First problem I find is this, why is it JS simply copied some verses word for word and claimed he correct these verse, when in fact their is not a single change made? below are some examples.
KJV:
Exd 2:11 And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren.
JST:
Exd 2:11 And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren.
KJV:
Exd 3:1 Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, [even] to Horeb.
JST:
Exd 3:1 Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, [even] to Horeb.
KJV:
Lev 7:14 And of it he shall offer one out of the whole oblation [for] an heave offering unto the LORD, [and] it shall be the priest's that sprinkleth the blood of the peace offerings.
JST:
Lev 7:14 And of it he shall offer one out of the whole oblation [for] an heave offering unto the LORD, [and] it shall be the priest's that sprinkleth the blood of the peace offerings.
KJV:
Lev 7:32 And the right shoulder shall ye give unto the priest [for] an heave offering of the sacrifices of your peace offerings.
JST:
Lev 7:32 And the right shoulder shall ye give unto the priest [for] an heave offering of the sacrifices of your peace offerings.
I could go on with a ton more verses, But it even states in the JST on Page 11, Psalms 1-11 and 18-32 are exactly word for word as the KJV? How is this Correct or inspired as JS claims?
Then their are some verses in the JST where their is only one single letter added or on single word changed, and it still works out to saying the same exact thing. Examples are below. the word(s) in the JST that differ from the KJV will be put in ().
KJV:
Rev 20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
JST:
Rev 20:1 And I saw an angel come down (out of ) heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
KJV:
Rev 21:17 And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred [and] forty [and] four cubits, [according to] the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.
JST:
Rev 21:17 And he measured the wall thereof, (a) hundred [and] forty [and] four cubits, [according to] the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.
Notice in the verse 21:17 the word (AN) has the single letter (N) dropped. this really makes no change to the word. anyone simply could argue in favor of either version that the single letter added or removed is nothing more than a typo.
Here is another verse that I simply do not see how it could be "corrected" or "inspired"
KJV:
1Timothy 3:8 Likewise [must] the deacons [be] grave, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre.
1Timothy 3:8 Likewise the deacons must [be] grave, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre.
Notice that the only change between the verses are simply the movement of the word (MUST). How is this a correction? The JST is so full of stuff like this it is not even funny.
Then we read in KJV of the Book of Revelation 22:18-19
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.
Now my point on these verses is this, JS did not touch these verses, so he must have felt they were translated correctly, or God must have felt they were fine. Anyway, If these verses are correct to the point they were not changed in anyway, then this poses a problem, even if LDS feel these verses only apply to the Book of Revelation and no other book, then JS did make changes to the book of Revelation. So why would God put these verses in the Book, only to later have JS turn around and "correct" the Book.
If God is really all knowing, and if He is not the author of confusion, it would stand to reason, He would have foreseen the changes that needed to be made to the book of revelation, so why would God put these two verses in the book in the first place?
Then there are 9 books JS felt were correct and never changed, both in the Old and New testemants.
If we add to that, all the verses that were not changed, all the verses that were altered, but those mean nothing in the sence of, one single letter was added or removed like with the example of (A) verses (AN), then the more serious changes that were made are really so few, it would stand to reason that the majorty of the Bible is accurate. And seeing as how the LDS feel it is not Accurate, who is correct. The Bible or JS?
Here are a few Examples of what I mean by, some books have very few to almost no changes.
The Book of 2 Corinthians is 13 Chapters long, JS only changed 9 chapters. but out of those 9 chapters 6 of those Chapters only have 1-2 verses changed, and 2 more chapters have 3 verses changed.
Then in 1st Thessalonians is 5 Chapters. JS only changed 4 chapters, but 2 chapters only have 1 verse changed, 2 Chapters have 2 verses changed, and 1 Chapter has 3 verses changed.
The one page book of Philemon has only one verse changed. And the same with the book of Jude, only one verse changed. My point on this is simply this, These changes are major enough, that JS altered the Word of God, yet most Changes are minor enough that you really have to ask, how can you say, these are corrections?
