I don't know why God did not create an error free book but I can tell the Bible as we have it is not error free.Guyver said:
Upvote
0
- Status
daneel said:
I think you have confused the point being made. Notice the initial statement: "I'll say it again Every book that God intended and inspired to be in the Bible is in the Bible." This has to do with the canonicity of text. It also suggests the Bible is complete: every book there is at it should be. The fact there are different Bibles undercuts this basic idea.
As far as doctrinal difference: I take it you have never read either the Apocrypha or the Book(s) of Enoch. If your only standard is: the creation of man, his fall and God's redemption through the blood of Christ then you would be forced to accept the BoM.
Upvote
0
LittleNipper said:
No one knows what all were contained in the scriptures Christ read from.
The Apocrypha was part of the Septuagint (Greek OT) from roughly 200 B.C. It was part of the Christian canon from St. Jerome's Vulgate in 410 A.D. forward. It was also part of Luther's Bible and general Protestant texts early on. The eventual Protestant rejection of the Apocrypha is problematic because it is based on the decisions of a Jewish Council. This means the authoritative appeal is to a non-Christian body. That same body also rejected the NT.
Here's the difficulty explained another way: if one is going to claim X is scripture then some authoritative standard is needed. For example if Bob said the Gospel of Thomas is scripture or Joseph Smith put forward the BoM then one could ask what gives Bob or Joseph Smith the right to make the claim? The basic Bible of Protestantism is a product of Catholicism. This means an inherent deference to Catholic authority on the matter. The removal of some of the canon creates a tension with this original appeal. It also suggests a new and separate authoritative standard: that would be the Jewish Council of Jamia.
Upvote
0
gort
pedantric
Orontes said:
No, I have no problem with Guyvers point.
My questions still remains unanswered.
As far as the book of Enoch, I find it, at best, strange, and there are parts of it which contradict canonized Scripture. I've also read that it is spurious at best.
Regarding the BofM, there are several contradictions, along with the rest of your official doctrine that is contradictory to Scripture, regarding the person of God, mans fall, and the redemption of sinful man throught the shed blood of Christ Jesus.
Yes, these things are 'my criteria' for bonafide Scripture. I find the entire bible to be of the same criteria. All about God, and not about me.
So, are these other bibles that you brought into the discussion of a contradictory nature?
<><
Upvote
0
In fact, there are many Bibles which differ not only because of different translations but also because of including different selections of writings (e.g., apocryphal books or other books that are not considered canonical by everyone). It therefore becomes difficult to accept the idea that the Bible is an infallible, perfect document when it is not clear which documents really belong in the Bible or which varying manuscripts should be used in the translation, not to mention the inherent uncertainties and problems that arise in translating any of the existing early manuscripts. The Bible is inspired, but there is no denying that it has been touched by human hands!
If the Bible is the ultimate authority, then which Bible? Might it be the Armenian Bible, which includes books such as Aseneth and Joseph that are not found in most European Bibles? Will it be the Catholic Bible with its many apocryphal books not found in Protestant Bibles? Perhaps we should use the Ethiopic Bible or the Armenian Bible, which have other books not familiar to most Americans and Europeans? (I hope it's not the first modern Hmong Bible which is missing quite a few chapters from a number of books - perhaps due to translator fatigue.
To understand the large variety in canons, we need to look back in history. For example, the Codex Sinaiticus, which is the oldest New Testament collection available, a fourth century manuscript found in a monastery on Mount Sinai, contains two writings which are excluded in the modern New Testament, the Shepherd of Hermas and Barnabas. And yet even in the other books of that Codex, there appears to be a tendency to omit passages, leading to some shorter versions of Bible verses than we have in the King James text (J. M. Ross, "Some Unnoticed Points in the Text of the New Testament," Novum Testamentum Vol. 25, 1983, pp. 59-60, as cited by John Gee, Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1994, pp.68-70).
In A.D. 200, a Christian in Rome wrote a list of books considered to be canonical (see Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christian?, Bookcraft: Salt Lake City, Utah, 1991, p. 51). This list is now known as the Muratorian Canon, named after the man who discovered it in Milan. The list does not include Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, or 2 Peter, and includes only two of the letters of John. The canonical works did include the Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon.
