|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Apostasy from Christ' true teachings | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5907 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Quiz
What kind of B.S.is this? You do not answer my points and then you proceed with a hackneyed excuse that I must read the entire scripture to understand the context.I am sorry but the sentences I was dealing with are nonsensical and no "context" will change that. I will establish some of the points again. "without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing" Read the sentence mate.The "coming" refers to a FUTURE event!It CANNOT refer to "some previous appearing." *sheesh* Joseph Smith died in 1844 at the age of 38.He never reached 85. He therefore could not have ever seen the face of the "Son of Man." "Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man." And again in the first quote above. "beginning of the millennium" If it was the millenium then the part about "if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old" also makes no sense. I am sorry to say Quiz but you have got to do better than this. ------------------"Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns, so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization of the entire tapestry."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quiz Inactive Member |
If you read the scripture in context you are right the prophecy is a joke, but it does not point to a coming, rather it points to when he wont come. Not that he will come by 1890 but rather he wont come before 1890, but could come after 1890.
Quiz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5907 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Quiz
I can prophesy as well as that. Here we go. I state for the record that he will not come before 2005 but he may come later.As I said previously this has no useful information information since it leaves the prediction open to interpretation. A prophesy,in my eyes must be far greater in its accuracy,otherwiseit has no value.Now if I were to state that He will definitely come in the year 2008 around the middle of August then that is a prediction that holds water but only if I stand firm by it and do not change the prediction if the date passes without the event occuring as I claimed it would. Ambiguity has no part in a prediction such as you maintain J.S. had. [This message has been edited by sidelined, 11-15-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quiz Inactive Member |
I never said D&C 130:14-17 was impressive and I never said it held water. I also want to add that this is the way most of the prophecies are which are christian base. The point is not that the prophecy was lame, the point is that the prophecy does not state that Jesus is going to come before 1890 which is the point Rie was stating.
Quiz P.S. We were looking for false prophecies, Rie was presenting that this prophecy was false because Jesus has not returend. [This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-15-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
There is a fundamental problem here. It is NOT a fact that the Book of Breathings is not the papyrus "translated" as the Book of Abraham.
There is in fact strong evidence that it is the same scroll.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Interestign - we went over this one ans it id quite apparent that Joseph Dmith predicted that other natiions would get directly involved and that the American Civil War wuld escalate into a World War.
So the Churches official line is to deny that Jospeh meant what he said since it did not happen. So lets see, Joseph Smith is a real prophet because his prophecies are reinterpreted after they fail ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quiz Inactive Member |
I understand you and perhaps I agree with you.
Quiz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Prozacman Inactive Member |
Hey Quiz, Who on earth did you mean to write your post 117 to? You addressed it to yourself!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Prozacman Inactive Member |
Oh goodie! Actually a bunch of Bishops DON'T make me think that. Eusebius, who wrote about the Council of Nicea and the main reason it took place(the Arian Heresy), makes me think the Bishop's were confirming what had always been taught about Jesus; that he was equal in substance with the Father. Why?, because Eusebius' writings are the historical evidence that the Council of Nicea took place, and that the Bishops at that council agreed about Jesus being consubstantial(equal) with the Father. No, everything is not based on interpretation alone. It is true that Arius was able to give a different interp. of the various proof texts for Jesus being equal with the Father; for example some people interpret Jesus saying, "I and the Father are one"(John10:30), as meaning that he and the Father think alike and agree on things, not as "I and the Father are the same God'. I agree with you that if Jesus did indeed say, "I and the Father are one, then it does appear that they agree on things according to the context of this verse. However, I don't believe Jesus said what it is written he said, because it's just plain history that the Jewish leaders of the first century, didn't stone people for claming to be God. There are several 1st century incidents recorded in the writings of Josephus where some dummy claimed to either be God or the Messiah, and they were either laughed to scorn by the Jews or they were crucified by the Romans for claiming to be a king or God without the emporer's blessing. That is very likely what happened to Jesus. Therefor, I side with the Bible scholar John D. Crossan who thinks John10:30 and context were added to the NT by later church copyists. I'm pressed for time and I'll be back.
I'm back. Anyway you seem to have not acknowledged or want to challenge evidence I gave in my post #77: Athanasius, the Bishop who lead the charge that Jesus was consubstantial with the Father, stated that all the Church fathers going back to the time of the Apostles believed in the Trinity, and that any new teaching that went against this confirmation was heresy. Sounds to me like there really was an "Apostasy" in the early churches, but it was against orthodox teaching. Here are some scripture references from the time of the Apostles which confirms the judgement of the Bishops at the Council of Nicea: Titus 2:13 where Jesus is called "God and Savior".
2Peter1:1"...the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ". [This message has been edited by Prozacman, 11-17-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quiz Inactive Member |
That is a list I have been keeping, I was making everyone aware of the current list of problems on this thead around Joseph Smith because we are talking about Joseph Smith, then I tried to respond to the list rather then to the direct posts so people would work with the list, helps to organize things...
Quiz Conclusion: Based off the civil war prophecy, I must agree that the church re-interpreted the information in a way that makes the scripture seem like Joseph Smith was not a false prophet but in eathercase if you read the civil war prophecy in context you think that Joseph Smith prophecied a world war not a civil war and as such you must come to the conclusion that this is a false prophecy. Thus making Joseph Smith False Unless they are right, which I highly doubt and like everyone in this debate probably thinks you have to take the facts and the fact is Joseph Smith falsy Prophecied about the civil war. note: you cant change this prophecy from talking about the civil war to another war beacuse in the begining it is specificaly talking about the civil war. With this conclusion everything the LDS church teaches has fallen, Their teaching of the falling away, their teaching of the restoration, all falls because the civil war falls and this makes the lds church look like nothing more then another reformation but worse, led by a false prophet but not only a false prophet but a witch. I want you to know that I came to this conclusion after re-reading all my responses which were factual as to the LDS doctrine. The LDS church seems to make exscuses for each prophecy and they claim to have a prophet to this day, and if they had a prophet to this day, I would ask why? why would they be so confuesed, why make exscuses for their problems.. Anyways thats it, the apostasy as explained has fallen, the presentation was incorrect. Kinda sucks because I was hopeing J Smith was true, but oh well. Thanks guys.. In anycase this does not have any problems with the Jesus of the bible BECAUSE he did prophecy that false prophets would come and we just discussed one and in anycase that prophecy has literly came true and you cannot say that is not a fact [This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-15-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
WOW!
Th evc actually changed someones mind for a change! Put that one on the record folks
In anycase this does not have any problems with the Jesus of the bible BECAUSE he did prophecy that false prophets would come and we just discussed one and in anycase that prophecy has literly came true and you cannot say that is not a fact That is another story, and shall be told at another time
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
I'm not sure that one failure of prophecy invalidates the whole thing. If he had really clear, firm prphecies and some largish fraction of them came to pass then I would be prepared to overlook one or even 10.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quiz Inactive Member |
I agree, and I understand what you are saying. Like I said they (i.e. LDS church) could be right but I doubt it. You have to weigh the evidence.
Quiz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
I'm sorry, but this seems like a rather vague prophecy.
As your post states, even J. Smith wasn't sure what fulfillment would entail, or even what the statement really meant. Is there another prophecy which is unambiguous that we could examine? I thought you said that you believed because of these prophecies, but getting you to list them is a lot like pulling teeth. I should think that you would be able to rattle off a bunch of them with little effort if the prophecies are what convinced you that the Mormon church is the One True Faith (TM).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sonic Inactive Member |
ops
[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-16-2003]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024