scripture do you think he was referring to?

To say that it didn't exist is to say that this is the first book of the NT. Is that the Mormon position?

 

[fatboys]

To say that it didn't exist is to say that this is the first book of the NT. Is that the Mormon position?

The New Testament didn't exist when Timothy was written.

 

[ewq1938]

The New Testament didn't exist when Timothy was written.

No one can definitively say that nothing of the NT was yet written. Obviously there was at least the book of Timothy because that statement is written in that book.

 

[Hammster]

The New Testament didn't exist when Timothy was written.

So Timothy is the first letter written?

 

[Tawhano]

If you guys want to cling to the bible and beliefs that have been watered down and made to fit mans own mortal ideas of God then have at it.

According to your eight article of faith:
"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."

The OP was arguing that this verse was incorrectly translated by the LDS Church and gave his reason for this. You managed to avoid directly responding to his arguments with degrading remarks about the Bible, of which Joseph Smith himself believed to be the Word of God. If you didn't have a legitimate argument then why bother to post at all?

 

[Ironhold]

No one can definitively say that nothing of the NT was yet written. Obviously there was at least the book of Timothy because that statement is written in that book.

Some of the individual NT books were in existence at the time, but they were largely free-floating individual manuscripts.

It would be decades before any attempt at compiling them would be made, and depending upon which source you go by centuries before the NT as we know it came to be.

 

[Hammster]

Some of the individual NT books were in existence at the time, but they were largely free-floating individual manuscripts.

It would be decades before any attempt at compiling them would be made, and depending upon which source you go by centuries before the NT as we know it came to be.

Were those in existence considered scripture?

 

[drstevej]

2 Peter 3 (Peter refers to Paul's writings as scripture)

Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

 

[Ironhold]

Were those in existence considered scripture?

Anyone who knows about the history of the Bible should be well aware of the disputes over who wrote certain books and whether or not these books - including some of the ones we have now in the NT - should be considered scripture.

 

[fatboys]

2 Peter 3 (Peter refers to Paul's writings as scripture)

Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

So

 

[Hammster]

Anyone who knows about the history of the Bible should be well aware of the disputes over who wrote certain books and whether or not these books - including some of the ones we have now in the NT - should be considered scripture.

Um...not sure how that answers my question.

Anyway, 2 Timothy was written at the end of Paul's life. So it's safe to assume that 12 books of the NT were penned. And Peter considered his writings to be scripture.

 

[Jane_Doe]

ALL SCRIPTURE is given under inspiration of God, it is the word of God, not men and it has not been altered. To deny this truth is to call God a liar and an incompetent fool, incapable of keeping His Word, spoken by Him alone, committed to paper by man by inspiration of the Spirit, accurate and true. You are calling the word of God a lie. Because the bible isn't good enough for you.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

ALL SCRIPTURE. The bible alone, not man's laying traditions and fantasies.

And there is absolutely, nothing, nothing that confirms JS's teachings.

I've never understood this as a "66 books of Bible only, closed cannon" defense:

1) Not all 66 books of the Bible were written when this was written
2) There are different opinions in Christian community about what books should be included in the Bible (I'm referring to the apocrypha and such)
3) Timothy says that all scripture is good. He doesn't say that we can't have more scripture (or more goodness).

 

[BigDaddy4]

I've never understood this as a "66 books of Bible only, closed cannon" defense:

1) Not all 66 books of the Bible were written when this was written
2) There are different opinions in Christian community about what books should be included in the Bible (I'm referring to the apocrypha and such)
3) Timothy says that all scripture is good. He doesn't say that we can't have more scripture (or more goodness).

I've never understood this line of counterdefense. The LDS 8th article of faith sustains the Bible with the disclaimer "as long as it is translated correctly". Do the lds believe not all of the 66 books are Scripture? Or at least not those written after 2 Timothy?

"He doesn't say that we can't have more scripture (or more goodness)." Why doesn't that apply to those written after 2 Timothy?

 

[Jane_Doe]

I've never understood this line of counterdefense. The LDS 8th article of faith sustains the Bible with the disclaimer "as long as it is translated correctly". Do the lds believe not all of the 66 books are Scripture? Or at least not those written after 2 Timothy?

"He doesn't say that we can't have more scripture (or more goodness)." Why doesn't that apply to those written after 2 Timothy?

LDS do believe ALL 66 books of the Bible. What I was referring to in my comment was Truthseeker using the 2 Timothy verse as a defense for a closed cannon.

 

[drstevej]

The JST states that “the Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings.”

LDS Bible Dictionary
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/song-of-solomon?lang=eng

 

[ewq1938]

2 Peter 3 (Peter refers to Paul's writings as scripture)

Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

And he says other scriptures proving there were some along with Paul's.

 

[Ironhold]

LDS Bible Dictionary
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/song-of-solomon?lang=eng

And?

 

[BigDaddy4]

LDS do believe ALL 66 books of the Bible. What I was referring to in my comment was Truthseeker using the 2 Timothy verse as a defense for a closed cannon.

Where did he do that?