Joseph Smith Was Not A Martyr

[Katzpur]

Not so:

Revelation 22:18-19

18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;
19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

Are you serious? I didn't think anybody was still using that sorry old logic. Do you seriously think that "this book" meant "the Bible"?

 

[McBell]

Not so:

Revelation 22:18-19

18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;
19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

You know, for being a preacher for three years, you are remarkably ignorant about how your holy book came to be.

I mean, do you really think that Revelation was the last book of the bible written?
Do you really think that the verses you are presenting are talking about the "bible"?

You are either grasping at straws or revealing your ignorance or perhaps bluffing...

 

[ljam49]

You know, for being a preacher for three years, you are remarkably ignorant about how your holy book came to be.

I mean, do you really think that Revelation was the last book of the bible written?
Do you really think that the verses you are presenting are talking about the "bible"?

You are either grasping at straws or revealing your ignorance or perhaps bluffing...

It really is no skin off my back what you think. When looking at this verse its easy to understand that when the canon closed and this verse was included at the end of the last book included that a warning like this would and could easily be applied to the rest of the scriptures.

 

[ljam49]

You know, for being a preacher for three years, you are remarkably ignorant about how your holy book came to be.

Are you serious? what credentials do you have to make judgement on a preacher? Are you, were you ever recognized as a preacher with the credentials to support? I think not. Disqualification for judgement duly noted.

 

[Katzpur]

You're a preacher? I had no idea! So where is your congregation? Since you're here in Utah, maybe I'll drop in some Sunday to hear you preach.

 

[Katzpur]

When looking at this verse its easy to understand that when the canon closed and this verse was included at the end of the last book included that a warning like this would and could easily be applied to the rest of the scriptures.

It's also a pretty good way of saying to God, "Hey, you! Who told you you could keep talking?" What I want to know, is where did the God who was the same yesterday, today and forever say, "I have nothing more to say."?

 

[ljam49]

It's also a pretty good way of saying to God, "Hey, you! Who told you you could keep talking?" What I want to know, is where did the God who was the same yesterday, today and forever say, "I have nothing more to say."?

Hebrews 1:1-2

1God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways,
2in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.

Looks like the Bible gives the answer. God stopped talking to "men" and told us to listen to what Jesus said. Since Jesus died on the cross and accended to the right hand of the Father, we have Jesus' words and teaching of the NT to live by now.

 

[Katzpur]

Hebrews 1:1-2

1God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways,
2in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.

Looks like the Bible gives the answer. God stopped talking to "men" and told us to listen to what Jesus said. Since Jesus died on the cross and accended to the right hand of the Father, we have Jesus' words and teaching of the NT to live by now.

That scripture doesn't say God stopped talking to "men." It says that, after having spoken through prophets for many years, God finally sent Him Son to Earth to teach us His gospel.

By the way, since you're so sure the canon was closed, who made that offical? And why do you think it took so long? Why did it take almost 400 years for people to realize that God had stopped talking? And without God talking to men any more, how did the men who decided on what was going to be part of the canon make that decision?

Oh, and I have another question for you. If the Bible is sufficient to answer all our questions, why are there over 30,000 different denominations within Christianity today, 99% of them believing that the Bible is all we need? Wouldn't you think we could all just agree on what the Bible says if it was so clear cut?

 

[ljam49]

That scripture doesn't say God stopped talking to "men." It says that, after having spoken through prophets for many years, God finally sent Him Son to Earth to teach us His gospel.

I am gonna answer one response at a time. If you want to question me further, put up another question in your next post. I am trying to juggle helping my girl with geometry while posting.

How much more plain can that scripture get. It does not say that God sent His Son to teach us the Gospel. It states that he spoke to us through His Son. Jesus had much more to say and teach than just the Gospel principals.

 

[Katzpur]

How much more plain can that scripture get.

Well, if it was all that plain, we wouldn't be disagreeing, would we?

It does not say that God sent His Son to teach us the Gospel. It states that he spoke to us through His Son. Jesus had much more to say and teach than just the Gospel principals.

Whatever. Yes, it states that He spoke to us through His Son. He didn't say He would never speak to us again! When God stops talking to His children through His prophets, they sometimes fail to interpret the scriptures correctly. Look, you're a Baptist. Why aren't you a Catholic? Isn't it because you believe the Catholic Church changed the doctrines Jesus taught, or at the very least, didn't understand them correctly? The Catholic Church has been around longer than yours has. Maybe if God had continued to communicate through prophets, this wouldn't have happened. Maybe there would be just "one faith" the way Jesus wanted there to be.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not so:

Revelation 22:18-19

18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;
19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

Why would you think that by "this book", the author would mean the entire Christian Bible (i.e. a book that didn't even exist in its final form until long after the author was dead) and not just the Book of Revelation?