The earliest Christians had no New Testament canon. As the Protestant scholar David F. Payne explains:
Part of the problem may have been the rarity of authoritative writings, which had to be copied by hand. Few churches had a complete set of apostolic letters, and it was undoubtedly difficult to tell a correctly written copy from a forgery or an errant copy. Many members might be unfamiliar with a given work cherished by other saints in a different area. New or unfamiliar writings might have been rejected or questioned, and many controversies are easy to imagine.
Eusebius, known as the Father of Church History, was a fourth century bishop of Caesarea who disputed the books of James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John and 3 John [Bernstein, p. 5]. He absolutely rejected the book of Revelation. Origen in the third century questioned the authenticity of 2 Peter and 2 John. Here was a respected Christian leader who accepted a different canon than many modern Christians. Does that make him unchristian? An apostate? A cultist? Was he subtracting from the Word of God? Some modern Protestants condemn Latter-day Saints for such reasons. Ironically, that logic would not only condemn respected early Christians like Eusebius, but the father of Protestantism himself, Martin Luther.
Interestingly, when Luther and other Protestants rejected the Septuagint text and its Latin translation in the Vulgate, thus rejecting the Apocrypha, and instead used a smaller collection of Old Testament books from the Masoretic Hebrew text, they diverged from centuries of Christian tradition. As a result, the Roman Catholic Bible now has about twelve books more than the Protestant Bible, meaning that about 200 pages of text have been "subtracted" - one could say - from the Protestant Bible relative to the "traditional" Catholic Bible. Though there was a time when many Protestants and Catholics accused each other of being anti-Christian, they now generally accept the right of the other to have a different canon. Shouldn't the same privilege be extended to their fellow-Christians, the Latter-day Saints, who have the Protestant Bible plus the Book of Mormon and two other books in their canon?
The popular concept of Biblical inerrancy and sufficiency (in which it is asserted that the Bible as is contains no flaws and is a complete and perfect canon) is hard to square with the centuries-old uncertainty and controversy over what should be in the Biblical canon in the first place. If Martin Luther openly attacked the canonical status of some books in the Protestant Bible, it seems odd that his followers would later claim that the Bible is infallible, complete, and perfect. The Bible makes no such claim for itself.
Where did the popular concept of the inerrancy of modern Bibles come from, if not the Bible? If Luther questioned the Sermon on the Mount and other parts of the Bible, it obviously was not from him (though he did teach that the scriptures were sufficient for salvation). The Protestant writer Lloyd Averill argues that the modern "fundamentalist" view of Biblical inerrancy does not derive from the great Reformers, but is a more modern development:
by Jeff Lindsay
If the Bible is the ultimate authority, then which Bible? Might it be the Armenian Bible, which includes books such as Aseneth and Joseph that are not found in most European Bibles? Will it be the Catholic Bible with its many apocryphal books not found in Protestant Bibles? Perhaps we should use the Ethiopic Bible or the Armenian Bible, which have other books not familiar to most Americans and Europeans? (I hope it's not the first modern Hmong Bible which is missing quite a few chapters from a number of books - perhaps due to translator fatigue.
To understand the large variety in canons, we need to look back in history. For example, the Codex Sinaiticus, which is the oldest New Testament collection available, a fourth century manuscript found in a monastery on Mount Sinai, contains two writings which are excluded in the modern New Testament, the Shepherd of Hermas and Barnabas. And yet even in the other books of that Codex, there appears to be a tendency to omit passages, leading to some shorter versions of Bible verses than we have in the King James text (J. M. Ross, "Some Unnoticed Points in the Text of the New Testament," Novum Testamentum Vol. 25, 1983, pp. 59-60, as cited by John Gee, Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1994, pp.68-70).
In A.D. 200, a Christian in Rome wrote a list of books considered to be canonical (see Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christian?, Bookcraft: Salt Lake City, Utah, 1991, p. 51). This list is now known as the Muratorian Canon, named after the man who discovered it in Milan. The list does not include Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, or 2 Peter, and includes only two of the letters of John. The canonical works did include the Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon.
