Why is it *necessary* to believe (as a Christian) that the Bible has no errors?

[rrosskopf]

Omnipresent (This also ties in with the scriptures on his omniscience; being his ability to see everything everywhere at once)
Psalm 139:7-12

You haven't actually read it, have you? v.2 contradicts the idea of omnipresence.
"You understand my thought from afar." An omnipresent diety can never be "afar" by definition. The writer is waxing poetic for the sake of a song.

 

[rrosskopf]

Psalm 11:4

"But the LORD is in his holy Temple; the LORD still rules from heaven." A very odd choice if one is trying to prove omnipresence. Perhaps you should read them before you post them. God delegates. That is why he calls prophets and apostles and sends messengers; he can't be everywhere at once.

 

[rrosskopf]

Jeremiah 23:23-24

"I am a God at hand, and not a God afar off"
This sounds like the equivalent of "I'm here for you". It isn't an essay on omnipresence.

Proverbs 15:3

"The LORD is watching everywhere, keeping his eye on both the evil and the good."
One might make a case for omniscient, but mothers say basically the same thing to their children, and they aren't omnipresent (sorry mom!)
"Just remember, I have eyes in the back of my head!"

Amos 9:2-3

"Even if they dig down to the place of the dead, I will reach down and pull them up. Even if they climb up into the heavens, I will bring them down."
Again - not a discourse on the nature of God; he is just saying that where ever you go he can find you. Again - this is a good case for omniscience, but not omnipresence.

 

[rrosskopf]

It [LDS Church] does not even believe he is all knowing or all powerful, the two attributes you see clearly expressed from beginning to end.

News to me. Source?

 

[Rise]

For now I only had time to address this first response. I look forward to addressing the other posts. It might be a while before I have time to address every point raised but given time I intend to.

Yes, there is. The Nag Hammadi books were culled from the canon of scripture because they didn't agree with popular positions.

An assertion like that needs some kind of documentation - How would you establish that the Jewish people generally believed all those books found in the library were considered divinely inspired scripture at some point?

It's an assumption, and an assumption that is without basis. You wouldn't even be able to prove that the group behind the library believed every single book in there was scripture: much less that the Jewish people in general believed it.

Especially considering that they would not be the first, or only, ancient group of believers (either Jew or Christian) to hold on to books that they did not consider to be divine scripture.
Some medieval Jews had a Hebrew copy of the Gospel of Matthew in their library for dealing with Christian missionaries - We can't be expected to conclude that those Jews believed the Gospel of Matthew was true.


Josephus, Eusebius, and early church pre-nicene canon lists all point to the fact that the 1st century canon of Judaism and Christianity didn't look much, if any, different from what we have today in the Bible.

You might bring up the deuterocanonical books, but they are called "deuterocanonical" for a reason. It means they are secondary, and cannot be regarded as on part with the primary canon of scripture. It is believed they contain some beneficial divine truth in them, but are not entirely inspired (partly the product of man) and thus cannot be the canon (meaning "rule") by which we judge truth from falsehood.

I can show many early Roman church leaders who did not regard them as on par with divinely inspired scripture.
The orthodox church today still does not.
The Roman church only declared them to be on par with scripture in the 16th century in reaction to Protestantism.

Yes, they were publically read - because most men didn't know how to read. Most Hebrew men could read, but most of the gentiles could not.

The fact that it was read aloud at least once a week disproves your assertion that the average Christian didn't know the scriptures, or that the religious leaders had an interest in keeping the knowledge of the scriptures from the people.

Public dispersal of the knowledge of scripture was how the early church operated, patterned after the Jews who birthed the church, long before Rome made it the official religion of the empire.

We see a clear expectation that amongst the Jews and the early church that they should not only know the scriptures, but study them.
John 5:46-47
Acts 17:11
2 Timothy 3:15

Furthermore:
Chrysostom, Jerome, Pamphilius, Augustine, and even Pope Gregory I are examples of early Roman church leaders that actually supported and even encouraged as many people read the Bible as possible without restriction.

We don't really start to see the church coming against translations of the Bible until about seven hundred years after Constantine.

Never-the-less I was referring to the Catholic stance of denying books of scripture to anyone but priests. Being found in the possession of a book of scripture could result in severe punishment.
"We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books." - Canon 14, Council of Toulouse

And when did this council take place? The 13th century. That is exactly in line with what I already said. You don't see this kind of thing happening for hundreds of years after Constantine. The idea that it was happening before Constantine amongst the early church is even more without basis. In fact, all the evidence shows the opposite to be true of the pre-nicene church and the post-nicene church for at least hundreds of years.

You'll get no argument from me that as time went on the Roman church became increasingly more interested in maintaining power and control and become less in line with Biblical Christianity - However, that fact does not support your original assertion that the average Christian didn't really know what the Bible said until the invention of the printing press. We know that's not true of the early church and isn't even true of the Roman church until much later in it's lifespan. In fact, we know the opposite to be true, based on the custom of reading scripture in the common language every week, that the early church's goal was that the common person would come to thoroughly know the scriptures.