 

[challupa]

It seems to me that the majority of Chrsitians do think this. For instance, Catholics believe that the Pope continues to receive inspiration from God to guide the Church, Mormons believe in ongoing revelation from God to their prophets, and the Quakers are so into the idea that Christ continues to speak that they even let him run their meetings.

AFAICT, it's only the Sola Scriptura Protestants who hold to the idea that God's message is static.

Well that's good then. However, I was addressing my post to those who do not believe their god could have a new message and asking them why they think he couldn't update things as humanity matures.

 

[challupa]

GOD being perfect has said everything HE needs to say. It is finished. We do not mature. We degenerate, as society sinks deeper into accepting sin as the ideal. The last days will be exactly as it was in the days of Noah. And judgment will follow.

How do you know that he has said everything he needs to say. You may think your God is perfect, but his messengers are not. They would have interpreted god's words with their own understanding of things in that day and age. We do mature. We have come a long way imo. The one thing that holds a majority of humanity back is ancient beliefs that do not reflect today's needs. Just the fact that you cling to a belief that the last days are going to be horrific tells me something about you. You "need" to see the world destroyed and judged. You feel everyone is wicked and needs to be punished. I don't see the world that way. I see each of us doing the best we know how. I don't feel we need to be punished or judged. We do enough of that all by ourselves.

 

[challupa]

JESUS paid it all. HE has already saved everyone HE intended to be saved, the day HE died on the cross. And HE sealed their future eternity by rising from the dead.

Jesus never traveled more than 100 miles from His birthplace during His three year ministry . . . yet His life has changed the world.

Then how do you explain the scrolls in a monastery in tibet that say he was there?

 

[challupa]

This I agree with. I can say that the Bapists stance on this is when the last book of the Bible was written by John, the last survivor of the original 12, the canon closed. The Word from God was completed and nothing would be added to it from that point. Even if man thinks he gets smarter or his ability to assimilate information gets better, God's truth is what it is and needs no further clarification. There is no need for a new gospel that's plain to understand. I personally know from my own studies and others that study the Bible, that there is no way you can truely learn even a portion of the Bible in a life time.

There is a need if the bible misinterprets things. You don't know that it doesn't. Furthermore, there are lots of other gospels that didn't make it into the cannon. Have you read them? You are limiting your knowledge if you think the bible is all you need to understand life.

 

[Humanistheart]

And since it's a man-made label, men will use it as they wish. It really means nothing whatsoever to God.

Then it should be of little concern to you.

So, how are you doing finding the source that shows smith was killed for his beliefs and thus qualifies as a martyr?

 

[Katzpur]

Well that's good then. However, I was addressing my post to those who do not believe their god could have a new message and asking them why they think he couldn't update things as humanity matures.

Actually, I never have quite been able to figure out the Catholic stance on "revelation." Unless I'm mistaken, Catholics believe that revelation ceased with the deaths of the Apostles. At least that's what I've been told on countless occasions. However, if that was the case, then I don't understand what Papal authority is all about. God either continues to direct His Church or He doesn't. If He does, it has to be by revelation of some sort. Protestants really don't see any need for God to communicate to any one person (such as the Catholic Pope or the LDS Prophet). They feel that the Bible should be sufficient to settle all doctrinal disputes. The problem is, that obviously doesn't appear to be working.

 

[Katzpur]

Then it should be of little concern to you.

It's of minimal concern to me. I don't particularly care what people call me as long as they don't misrepresent what my beliefs are. I only desire to be known as a Christian because to me it means that I am a follower of Jesus Christ, which I am. I am actually getting to the point where I hesitate to even call myself a Christian for fear of people thinking I mean that I am an evangelical Christian.

So, how are you doing finding the source that shows smith was killed for his beliefs and thus qualifies as a martyr?

I already told you that I'd respond to that question after you responded to mine. I have yet to hear any details from you with regards to who he cheated and how.

 

[Humanistheart]

I already told you that I'd respond to that question after you responded to mine. I have yet to hear any details from you with regards to who he cheated and how.

In other words no. To be a martyr Smith had to be killed for his beliefs. Any reason other than that is irrlevant and you cannot or will not show that this was the case. So, smith then, was not a martyr.

 

[Katzpur]

In other words no. To be a martyr Smith had to be killed for his beliefs. Any reason other than that is irrlevant and you cannot or will not show that this was the case. So, smith then, was not a martyr.

Whatever. Ball's in your court, Humanist. I asked you for evidence of your claims before you asked me for evidence of mine. When you've answered my question, I'll answer yours. Personally, my opinion is that Joseph Smith to was a martyr for what he believed. Your opinion is that he wasn't. I don't think I'm going to change your mind. Do you think you're going to change mine?