The earliest Christians had no New Testament canon. As the Protestant scholar David F. Payne explains:
[font=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]"Their Bible, and that of the Jews to this day, consisted of the Old Testament; this was the Canon of Holy Writ accepted by Jesus Himself, and referred to simply as 'the scriptures' throughout the New Testament writings. It was not until A.D. 393 that a church council first listed the 27 New Testament books now universally recognized. There was thus a period of about 350 years during which the New Testament Canon was in process of being formed."
(David F. Payne, "The Text and Canon of the New Testament," in The International Bible Commentary, ed. by F.F. Bruce, Zondervan Publ. House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1986, p. 1005.) [/size][/font]
Excellent information on the origins of the Bible was summarized by Father A. James Bernstein in "Which Came First: The Church or the New Testament," The Christian Activist, Vol. 9, Fall/Winter 1996, p. 1,4-7. Father Bernstein discusses his discoveries as he explored Biblical origins, many of which surprised him and challenged his old views about scripture. For example, he explains how the canon we accept today differs in some ways from the writings used by early Christians:(David F. Payne, "The Text and Canon of the New Testament," in The International Bible Commentary, ed. by F.F. Bruce, Zondervan Publ. House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1986, p. 1005.) [/size][/font]
[font=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]"[T]he early Christians used a Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint. This translation . . . contained an expanded canon which included a number of the so-called "deuterocanonical" (or "apocryphal") books. Although there was some initial debate over these books, they were eventually received by Christians into the Old Testament canon.
In reaction to the rise of Christianity, the Jews narrowed their canons and eventually excluded the deuterocanonical books - although they still regarded them as sacred. The modern Jewish canon was not rigidly fixed until the third century A.D. Interestingly, it is this later version of the Jewish canon of the Old Testament, rather than the canon of early Christianity, that is followed by most modern Protestants today.
When the Apostles lived and wrote, there was no New Testament and no finalized Old Testament. . . .
[T]he first complete listing of New Testament books as we have them today did not appear until over 300 years after the death and resurrection of Christ. (The first complete listing was given by St. Athanasius in his Paschal Letter in A.D. 367.) . . . Most [early Christian] churches only had parts of what was to become the New Testament. . . . During the first four centuries A.D. there was substantial disagreement over which books should be included in the canon of Scripture. The first person on record who tried to establish a New Testament canon was the second-century heretic, Marcion. He wanted the Church to reject its Jewish heritage, and therefore he dispensed with the Old Testament entirely. Marcion's canon included only one gospel, which he himself edited, and ten of Paul's epistles. Sad but true, the first attempted New Testament was heretical. [/size][/font]
While Marcion was excluding many books he did not like, many early Christians accepted other New Testament books that most modern churches no longer have or no longer accept. For example, there were many competing "gospels" besides Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Before the Gospel of John had been written, Saint Luke wrote that there were many others writing related accounts, saying "Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us . . . it seemeth good to me also . . . to write to you an orderly account." (Luke 1:1,3). There would later be controversy over which of the Gospels to use, including controversy concerning the Gospel of John. The Roman Church resisted John, while the church in Asia Minor embraced John. The Syrian Church did not accept all four Gospels of the modern Bible until the fifth century, and "also ignored for a time the Epistles of John, 2 Peter, and the Book of Revelation" [Bernstein, p. 5]. As Stephen Robinson notes (pp. 52-53),In reaction to the rise of Christianity, the Jews narrowed their canons and eventually excluded the deuterocanonical books - although they still regarded them as sacred. The modern Jewish canon was not rigidly fixed until the third century A.D. Interestingly, it is this later version of the Jewish canon of the Old Testament, rather than the canon of early Christianity, that is followed by most modern Protestants today.
When the Apostles lived and wrote, there was no New Testament and no finalized Old Testament. . . .
