Peter1000
Well-Known Member
Again, Paul was accepted by the people at the time. He has been accepted by the groups that have debated, argued, discussed and agreed as to what is Canon.
I do not, in any way shape or form, hold Joseph Smith in the same light as any of the people who wrote the scriptures of the Canon.
The Bible is accepted, world wide, by far greater theologians than myself, to be the word of God.
So, to be clear, the Bible is accepted as the valid word of God. Nothing written since then is necessary to complete the word of God. Nothing written since can add to content of the Bible and be considered the word of God.
No man is going to convince me otherwise. I will hold no book in comparison to the Bible and certainly not words written by a man who is a self proclaimed chosen one and had a man, turned angel, back from the dead, thousands of years later, to give information that God left out.
God is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow. He has nothing "new" to tell us. We have all the information that we need. I need no more words than what I have.
You understand that you are working yourself into a corner by stating that God is the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow?God is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow. He has nothing "new" to tell us. We have all the information that we need. I need no more words than what I have.
For example, if Jesus chose living Apostles and Prophets to be the foundation of His church in the 1st century, why would he not have living Apostles and Prophets that are still the foundation of His church in the 21st century?
It makes sense to me if Jesus is the same, today, yesterday, and tomorrow, He would have living Apostles and Prophets in His true church today.
If not, then He is not the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow. Can you explain this conundrum?
Last edited:
Upvote
0