I also have to remind you, as I already stated, that it would be mischaracterizing the nature of this council to claim that it represented a worldwide ban on either private ownership of the Bible or translations of the Bible into the common language.
Toulouse was a regional ban in response to a regional heresy, in which the people involved were using common translations (supposedly mistranslated) to support their heresy. I am not saying I agree with what they did, and I do not generally even look favorably on a lot of what the catholic church has done in the last thousand years, but we have to deal honestly with history and not make that council out to be more than it was.

The truth is that there was no universal opposition to Bible translations across all regions at all times in the Roman church history. Many Bible translations have no recorded opposition, such as the 8th century translations of gospels into English and German.
Opposition to Bible translating is something we see increase only as time goes on from the 11th century and usually it has more to do with precieved threats to Roman authority; because not every translation from the era of the 11th to 15th century is recorded as being opposed by the Roman church.

""It is dangerous, as St. Jerome declares, to translate the text of Holy Scriptures out of one idiom into another, since it is not easy in translations to preserve exactly the same meaning in all things. We therefore command and ordain that henceforth no one translate the text of Holy Scripture into English or any other language as a book, booklet, or tract, of this kind lately made in the time of the said John Wyclif or since, or that hereafter may be made, either in part or wholly, either publicly or privately, under pain of excommunication, until such translation shall have been approved and allowed by the Provincial Council. He who shall act otherwise let him be punished as an abettor of heresy and error." - 3rd Synod of Oxford

Again, that's from the 14th century, and everything I said above applies to this.

You are making my point! They read the scriptures with their preconceptions in place, and saw their own traditions. The tradition came before the scripture.

I am not sure you understood the point I was making... I pointed out that the reformers were iconoclastic in their willingness to disregard anything that was church tradition if it did not conform to scripture, no matter how sacrosanct it was believed to be at that point, because they firmly believed that our faith had to be anchored solely in what the scripture said - Which is exactly what they did in rejecting so much of catholic doctrine and religious practice.

Given that fact, there is no logical reason to claim that the reformers had any need or desire to force the scripture to fit into any existing catholic council creeds. They easily rejected much of catholic dogma on the basis that it is not scriptural and had no problem doing so.

Protestants held to the trinitarian understanding of scripture only because the scripture itself supports it. The fact that the NIcene creed happens to be an accurate representation of what the scripture says should not surprise us considering that church history shows the men of that era were not far removed from genuine apostalic Christianity in their practices or doctrine; which is a far cry from what the catholic church looks like over a thousand years later.

 

[Rise]

The whole Nicene council was an abomination from start to finish. First of all, it was started at the direction of a pagan Emperor. Secondly, the issues were to be decided by vote, and not by revelation from God. The arguments against the Nicene Creed were also scriptural, and compelling. Thirdly, it was the Emperor's shill that drafted the Nicene Creed. The Emperor wore these fantastic purple robes studded with emeralds and rubies, and the bishops bowed and worshipped the beast. All but two signed the document. The two bishops who stood up for the truth were exiled, and anyone caught with books teaching that Jesus was the actual Son of God were to be put to death. The whole thing, from start to finish, was the work of the devil.

That narrative has a critical historical flaw in it:
The idea that those two arians represented the truth.

How do you establish that they represented the truth when all the evidence is against that?
The scriptures can be demonstrated to not support it, and I've established that the canon was known and accepted before Nicea.
The early church fathers don't support the arian view either.

I find it odd that you see the Arianians as standing up for what is true when what we know about Arianism shows that if they were alive today they would easily reject Mormon views of God and Jesus as unbiblical.

None of the 1st or 2nd century Christians believed that Jesus was equal to God; all believed in some form of Subordinationism. When Subordinationism fell out of fashion, hundreds of years later, the Trinity was born.

I already gave you two very early 2nd century church fathers who directly equated Jesus with God - Ignatius and Polycarp. Both disciples of John the apostle. Aside from possibly the letter of Clement, these two sources represent the earliest non-biblical witness we have about what the early church beleived.

I don't deny that the scripture shows Jesus being subordinate to God the Father as His Son.
However, it is the fact that scripture also shows Jesus being equated with God that gives rise to the trinity concept as a way of describing what we see in scripture - That Jesus is himself God, but also distinct from the Father as the Son.

 

[rrosskopf]

The Mormon idea of what it means to be "The Son of God" is completely different from the Biblical concept of "The Son of God".

No, I think it is exactly the same. It means that God is his father. Literally. He taught that he was the manna which came down from heaven, which confused everyone since he was born like everyone else. Like everyone else, he lived as a spirit before he was born; we all came down from heaven. Jesus was unique in that he was the firstborn, the spokesman for God. Without him was not anything created that was created. He was also the only person to live a perfect life, and break the bands of death. It makes perfect sense that his father and mother were physical beings, and not spirits. Spirits don't give birth to mortal babies. Likewise, babies need both a physical father and a physical mother.

An assertion like that needs some kind of documentation - How would you establish that the Jewish people generally believed all those books found in the library were considered divinely inspired scripture at some point?