[T]he first complete listing of New Testament books as we have them today did not appear until over 300 years after the death and resurrection of Christ. (The first complete listing was given by St. Athanasius in his Paschal Letter in A.D. 367.) . . . Most [early Christian] churches only had parts of what was to become the New Testament. . . . During the first four centuries A.D. there was substantial disagreement over which books should be included in the canon of Scripture. The first person on record who tried to establish a New Testament canon was the second-century heretic, Marcion. He wanted the Church to reject its Jewish heritage, and therefore he dispensed with the Old Testament entirely. Marcion's canon included only one gospel, which he himself edited, and ten of Paul's epistles. Sad but true, the first attempted New Testament was heretical. [/size][/font]
[font=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]One of the most important of the Greek new Testament manuscripts, known as D or Codex Claramontanus, contains a canon list for both the Old and New Testaments. The manuscript itself is a product of the sixth century, but most scholars believe the canon list originated in the Alexandrian church in the fourth century. This canon omits Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Hebrews, but includes the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul (not our Acts), and, like the Muratorian Canon, the Apocalypse of Peter. . . .
Before the fifth century the Syrian Christian canon included 3 Corinthians and Tatian's Diatessaron. . . . The Abyssinian Orthodox church has in its canon the twenty-seven books of the modern New Testament, but adds the Synodos of Qalementos (both attributed to Clement of Rome), the Book of the Covenant (which includes a post-resurrection discourse of the Savior), and the Ethiopic Didascalia. To the Old Testament the Abyssinian canon adds the book of Enoch (cited as prophetic by the canonical book of Jude) and the Ascension of Isaiah.[/size][/font]
Before the fifth century the Syrian Christian canon included 3 Corinthians and Tatian's Diatessaron. . . . The Abyssinian Orthodox church has in its canon the twenty-seven books of the modern New Testament, but adds the Synodos of Qalementos (both attributed to Clement of Rome), the Book of the Covenant (which includes a post-resurrection discourse of the Savior), and the Ethiopic Didascalia. To the Old Testament the Abyssinian canon adds the book of Enoch (cited as prophetic by the canonical book of Jude) and the Ascension of Isaiah.[/size][/font]
Part of the problem may have been the rarity of authoritative writings, which had to be copied by hand. Few churches had a complete set of apostolic letters, and it was undoubtedly difficult to tell a correctly written copy from a forgery or an errant copy. Many members might be unfamiliar with a given work cherished by other saints in a different area. New or unfamiliar writings might have been rejected or questioned, and many controversies are easy to imagine.
Eusebius, known as the Father of Church History, was a fourth century bishop of Caesarea who disputed the books of James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John and 3 John [Bernstein, p. 5]. He absolutely rejected the book of Revelation. Origen in the third century questioned the authenticity of 2 Peter and 2 John. Here was a respected Christian leader who accepted a different canon than many modern Christians. Does that make him unchristian? An apostate? A cultist? Was he subtracting from the Word of God? Some modern Protestants condemn Latter-day Saints for such reasons. Ironically, that logic would not only condemn respected early Christians like Eusebius, but the father of Protestantism himself, Martin Luther.
Interestingly, when Luther and other Protestants rejected the Septuagint text and its Latin translation in the Vulgate, thus rejecting the Apocrypha, and instead used a smaller collection of Old Testament books from the Masoretic Hebrew text, they diverged from centuries of Christian tradition. As a result, the Roman Catholic Bible now has about twelve books more than the Protestant Bible, meaning that about 200 pages of text have been "subtracted" - one could say - from the Protestant Bible relative to the "traditional" Catholic Bible. Though there was a time when many Protestants and Catholics accused each other of being anti-Christian, they now generally accept the right of the other to have a different canon. Shouldn't the same privilege be extended to their fellow-Christians, the Latter-day Saints, who have the Protestant Bible plus the Book of Mormon and two other books in their canon?
The popular concept of Biblical inerrancy and sufficiency (in which it is asserted that the Bible as is contains no flaws and is a complete and perfect canon) is hard to square with the centuries-old uncertainty and controversy over what should be in the Biblical canon in the first place. If Martin Luther openly attacked the canonical status of some books in the Protestant Bible, it seems odd that his followers would later claim that the Bible is infallible, complete, and perfect. The Bible makes no such claim for itself.
