The best deal?
Posted on 01/04/2009 8:07:31 PM PST by Stourme
Perhaps the Catholic Bible added books and verses that should not be there?
There MUST be a God. Has to be a first cause.
I admit its an assumption but I assume God has some interest in humanity. There would most likely be some evidence of this interest in the early dawning of human history. In other words no religion incapable of showing roots, if not foundational components at least a few thousand years old would be valid.
Since we are assuming God contacted man thousands of years ago and did so in a significant manner we have only two possibilities to consider as late comers are out and aboriginal cults come and go like the falling leaves over the millenia . Hindu and Hebrew and their refinements are the only real choices.
So you can be a Hindu, a Hebrew, a Buddhist, a Christian, an agnostic or an atheist. Anything else is stupid.
Personally christianity makes the most sense of all of em and it offers the best deal.
If its not literal you might as well just use it as a doorstop as that’s about all it would be good for.
I suppose the US Constitution is not meant to be taken literally either.
If an important document is part truth and part fiction or one is free to believe what he ‘feels’ is the good parts and dump the other parts ... it’s junk. A waste of paper and ink.
I’ll make a quick and dirty answer to your query about which of those doctrines are taught in the Book of Mormon: none of them. Mormons believe in an open canon and those doctrines are taught in the book Doctrine and Covenants (which is comprised of teachings and revelations since 1830) and through continuing revelation through a living prophet. Most, if not all, churches have components to their practice and traditions which are not contained in the Bible. There is no Pope in the Bible, nor is the Doctrine of the Trinity there except in very oblique language. There are no archbishops, no requirement of celibate clergy, no provisions for nuns, or even fulltime paid clergy except as many have wrested from mentions here and there. There is little in the way of day-to-day guidance but that hasn’t stopped churches from proceeding in the manner they deem appropriate given their understanding of the Word of God.
As for Mormons, if you believe the Book of Mormon is true (and that testimony comes only through the Holy Ghost), then you automatically accept that Joseph Smith was an authorized translator of the Book of Mormon and a prophet called to establish the Lord’s church on the earth again. There is no Book of Mormon manuscript to judge the accuracy of the translation partly because the Book of Mormon contains the entire history of the world according to revelation therein and that part (which comprises 2/3rd of the size of the manuscript) is sealed to us all, to be opened only when the Savior returns. The manuscript is in safekeeping out of mortal hands and will remain there until the Lord decides it is time to unseal that portion of the book. This may be difficult to accept in these days but we have no original manuscripts of the Bible, we have some 8,000 excerpts of old copies, none of which are identical. How can you know the Bible is translated correctly except by faith in God? The Book of Mormon must be accepted by divine personal revelation to those who seek in earnest to know whether it is true, or it will not be accepted at all.
The best deal?
I love your tagline, by the way.
Thank you.
As for Mormons, if you believe the Book of Mormon is true (and that testimony comes only through the Holy Ghost), then you automatically accept that Joseph Smith was an authorized translator of the Book of Mormon and a prophet called to establish the Lord’s church on the earth again.
How many different sects are there that claim Joseph Smith as their founder?
The Book of Mormon must be accepted by divine personal revelation to those who seek in earnest to know whether it is true, or it will not be accepted at all.
God has revealed to me that it is false.
Where is the evidence that the Book of Mormon was translated correctly?
Excellent point, and is one of the stronger points in favor of a Bible meant to be a relational and philosophical guide, not a historical recording.
I believe the primary purpose of the Bible is to tell us how to relate to God and fellow man; it is not meant to be an exact historical record. It is allegorical in most parts. Slavish devotion to the words themselves - rather than the truths contained therein - is a form of idolatry much more insidious and deceptive than worshiping a golden calf.
My tagline - something I came up with many years ago in a public, political debate with a Democrat...:)
I believe that the Reorganized Church, now called Community of Christ claims Joseph as a founder. So does an offshoot from that organization. Then there are fundamentalist groups that have broken off from the church for various times and at various times. Thee is only one thriving organization and that is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I guess you have to act on your revelation. God has revealed to me just the opposite. Most every faithful member of a faith feels they have received personal revelation that their faith is correct. I guess we will have to wait until the Second Coming to see which was right. You have my respect. And thank you for offering a voice of reason on the issue of posting the church handbook and copyright violation. I’m happy to see the moderator agreed with you.
I do believe that mounting evidence over recent years has proven it's historical accuracy, as well.
Well, the way it was explained to me was the books weren't necessary to reveal Jesus, so they were left out of the King James version. If you read the KJV, Jesus can be found in every book. Maccabees's may be historical, but not particularly revealing Jesus. I haven't read the other books, but may find them and read them. I think the KJV of the OT is adequate to give us what we need to know and there shouldn't be much disagreement between us on those books. If someone can bring up a reference to some prophetic reason to include the Vulgate books, then by all means, they should have been included. But if they are just history, then maybe the Josephus books should also be added.
The point is the Bible is the Revelation of Jesus Christ and our need for Him to be saved, Beyond that, it is good to know info that we can argue about. A book that Catholics and Protestants both have is Timothy, yet Catholics deny the tenet's it reveals. To add more books is just fertile ground for more disagreement.
Don’t let these Mormon haters get to you. They are experts at other people’s denominations, but they all belong to tiny little corner churches that fit their specific ideas of what is true worship. Most of them take God’s job of judgement upon themselves and act as prohets themselves by proclaiming that others are not true “Christians”; therefore, others will not go to heaven. They will throw scriptures at you and even tell you that “all the other churches say you are not Christian”, but remember, in the end, NOBODY HAS A RIGHT TO CALL SOMEONE ELSE A NON-CHRISTIAN.
The newer versions of the Bible also point us to the direction that you get to heaven by works instead of the blood of Christ. Jesus Christ died for us. Our ‘good deeds’ here on earth can never suffice to get us there. Only believing in His Son will. KJV 1611 ;-) There is a difference!
Muhammad was a Non-Christian.
For some it is much sooner than that:
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: (Hebrews 9:27 KJV)
How do you know, did you know him? Was he even real? Nanny nanny poo poo
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.