The Nag Hammadi are early Christian books - our earliest. We have them because the Catholic church ordered them burned, and one church buried them instead. They are Gnostic scriptures on leather bound books. The Gnostics had the truth, at least some of it. We call them Gnostics because they believed in the Christian Mysteries. The Christian Mysteries were secret, and only revealed to initiates. The Catholic church banned the Christian Mysteries in 700 AD, and they disappeared. The Christian Mysteries were taught by Jesus to Peter, James and John, who then taught them to the other apostles. They were not written down, as they were secret teachings. Today, neither the Catholic church, nor the protestant churches have the Christian Mysteries, or even have a clue what they are. The Mormons are the only ones. We only have them through revelation, the Lord fixing what men had broken. No reformation could bring back what was lost. They could only be restored through revelation. Many other things were lost, as people forgot them, or as popular opinion rejected them. That is the core doctrine of Mormonism, the thing that Jesus taught Joseph Smith as a result of his prayer. Doctrines had been lost. They could not be restored with an appeal to the Bible. They could only be restored by revelation from God.
You asked how we can know if something is divinely inspired. We can only know through revelation from God. Popularity isn't a measure of truth. How did Peter know that Jesus was the Christ? Revelation is the life blood of the church, without it the church withers and dies, doctrines are replaced with fallacies, and heresies are confused with truth. Without revelation, all we have are uninspired committees. In his parting words, John the Apostle said that it was the last hour. The antichrist were already everywhere. They had taken over the church. The only escape for the righteous was death. This is the parting message of the Bible.

Did Jesus lie to Joseph Smith? No, several Christian and Jewish historians have written about the Christian Mysteries. They did exist, and they are much the same, as far as we can tell, to the ordinances performed by the Mormons today. No one wrote them down, but early Christians talked about them all the time. Cyril of Jerusalem talked about them, and several others. World famous bible scholar Joachim Jeremias stated

"When one turns to the early Christianity, he repeatedly comes across cryptic sayings and a concern to keep the most sacred things from being profaned. Paul, who calls himself and his fellow workers "stewards of the mysteries of God", (1 Corinthians 4:1) speaks in general terms in 1 Corinthians 2.6-3.2 of the divine "wisdom" which can only be imparted to the "mature" (2.6), i.e. "those who possess the spirit" (2.13); it is a secret and hidden wisdom of God (2.7) . Paul had been able to offer the Corinthians only milk (elementary teachings, 3.2), not yet the solid food of "wisdom" for the "mature" (3.2;2.6). The concern of this "wisdom" is with "the depths of God" (2.10). That Paul had kept this from the Corinthians, although they had been Christians for years, shows that he would never have spoken of these final secrets before non-Christians."

Of course, such teachings could never be included in a bible. According to Christian historian Dr. Angus,

"An awful obligation to perpetual secrecy as to what was said and transacted behind closed doors in the initiation proper was imposed - an obligation so scrupulously observed through the centuries that not one account of the secrets of the holy of holies of the Mysteries has been published, to gratify the curiosity of historians."

The mysteries were modified by Jesus, but they were had by the Jews before him. John the Baptist knew the mysteries because he was an Essene, and the Essenes were the keepers of the mysteries. Some scholars have accused Jesus of also being an Essene, and borrowing from their "rites, doctrines, "patterns of thought" and its mystical and ethical ideas". Yet John the Baptist and Jesus were not known to the Jews as Essenes, but as Nazoreans. According to Christian historian Dr. E. S. Drower, "Nazorean" is a nickname, which means "keepers of the secret teachings".

The Bible only has the milk. The meat of the gospel was taught secretly. These teachings were lost, and needed to be restored. They could only be restored through direct revelation through a living prophet. His name was Joseph Smith.

The Essenes had a prophecy of a man named Joseph, a prophet of the latter days to whom the teachings would be restored. They said that his father would also be named Joseph, and that this prophet would die before the age of 40. Peter seems to be referring to this prophecy when he states "Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets." (Acts 3:21)

If we reject the providence of God, then he will hold us accountable. The restoration of the mysteries is a great treasure.

 

[look3467]

Errors noted in scriptures are relevant only to those who are not able to spiritually discern the words of God as written by man.

Blessings, AJ

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I spiritually discerned there were problems. God Himself told me not to sweat the bible as He never wrote it. Now what?

 

[look3467]

God never wrote it is absolutely correct. Without Gods inspiration, no man can write what God instructs them to write.
Now.....what are we looking at here to discern? Mans works or Gods works?
If mans works, than only with human understanding could we hope to understand the writings.
But if we are interested in Gods works, than and only than can they be spiritually discerned.

What problems did you discern?

Blessings, AJ

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The problem, essentially, is that buried under all the "inspired" stuff are clues that the OT is basically "church v state" propaganda, with both sides fighting it out using the plot. The monarchy wanted kingship to be divinely ordered, but the prophets whose jobs were threatened included stories where God used the monarchy to punish a whiny population. The NT is similar, though this time it is a "Jew v Gentile" thing, with Jewish followers trying to keep it real while Hellenized folk start bringing in Greco-Roman mythological tropes and philosophies that don't belong in a Jewish bible.

I believe God's Word is nature or reality itself. A God wouldn't use a book. He would "write it in our hearts", so to speak.