Where did the popular concept of the inerrancy of modern Bibles come from, if not the Bible? If Luther questioned the Sermon on the Mount and other parts of the Bible, it obviously was not from him (though he did teach that the scriptures were sufficient for salvation). The Protestant writer Lloyd Averill argues that the modern "fundamentalist" view of Biblical inerrancy does not derive from the great Reformers, but is a more modern development:
[font=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]"It is clear that Calvin cannot be credited with the scriptural literalism affirmed by present-day fundamentalists. Nor, indeed, can any other major figure in the history of Christian thought prior to 1800. Contrary to fundamentalists claims, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy as they have formulated it is not a return to primitive Christianity or to Christian orthodoxy. Rather, it was an innovation fashioned scarcely more than a hundred years ago as a weapon to be used against the modernist movement." [Lloyd J. Averill, Religious Right, Religious Wrong: A Critique of the Fundamentalist Phenomenon, Pilgrim Books, New York, 1989, pp. 73-74, as cited by Peterson and Ricks, p. 127.][/size][/font]
My point is not to attack the Bible or the canons that are accepted today, but to point out that there is much room for uncertainty and little ground to claim that what we have now is the only acceptable, infallible, complete canon of scripture. Some argue that to be a Christian, one must accept only one particular canon and no other, but such a requirement would exclude Christ and the early Christians who did not have the Bible as we know it today, and who used Old Testament writings differing from those deemed authoritative by modern Protestants. In addition to the early Christian use of the Septuagint with its Apocryphal writings, the Bible itself mentions many other sacred writings which appear to have been lost, or, in some cases, removed from the modern canon. Once we understand that there is not just a single, original manuscript to work with, but many different ancient texts, all of which are removed from the originals by many years, then it is easier to understand the genuine complications that we face in dealing with the Bible as a divine document that still has been through human hands. We can understand that outright contradictions might exist between the different ancient sources we have for the Bible. For example, their are contradictions about the ages of the Patriarchs at the birth of their successors when we compare the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint. We find that the Masoretic Text offers 720 years as the length of time from Abraham's birth to the Exodus, while the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch give 505 years. There are may similar examples, all pointing to the obvious fact that different ancient Bibles don't all give the same text. And even different translations from a common ancient manuscript will differ in many ways. So if the Bible is to be infallible, then we must begin with the question, "Which Bible?" And then we must ask, is that really all there is? by Jeff Lindsay
Upvote
0
Kd,
I think that it is permitted to cite that your post was written by Jeff Lindsey, even if the rules prohibit linking to it. Otherwise, we are given the impression that you are taking credit for his words. Besides, I like to know who wrote what I am reading.
I think that it is permitted to cite that your post was written by Jeff Lindsey, even if the rules prohibit linking to it. Otherwise, we are given the impression that you are taking credit for his words. Besides, I like to know who wrote what I am reading.
Upvote
0
B
buddy mack
Guest
we can go back 2000 or more years and quote latin, Greek, and hebrew scribs who have worked on both the old and new testaments, and KDLDS has typed hundreds of words here decussing the Holy Bible.kdlds said:
Now, how many words does it take to discuss the Pre-Joseph Smith era and the Book of Mormon writtings? answer- ONE WORD- NONE!
Upvote
0
skylark1 said:Kd,
I think that it is permitted to cite that your post was written by Jeff Lindsey, even if the rules prohibit linking to it. Otherwise, we are given the impression that you are taking credit for his words. Besides, I like to know who wrote what I am reading.
Noted the previous was written by Jeff Lindsay
Upvote
0
B
buddy mack
Guest
kdlds said:
he is the one guy who on the left side of his brain he is smarter than me, and on the right side of his brain he is dumber than me.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
A New Dawn
God is bigger than the boogeyman!
- Mar 18, 2004
- 70,332
- 7,684
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
newyorksaint said:
If you agreed that God always keeps His promises, there there would have been no need for a restoration because there wouldn't have been an apostasy.
Upvote
0
gort
pedantric
Jenda said:
If you agreed that God always keeps His promises, there there would have been no need for a restoration because there wouldn't have been an apostasy.
Isa 55:8 For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Isa 55:9 For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Isa 55:10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it.
Isa 55:12 For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap [their] hands.