Now here are some more questions.
Brigham Young said
In the Bible are the words of life and salvation . We are believers in the Bible...its precepts, doctrine, and prophecy...We take this book, the Bible...for our guide, for our rule of action; we take it as the foundation of our faith.Discourses of BY, PG 124-125.
I think it is really confusing for BY to say what he did, Knowing that the Bible was "Corrected" by JS from a revelation of God.
Then again, BY on pg 126, goes onto say,
With us the Bible is the first book, then the book of mormon comes next.
Then many years later we read,
The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints accepts the Holy Bible as the foremost of her standerd works, first among the books which have been proclaimed as her written guides in faith and Doctrine. (A of F , Talmage p.236)
Now, According to A of F number 8, the Bible not translated correctly. If this is true, then can you tell me what part is NOT TRANSLATTED Corectly?
How do you come to the conclusion you did, if you even answerd the question?
Can you give me a list of ten inaccurate translations?
Can you list any errors that are now in the Bible? if so, how did you come to that conclusion?
If God really did tell JS to "correct error" in the Bible, why are you still using a corrput version?
According to D and C 124:89
89 If he will do my will let him from henceforth hearken to the counsel of my servant Joseph, and with his interest support the cause of the poor, and publish the new translation of my holy word unto the inhabitants of the earth.
God says, the JST is His Holy Word. so why all the problems that are both found in the JST and the fact that BY and others (talmage), For one, seem to teach the Bible is Superior, why?
Now here are some things that the Bible teaches.
John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Hbr 4:12 For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
1John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
If the Bible, Gods Holy Word, says this stuff about it, and it is incorrect, then first off, how can I trust anyone, if God allows His word to be corrputed? Then if it really is Gods word, and it is useful for correcting Error, and I cannot trust it, then how can I trust JS. If he really heard from God, to correct error, but had much error himself, both in the JST and the BoM, with the 4,000 plus changes, Who can I trust? Rick b
36 comments:
You probably should start back even earlier than Joseph Smith. You asked If God is really all knowing, and if He is not the author of confusion, it would stand to reason, He would have foreseen the changes that needed to be made to the book of revelation, so why would God put these two verses in the book in the first place?
Let's look back through time to see how often the bible has changed.
500 BC: Completion of All Original Hebrew Manuscripts which make up The 39 Books of the Old Testament.
200 BC: Completion of the Septuagint Greek Manuscripts which contain The 39 Old Testament Books AND 14 Apocrypha Books.
1st Century AD: Completion of All Original Greek Manuscripts which make up The 27 Books of the New Testament.
382 AD: Jerome's Latin Vulgate Manuscripts Produced which contain All 80 Books (39 Old Test. + 14 Apocrypha + 27 New Test)
1384 AD: Wycliffe is the First Person to Produce a (Hand-Written) manuscript Copy of the Complete Bible; All 80 Books.
1535 AD: Myles Coverdale's Bible; The First Complete Bible printed in the English Language (80 Books: O.T. & N.T. & Apocrypha).
1611 AD: The King James Bible Printed; Originally with All 80 Books. The Apocrypha was Officially Removed in 1885 Leaving Only 66 Books.
1846 AD: The Illuminated Bible; The Most Lavishly Illustrated Bible printed in America. A King James Version, with All 80 Books.
1982 AD: The "New King James Version" (NKJV) is Published as a "Modern English Version Maintaining the Original Style of the King James."
2002 AD: The English Standard Version (ESV) is Published as a translation to bridge the gap between the accuracy of the NASB and the readability of the NIV.
So if you want to talk about changes, and accuracy, and God of confusion, why don't you start way back when? If the Bible is complete and accurate enough, why the 2002 printing to bridge the gap between the accuracy of the NASB and the readability of the NIV?