 

[rrosskopf]

That narrative has a critical historical flaw in it:
The idea that those two arians represented the truth.

It isn't nice to call names. They were quoting the scriptures which clearly show subordination. Ignoring those scriptures does not make them go away. This council was for the express purpose of choosing between subordination and equality. The Trinity went with equality. They chose to base their creed on the wisdom of man. No revelation was present. They got it wrong. Jesus was, is and will always be subordinate to his father. That is what it meant to be a son. Redefining the roles of father and son to exclude subordination, robs both roles of meaning.

However, it is the fact that scripture also shows Jesus being equated with God that gives rise to the trinity concept as a way of describing what we see in scripture - That Jesus is himself God, but also distinct from the Father as the Son.

The scriptures seem to be contradictory on this matter, and thus they are confusing. The proper course of action is to ask God the truth of the matter and let divine inspiration take its course. The wrong course of action is to invite people to attend a giant committee meeting and vote on a new creed, and then kill or expel anyone who disagrees. That sounds more like Satan's modus operandi.

 

[Rise]

Actually, you can't. You can show where you think contradictions exist, but when LDS doctrine is correctly understood, it does not in any way contradict the Bible.

In your original post you claimed that I had gotten Mormon beliefs completely wrong.
Yet rross, who says he is a Mormon high priest, has made no attempt in his many posts to say that any of my original assertions about what Mormons believe is inaccurate aside from one comment about Mary's virginity. I followed up by asking him to clarify what he thinks "virgin" means in light of Mormon teaching I quoted, and as yet I have not gotten a reply from him on that.

In fact, rross spent a lot of time trying to defend those Mormon beliefs I listed, rather than refuting them.

So why is that? Do you two believe completely opposing things about God despite being Mormons?

I would like to ask what it is you personally believe about the original list I posted comparing the Mormon view of theology with Christianity. I am not even asking you to back up what you believe with citations from Mormon writings. I desire only to have a clear understanding of what perspective you are approaching this discussion with.

The reason I ask that is because it would be almost impossible for me to discuss with you ways LDS doctrine contradicts the Bible if I don't know what you personally believe about Mormon doctrine first.

So now angels are inherently evil, huh?

You misunderstand what I said.

Paul warns us specifically in two places in the Bible that deception can come to us in the form of something that appears to be from God but is not. ( Galatians 1:8 and 1 Corinthians 11:14 )

Additionally:
John 7:24
2 Corinthians 11:13-15
Matthew 7:15
1 Samuel 16:7
Matthew 23:27
The message to take away from those verses in the Bible is not that angels are inherently evil, but that you cannot trust a message you get from some being just because of they look like they could be an angel from God.

We are to test the Spirits to see if they are from God: 1 John 4:1

Paul tells us in Galatians 1:8 that one of the ways you test them is that their message is in line with the truth already revealed.

God will never tell you one thing is true and then later tell you something that contradicts that truth.
God is truth, and God does not change:
Titus 1:2
Malachi 3:6
John 18:37
John 16:13
John 14:17

The doctrines believed by most Christian today are absolutely not "that which [was] preached by the apostles."

Greek philosophical thought corrupted such basic doctrines as the true nature of God and man’s relationship to Him, as learned but uninspired men sought to make this new religion more acceptable to the masses, and especially to the non-Jewish convert.
...
Religious scholars describe this as "The Helenization of Christianity." We call it simply, "The Great Apostasy."

Through debate and discussion, by vote and by compromise, what we now know as “mainstream” Christianity emerged.

That's where you're wrong. It wasn't a "new gospel" at all. It was a reestablishment of the gospel Jesus Christ had taught but which men changed after His death.

Firstly, I would like to ask you to clarify for me: When you say the doctrines that Christians believe are in error, are you saying that the Bible Christians have is in error or that their interpretation of that Bible is in error?
And when you say they "changed" the gospel, are you implying that the Bible itself was changed to no longer contain the true gospel, or that people's interpretation or application of it changed?

The reason I ask this is because rross very clearly seems to believe that the Bible itself has been so corrupted that there's no point in turning to it to establish what is true from what is false (something I would vigorously and effectively dispute).
But it is an important distinction that must be made because I know many Mormons share ross's view of the Bible yet there are some whom do not.

If we can come to agreement that the Bible is inspired and an accurate representation of what is true then the task of determining what the apostles originally taught and believed becomes much easier. To start with we have their direct writings in the new testament. Additionally, we can then compare this with the earliest writings of the church fathers to see if what they say is in line with what the BIble says.

It relatively easy to ascertain whether or not any modern viewpoint is consistent with the whole of scripture. That's why you don't see a much variation of major issues between Christian denominations that hold to the authority of the Bible as the basis of their faith; because there are certain conclusions that are inescapable if you hold that position.

How is it that the modern 'sola scriptura' spirit filled protestants can have views that are almost identical to what we see in the earliest christian writings, when 2,000 years and a gulf of great Roman Catholic corruption separates them? The answer is simple: The Bible. God's truth doesn't change. The same truth preached by the apostles to men like Clement and Ignatius is the same truth recorded for us in the Bible we have today. That's why we end up believing the same things they did if we believe the Bible.