Isa 55:13 Instead of the thorn shall come up the fir tree, and instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle tree: and it shall be to the LORD for a name, for an everlasting sign [that] shall not be cut off.
<><
Upvote
0
buddy mack said:
Excellent point, the Book of Mormon was not tranlsated by thousands of men and there are not thousands of translated manuscripts giving rise for all kinds of speculation. Joseph Smith relied on the power of God to translate the plates.
Upvote
0
God never said that there wouldn't be an apostasy; on the contrary, He said that there would be one. Hell did not prevail against the Church.Jenda said:
If you agreed that God always keeps His promises, there there would have been no need for a restoration because there wouldn't have been an apostasy.
Upvote
0
S
SayWhat???
Guest
Sven1967 said:
Yes and No. I have a problem with saying "The Bible is the Word of God," as if "The Bible" and "the word of God" were synonymous. There is no doubt in my mind that the Bible contains the word of God, or at least a portion of it, but it is not an exhaustive record of everything God has ever said.
SW
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
daneel said:
The issue isn't whether one has a problem it, but whether it is rational. To argue X is as God intended it to be and then note there are different Xs means the view cannot be sustained or God's intention is relative. This is a coherency issue not a belief issue.
I thought I did answer your questions. Doctrinal difference should be obvious for anyone who has read either the Apocrypha or 1 Enoch. A simple example from 2 Maccabees is the reference to Purgatory. You already mentioned the tensions in the Book of Enoch with the Protestant Bible so I won't go into any examples. The problem is that you also claim the Book of Enoch conflicts with "canonized scripture" and is "spurious at best". The Book of Enoch is part of the Ethiopic Bible. This means it is in the canon as it were. This also means one must either reject the idea the Bible is as God intended or accept Biblical relativism.
I can tell you've never read the BoM. Your base criteria are all in the BoM.
So I'm not accused of not answering some question again: yes. I could bring up a whole host of other examples: other Bibles as it were, but I restricted myself to three simple texts.
Upvote
0
Swart
ÜberChristian
- Mar 22, 2004
- 6,527
- 204
- 57
- Faith
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- AU-Greens
daneel said:
As a point of order, if you believe you have a contradiction between the Bible and the BoM, could you please post them in this thread.
If, however, you are claiming there are contradictions between the BoM and the tenets of OCy, then you have no argument from me.
Upvote
0
gort
pedantric
I've not read either the Ethiopic or Catholic bible, and that's the reason I asked you if there were contradictions regarding 'my criteria'.
Having found this site, http://www.twopaths.com/faq_bibles.htm , I find the protestant NT is the same as the Catholic NT. So for now, I don't know what context "purgatory" is implied.
The parts of the BofE that I have read I did find some contradictions before I gave up, as whoever wrote it was...., well.........
But whether or not there are contradictions according to my criteria I don't know.
The protestant bible is all about God and what He does.
But let's take the Catholic bible, and regarding 2nd Maccabees and the concept of purgatory. If I were to find that it conflicts with mans salvation, diametrically opposing what is plainly said in the writings of say, John the disciple, then I would have no choice other than to call it heretical. IOW, if there is purgatory for one who's sins are forgiven by God, then there is a problem.
Or, if I had lived in the time of the Crusades, and the Pope told me my sins could be forgiven if I were to go to the Holy Land and help conquer it? That too would be heretical.
The same would apply to the LDS in the same way of differing points as compared to the RLDS? Or any others of the offshoots?
The RLDS has their own canon of what they do and don't accept. Are you required to accept them simply because it's part of their canon?
I've read a few parts. There is conflict in parts with my criteria. The fall of man and the reasoning behind it is one. There are many aspects of mormonism that are good. But being good does'nt get one to heaven. Only Grace can do that.
<><
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Swart
ÜberChristian
- Mar 22, 2004
- 6,527
- 204
- 57
- Faith
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- AU-Greens
daneel said:No thank you..... we already did that dance once....
I'm thinking of starting another thread entitled "Canonic Influence" with much more relaxed constraints. Interested?
That way we can discuss all those other things and leave the "contradictions" thread for non-existent contradictions.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