You answer your own question right in your posting. You quote:
2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
It says right there that all scripture is given by inspiration of God...for correction...in righteousness. God did not translate, print, and distribute the Bible. Man did. And if you truly are christian, you can accept the fact that NO MAN is perfect. Therefore errors will creep into even Holy Scripture. Especially during the dark ages when God ceased to talk to man. There were no prophets to recieve his word.
The bible has been an on going collection from the beginning. Things have been added, changed, removed, re-added, and updated for centuries. I am not certain as to why you are so fascinated with Joseph Smith translation when King James left out 18 entire books.
You ask Who can I trust?
Rick, this is where faith comes into practice. God has provided a way for you to know the truth of all things.
James 1
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
Sure, it was tempting to just toss the JST aside and smugly pronounce it nonsense, but LET’S try to be rational about things, and truthful convictions should be based on evidence, not only belief. Therefore, I have taken some time to assemble and organize some thought of the overall problem set to support a some what-coherent argument, So here it is :
The problem with the approach of condemning the Joseph Smith Translation is that within Christianity there is the King-James-Only Movement. Where these Christians feel strongly modern translations have been altered, and even subtracted and added upon. even state these new versions are the work of Satan and that Christians would never touch an NIV, NASB, RSV or the NRSV ect. It would seem the Holy Spirit is not helping discerning truth from error
In Fact : This Christian Ministry shares this warning to all that will read!:
"..I just opened the JW "Bible", the New World Translation (1961 ed.), and looked up all the verses that the NIV completely deletes. THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS BIBLE DELETES THE EXACT SAME ONES!!!! I mean ALL of 'em! The only difference between the NIV and the New World Translation deletions is that the JW Bible does not include any footnotes! Isn't that what I said above, that the NIV would eventually delete the footnotes.." (Which Bible verses did the NIV delete? By Jesus Christ is the Lord Ministry)
He further wrote:
"..They are willing to read a Satanic "Bible" version missing what God says so they can be lazy and not do their due diligence. Your modern Bible perversion was written by men using dynamic equivalence. In other words, they are telling you their interpretation and their doctrine--"
Now the NIV bible is one of the most popular Bibles and many born again Christians have stated they have been saved by reading the message in the NIV. Now If people feel the J.W's are a cult, and the New World Translation is false then one has to wonder about the doctrine that has been changed in the different modern translations
A Christian reacted to the above with the following the following: “No translation is 100% accurate. But when God opens a person’s mind to His understanding, that person will always strive to divide truth from error”
Now, it is true Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible has some significant additions, clarifications, and revisions it allows Joseph to clarify, elaborate, and comment on the Biblical text in the light of modern revelation.
But so, do many of the Modern Translations- see
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/bibles_compared.htm
Modern Christian readers are accustomed to thinking of a 'translation' as only the conversion of text in one language to another. But, Joseph used the term in a broader and more inclusive sense, which included explanation, commentary, and harmonization while using the God’s power. There is a translation method used and accepted within Christianity called “..Dynamic Equivalence- Rather than translating words, these translate ideas and whole thoughts. Examples: CEV, New Living Translation..” (Which Bible Translation? By Kevin Davidson)
In fact to further understand what Translate could mean “ ..The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) gives these definitions: "To turn from one language into another retaining the sense"; also, "To express in other words, to para-phrase." It gives another meaning as, "To interpret, explain, and expound the significance of."
Other dictionaries give approximately the same definitions as the OED. Although we generally think of translation as having to do with changing a word text from one language to another, that is not the only usage of the word. Translate equally means to express an idea or statement in other words, even in the same language…” (A Plainer Translation": Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible: A History and Commentary Robert J. Matthews)
I also would humbly offer When I study the KJV, JST and the Holy Ghost has helped me and millions others understand scripture more fully and become closer to Christ This is also accomplished when the Greek word proskunew, which is translated "worship" when it has God as its object, and "do obeisance" when it has Christ as its object.
The JST is probably best understood in above light.