I submit to you that the reason you see many Mormons like rross reject the Bible as reliable is precisely because you have no choice but to do that if you want to believe that Mormon writings are a reflection of what is truth. The two cannot coincide.

This brings us back to the original point of this thread: If the Bible is not your standard for judging what is true then you can end up believing absolutely anything.
John 17:17
Romans 3:4
John 4:22-24
We must humble ourselves before what God says is true, not making an idol out of what we believe or want to be true.

Galatians and other books in the Bible caution of the apostasy that was beginning to take place even in the late first and early second centuries. Even in Old Testament times, God's prophets warned that the time would come when the word of the Lord would not be found anywhere in the world.

In Amos 8:11-12, we are told, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord; And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it."

Contrary to most other Christian denominations, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contends that this prophesy did, in fact, come to pass, and that shortly after the deaths of Christ's Apostles, the Church He personally established ceased to exist in its original form -- in other words that there was, for many, many years, a famine in the world "a famine of hearing the words of the Lord" and that, regardless of where one might wander in search of God's word, it could not be found.

In Amos 8, both the English and Hebrew are clearly referencing the spoken word of the Lord - Which we would interpret as there being a famine of prophesy, not a famine of being without God's written word. Some Christians would say that already happened at some point in Israel's history, particularly during the intertestamental period, as Maccabees makes reference to no prophets being in the land during that time.

However; saying that the church changed it's form of practice over hundreds of years is very different from saying that God's word ceased to exist.

If you are not disputing the accurate transmission of the Biblical text then God's written word actually became more plentiful during this time.

As for the spoken word of God: Church writings show that prophesy did continue to be practiced long after the apostles were gone. Shepherd of Hermas, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertulllian, Origen, Novatian, St Augustine. From the early 1st to the 5th century, the gifts of the Holy Spirit are accounted for (Prophesy included)

1 Corinthians 13 also says prophesy will continue until the end comes - So your view that history experienced a prophetic famine in the church conflicts with the promise found in Scripture.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds that during the first few centuries after the Savior and His Apostles died, Christianity began to evolve into something quite different than it had originally been. While the Apostles, who assumed leadership over the Church after Christ's death, undoubtedly did everything within their power to preserve and strengthen the Church, there were, unfortunately, other forces at work. Within a matter of just a few years following their deaths, the simplicity and purity of Christ’s teachings had begun to undergo some rather significant changes.

I won't argue that Christianity evolved in some respects over hundreds of years (usually because they got away from the Bible as their anchor of truth) - but that's completely different from claiming that within only "a few years following the apostles deaths' that the actual "teachings" of Christ were changed.

Where is the evidence for the claim that the teachings of Christ, as delivered by the apostles, were changed in any way during the early church? Everything we have disproves that notion.

The earliest writings we have, some from leaders who were discipled by the apostles themselves (Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius), are all consistent with the teachings of Christ as found in the writings of the apostles. You absolutely will not find a different picture of Jesus Christ in the early church writings than you will from reading the New Testament itself.

 

[Rise]

Throughout the New Testament, the Apostles also warned that this was to happen. Paul seemed particularly concerned about the infant Church and frequently voiced his concerns to the early Christians. Among his statements to Christ's followers, are these:

2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition…

Context.
That verse is a reference to the "coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" and "our gathering together unto Him" - as we see in the preceding verses.

Additionally, in 2 Thessalonians 1, you see more context that shows Paul is talking about "when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ; Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord...When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day."

Paul furthers states that the man of sin "who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worhsipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."

This is clearly an end times reference to the Lord's second coming. It ties in with what we see in Revelation about the time of tribulation, and includes a reference to what iscommonly referred to as "the rapture".

Paul is comforting the Thessalonians that they have not missed the Lord's return and the gathering of His saints.

(2) Christ would not return to the earth until this universal "falling away" or "apostasy" had taken place,

If the return of Christ cannot happen before there is a complete and universal apostasy, then how can that ever be fulfilled if you claim that Mormonism has lifted the state of apostasy the church had been in for 1800 years?

Yet we haven't seen the man of sin sitting in the temple of God (the temple would have to first be rebuilt), the return of Christ, the vengeance of the Lord, the gathering together of the saints.
These are all clearly still future events.

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears…

Context. Just immediately prior to this, Paul says: 2 Timothy 3:14-16

Paul is talking about those who reject sound doctrine from scripture, seeking people that will tickle their ears with unsound teaching.

I should also point out that this verse also clearly contradicts Rross's belief that the Bible was corrupted around the time of Hezekiah. Paul states that the scriptures Timothy had access to were God-breathed (inspired), holy, and able to bring you to saving faith in Christ Jesus.

Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

Paul made it absolutely clear that (1) the flock would not only be attacked, it would not be spared,

Context. He's talking to Ephesus at a particular point in time. He's not referring to the global church body as a whole.

It would also be a misuse of both the english word "spare", and the greek word behind it (pheidomai), to try to asset that this implies no true follower of Jesus would be left on earth.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spare
To not spare implies that they wolves will not abstain themselves from attacking the flock. It does not have to imply that they will be successful at destroying every member of the flock.
Even more wrong would be to try to conclude that Paul's statement is suppose to apply to every Christian in the world, rather than just Ephesus.

Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly:
Jesus tells us in the book of Revelation concerning Ephesus that they did indeed expose and persevere against false teachers (and if the late authorship date for Revelation is true, then they persevered for decades after Paul was beheaded): Revelation 2:2-6

Clearly Paul's work was not in vain at Ephesus with regards to them surviving false teachers.

If Paul knew, or even believed, that Ephesus would be wiped out spiritually then he would not have needed to waste three years teaching, exhorting, and building up the church so that it could survive those attacks by false teachers.

Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel…

In that very context Paul warns that we are specifically not to recieve a different gospel - even if it comes from an angel from Heaven.

The context of the letter also tells us that there were people telling the Galatians that they needed to follow the covenant of Moses in order to be under the covenant of Christ.

You will find no argument from me that false teaching was an issue the early church had to fight against - However, it's a far and unsupported leap to then try to conclude that the true original gospel was wiped out from all the earth. None of the historical or scriptural evidence supports that belief.

and (4) the doctrines taught by the Savior would, in time, cease to endure.

None of the verses you cited suggest that the genuine gospel or true doctrine would completely disappear.

The only one that could remotely be taken that way is 2 Thessalonians with regards to some "falling away" that will happen, but even that statement lacks the specifics to conclude that there is a total loss of the God's truth on the whole earth; further complicated by the fact that the statement about "falling away" is also linked with a lot of other clearly end times events that haven't happened yet.

(3) these things were already beginning to take place as he spoke,

You say "these things" as though the four verses you cited are all speaking of the same thing - They aren't. The verses you cited, once put back into their original context, don't even fit together as part of a single prophetic narrative. They aren't talking about the same event, much less are they describing the kind of event you assert they are.

Finally, and probably most important of all, God withdrew His priesthood from the earth.
What did this mean? It meant that there was no one left who held the authority to act in His name.

Where's the evidence, either scriptural or historical, that such a thing actually happened?

I already listed many anti-nicene and post-nicene church leaders who recorded that the Holy Spirit was still moving through His church with things like miracles, healings, and prophesy.

If you cast out sickness in the name of Jesus you are using His authority to act in His name. You can't do it without His power and authority.

Luke 11:20
Matthew 28:18-20
Luke 10:19
Mark 17:17-20
Matthew 16:19
Acts 1:8
John 14:12
Mark 11:23
Ephesians 1:20-22
Acts 3:6
Acts 2:38-39
Luke 10:17
Matthew 16:18
1 Corinthians 12
Acts 16:18
Acts 4:10

Jesus promises those who believe will be given authority, power, and be His witnesses to the ends of the earth.

With God no longer directing the affairs of His Church, man was on his own.

John 14:23
Matthew 28:20
John 14:18
What you are saying contradicts God's promise to us; He will not leave us as orphans to fend for ourselves at any point.

Revelation 14:6 speaks of the last days and says, "And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people..." Why in the world would it be necessary for God to send an angel with the everlasting gospel if it was already here?

Possibly because of the prophecy Jesus gave in Matthew 24:14 which states that the end cannot come until the gospel of the kingdom is preached in the whole world to all the nations. The context of this verse in revelation shows it is at the end times.

Given that end times context, I find your use of this verse in Revelation puzzling: If you are trying to claim that the angel of Revelation must preach the gospel to the entire world because the world has never heard the true gospel; then that would imply that Joseph Smith never actually restored the true gospel to the earth to begin with. Even if your interpretation of this verse were correct (and given it's context, I don't believe it is), it would only seem undermine the legitimacy of Mormon beliefs.

Yeah, and it's particularly dangerous for any Christian to rely solely on the Bible, when Paul pointed out that prophets and apostles were to be a part of the Church Christ established until we all came into a unity of the faith.

By definition, someone who relies solely on the Bible will also embrace the work of the Holy Spirit and the five ministry offices of apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, teacher - because that is all actually found in the Bible itself. Which is exactly why many Christians do embrace those things wholeheartedly.

What's dangerous is placing the word of a supposed prophet over what the Bible clearly says is true. God will never speak to a prophet something which contradicts what God has already spoken through one of His prophets in the past (as it is recorded for us in the Bible).

Why don't you just preface that statement with, "In my opinion," because that's all it really is. Over 15 million people would disagree with you. You can simply dismiss what they say, but that doesn't make your opinion a "fact."

If there is disagreement between the Bible and someone claiming to be a prophet, then either the prophet is a false prophet or the Bible is wrong. Both can't be true.

 

[Marcion]

The Nag Hammadi are early Christian books - our earliest. We have them because the Catholic church ordered them burned, and one church buried them instead. They are Gnostic scriptures on leather bound books. The Gnostics had the truth, at least some of it. We call them Gnostics because they believed in the Christian Mysteries. The Christian Mysteries were secret, and only revealed to initiates. The Catholic church banned the Christian Mysteries in 700 AD, and they disappeared. The Christian Mysteries were taught by Jesus to Peter, James and John, who then taught them to the other apostles. They were not written down, as they were secret teachings. Today, neither the Catholic church, nor the protestant churches have the Christian Mysteries, or even have a clue what they are. The Mormons are the only ones. We only have them through revelation, the Lord fixing what men had broken.

I wonder if these so-called Christian Mysteries are nothing else but the teachings of Jesus in the sayings of Jesus collection "Q". These mystic teachings are almost absent in the original narrative gospel of Mark but can still be found in a very mutilated form added to the gospels of Matthew and Luke (Marcion). However, they have been so much distorted in form and content that the teachings have become even more inaccessible in those gospels than they already were (Q was written in an obscure form on purpose).
https://jesussaying.wordpress.com/2...gs-gospel-q-the-sayings-of-the-tantric-jesus/

The author of the gospel of Thomas seems to have tried to restore the teachings in Q (also through "revelation"?) but this gospel is a poor imitation of the original.
It took rational scholarship and deep research to reconstruct Q and still few people are able to fathom the content and ideology of the teachings in Q that must have once been taught only to the initiated.
I think the way in which the teachings of Q were treated by christian authors speaks for itself.
For how many generations would the secret teachings of Q have been taught to initiated followers of Yeshua and how or why did this tradition stop?

 

[rrosskopf]

If the return of Christ cannot happen before there is a complete and universal apostasy, then how can that ever be fulfilled if you claim that Mormonism has lifted the state of apostasy the church had been in for 1800 years?

Yet we haven't seen the man of sin sitting in the temple of God (the temple would have to first be rebuilt), the return of Christ, the vengeance of the Lord, the gathering together of the saints.
These are all clearly still future events.

One must be very careful how they define a "complete and universal" apostasy. Webster shows two definitions for apostasy, 1) renunciation of a religious faith, and 2) abandonment of a previous loyalty. The apostle John tells us that the last hour has arrived http://biblehub.com/1_john/2-18.htm and that there are already many antichrists. These antichrists were members of the Lord's church http://biblehub.com/1_john/2-19.htm but had changed their loyalty. He goes on to say that the remaining members have the Holy Ghost and know the truth. In v. 22 John tells us that the anti-christ don't believe in the Father and the Son, but in v. 23 it appears that they still believe in God, they just don't believe he has a son. So it is the old philosophy of monotheism which had taken hold, and threatened the Church of Christ. The Romans, the Greeks and the Jews were all embracing monotheism; it was the popular idea of the time. I believe all the major schools were teaching it. It was in direct competition to the older ideas of a pantheon of gods. All three cultures had once believed in a pantheon of gods, and perhaps many still did. For many people, Christianity was a step back, a return to an older and unpopular tradition. The philosophers were running the schools now, and the philosophers taught monotheism. The idea of a heavenly family, father, mother, and son, sounded suspiciously like the old stories of jealous gods and their families. The apostles knew that they were in direct competition with philosophy, as taught through fables, and they warned people against believing them.

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths." - 2 Timothy 4:3,4​

"For we were not making up clever stories when we told you about the powerful coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. We saw his majestic splendor with our own eyes" - 2 Peter 1:16
"Don't let them waste their time in endless discussion of myths and spiritual pedigrees. These things only lead to meaningless speculations, which don't help people live a life of faith in God." - 1 Timothy 1:4​

In all three cases, the word being used is the Greek word 'mythos", which is the word for fables. It wasn't just the Greeks and Romans who had fables, but the Jews had their fables as well, and still do. They enemy of the truth was fables - invented stories. Sometimes, these fables or stories were about Christ, or the apostles. According to one story, Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman solder. Even today, there are false stories circulating about Jesus among the Jews, just as there are false stories circulating about Joseph Smith, and about the LDS church. Satan fights the truth with fables.

A graduate from a school of philosophy was known by the black robes that they wore, a tradition that still goes on today in schools around the world, if only during graduation. Judges and churchmen continue to wear these robes as a symbol of their occupations. Many of these students of philosophy converted to Christianity, and brought with them their own ideas of truth; this is known by historians as the hellenization of the early Christian church.

When Joseph Smith had his first vision, and asked which church he should join, Jesus commanded him to join none of them. Jesus explained that "all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: 'they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.' "

 

[rrosskopf]

I wonder if these so-called Christian Mysteries are nothing else but the teachings of Jesus in the sayings of Jesus collection "Q".

I can find no evidence of that. According to Christian scholar Dr. Angus, the initiates were under an obligation of perpetual secrecy, such that not one account of the mysteries has been published. They are mentioned by some of the earliest church leaders, but never put down in detail. Cyril of Jerusalem wrote that after removing ones garments, in an imitation of Adam, an initiate was anointed with oil. From his remarks and others, it is believed that a creation drama was acted out. The initiates were then clothed in robes. There are several oblique references to the Temple ceremonies in the book of Revelations. A Mormon who has been through the temple would understand them, but no one else in the Christian world, save perhaps some historians, would recognize them. According to Christian scholar and historian Dr. Johann Mosheim, "That the more learned of the Christians, subsequently to the second century, cultivated, in secret, an obtuse discipline of a very different nature from that which they taught publically, is well known to everyone." Dr. Mosheim said that all professing Christians were divided into two groups - the "profane", which had not been admitted into the secret mysteries, and the "initiated". To be admitted, ones fellowship had to be perfect and complete. Those thus admitted were under obligation not to talk of the mysteries to the profane.

 

[rrosskopf]

Yet we haven't seen the man of sin sitting in the temple of God (the temple would have to first be rebuilt), the return of Christ, the vengeance of the Lord, the gathering together of the saints.

It can be confusing trying to piece together all the prophecies of the latter days. We do believe that the church of Christ was restored in anticipation and preparation of his coming. We are working to gather in the saints throughout the world. The Lord has not come yet, but he will when the time is right. As to the man sitting in the Temple of God, it is difficult to know how literally to read it. The temple had a great white throne, which was the judgement seat of God, and on either side of the throne was a golden cherubim. It has not gone unnoticed that the Pope sits on a white throne, with golden cherubim on either side, and that he claims the infallibility of God. It is hard to look at the image and not cringe in horror. The various Popes have reigned with blood and horror, murdering people for trumpted up crimes, and torturing people without cause. What they did to the Knight's Templar is unforgivable. Untold millions have suffered at their hand. I have seen the torture chambers for myself; they were not inventions of the righteous, but of the most vile and wicked of creatures. Whatever inspiration was given to the Pope, came from the Devil, and not from God. The man of sin has been revealed.

 

[Hawkins]

It can be confusing trying to piece together all the prophecies of the latter days. We do believe that the church of Christ was restored in anticipation and preparation of his coming. We are working to gather in the saints throughout the world. The Lord has not come yet, but he will when the time is right. As to the man sitting in the Temple of God, it is difficult to know how literally to read it. The temple had a great white throne, which was the judgement seat of God, and on either side of the throne was a golden cherubim. It has not gone unnoticed that the Pope sits on a white throne, with golden cherubim on either side, and that he claims the infallibility of God. It is hard to look at the image and not cringe in horror. The various Popes have reigned with blood and horror, murdering people for trumpted up crimes, and torturing people without cause. What they did to the Knight's Templar is unforgivable. Untold millions have suffered at their hand. I have seen the torture chambers for myself; they were not inventions of the righteous, but of the most vile and wicked of creatures. Whatever inspiration was given to the Pope, came from the Devil, and not from God. The man of sin has been revealed.

It explains the reason why and when He will be back. The sole purpose of this earth is for God to harvest human souls. These souls will be brought to the eternal heaven. If His this purpose is defeated He has no reason to continue to run this earth. So when Sin occupies His Temple on earth, the harvesting of the souls virtually comes to an end. God relies on His Church on earth to save the mass of humans. The salvation message must be accurately conveyed as if the salvation message is twisted then no one can be saved. God's earthly Church holds such a standard. So if the Church is spiritually occupied, it's thus time for Christ to make His return.

 

[Rise]

Rrosskopf,

Before delving in the specifics of your points, which I am happy to do, I must first point out that as far as the my original assertion is concerned you have already proven me to be true by your comments. To remind you: My original assertion was that Mormon's have fundamentally different ideas about God and our relation to Him that cannot be reconciled with Biblical Christianity; and that the reasons these differences occur is because they take what Jospeh Smith's writings say over what the Bible says.

In your many posts, I don't see a single instance where you try to tell me how or why my original assertions about what Mormons believe is wrong, aside from one relatively minor point that you haven't clarified yet.

Furthermore, rather than you trying to prove why you believe Mormonism is in harmony with the Bible, you've instead tried to assert why you believe the Bible is corrupted and therefore why you don't have to harmonize what it says with Mormonism. Essentially you've tacitly admitted that you cannot reconcile Mormon doctrine and theology with the whole of Biblical scripture.

Which makes it odd as to why you would even try to defend your theology at all using the Bible if you don't consider it to represent truth.

As a consequence, you are forced to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you think reflect Mormon views and reject those which don't. Muslims do the same thing with the Bible, as do Jehovah's witnesses, and all manner of new age or occult beliefs. If your standard is to pick and choose what you think is true from the Bible then anyone can twist it to claim the Bible supports whatever they personally want to be true.

This goes back to the point I originally made concerning this thread: If you reject the whole Bible as being reliable then it cannot act as a guidepost for helping you discern error from truth or good from bad. You put yourself at risk of picking and choosing the parts of the Bible that conform to your view of what you think God should be, which ends up with everyone having their own personal version of God. Essentially it is idolatry, creating God in your own image; creating an idol of thought rather than of wood/stone/metal. Rejecting who God has revealed himself to be in favor of what you want him to be. That is one of the greatest sins Israel engaged in. A perfect example is after being brought out of Egypt when they fashioned a golden calf and had a party around it, proclaiming "this is the God that brought you out of Egypt". They had broken off their relationship with God, going after idols of their own creation and rejecting who God revealed himself to be, before Moses even got back down the mountain with the tablets of the law.