Take care and have a great Thanksgiving
Devin Willis
Resources Quoted and Interesting Reading:
Which Bible verses did the NIV delete? By Jesus Christ is the Lord Ministry
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nivdelet.htm
*A DEADLY TRANSLATION THE "NEW" KJV
By Dr. Michael E. Todd
http://www.1timothy4-13.com/files/bible/nkjv.html
*Joseph Smith Translation as a restoration of the original Bible text
*The Oxford English Dictionary The definitive record of the English language Oxford University Press 2006 http://www.oed.com
*"A Plainer Translation": Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible: A History and Commentary Robert J. Matthews (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1985), 253.
*Which Bible Translation? By Kevin Davidson
*The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3rd Ed., Bruce M Metzger,., Oxford University Press, 1992. p. 100-102.
The Dead Sea Scrolls proved that the Old Testament portion of the Bible we have in our laps is pretty much the same thing. There might be some minor spelling or grammatical errors, but outside of that, the Scrolls show that the principles of transmission used by the Scribes were faithfully maintained.
As far as the New Testament goes, there are some 25,000 existing copies of parts or all of it. They match in the same way that the Dead Sea Scrolls match our present biblical counterparts. All of this is documented and can be attested to.
As far as the Apocryphal books go, they were not written by anyone who encountered Jesus firsthand, nor were they written by anyone who knew someone who had met Jesus. This is one of the reasons that outside of their historical value, those books were removed from the King James.
As far as the Bible goes, it passed the historical test, the geographical test, the archaeological test and the bibliographical test. Due to the immense amount of fulfilled prophecy contained within its pages, it should have passed any spiritual test man has seen fit to throw at it.
The reason Joseph Smith's translation is being compared so closely is simply because Joseph Smith did not pass the test. He wasn't a true prophet, which casts a huge and revealing light on his motivations for turning out a re-translated version of the Word of God.
In my response to "grorc" in the first of these three posts, I stated:
"My point was that God preserves His prophets until their work is finished. Only then were they allowed to die, or as in Elijah's case, taken.
Joseph Smith claimed to get prophecy from God to tell him to finish the JST. He didn't do that and didn't have any protection for that task because (as his many failed prophecies clearly demonstrate) he wasn't a true prophet of God. "
Mormonism, as 10th President Joseph Fielding Smith said:
"Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph Smith was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead the people, then he should be exposed; his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false, for the doctrines of an imposter cannot be made to harmonize in all particulars with divine truth."
And that is the material point here, isn't it? The whole reason for shedding the light of the Bible upon an agenda-driven translation is to show that it does not harmonize in all particulars with divine truth. Rick cannot ignore the fact that Joseph Smith wrote an unreliable version of the Bible and neither can I. Once again, Mormonism has distinctive doctrines which separate it from true Biblical Christianity. It twists Scripture, perverts the Atonement of Christ and His identity and the nature of the gospel itself. The JST is just another item that proves that.
One example of such Biblical perversion by Joseph Smith is his concept of a Melchizedek priesthood order within his church organization. The true Biblical concept only and always makes exclusive reference to Jesus Christ and His role alone. For any human being to take this title or ministerial role onto themselves is a blasphemous act. They would be engaged in saying that the singular and unique function which belong to Jesus, and Jesus alone also belongs to them.
God would never author an institution within His church which would detract from His glory, or that of His only begotten Son. By attempting to "restore" the "Melchizedek priesthood" to the LDS church, Joseph Smith sought to grab something that belongs to Jesus and Him alone. That's blasphemy. Along with that, he has dragged many followers with him into this same blasphemous practice.
Jesus alone was a priest and "King" after the order of Melchizedek, and He alone was raised from the dead, showing that death could not hold Him. All of the Levitical priests died. Because He rose from the dead and because He has life in Himself, He "always lives" to intercede for us, and He is "able to save completely." This is why Jesus, and His priesthood alone has power forever. His position cannot be shared with anyone else, not even His followers.
Either Joseph Smith missed that in ignorance, or he went on to initiate the practice anyway. Either way, it's completely wrong, and a Bible version penned by such a man has to be called out. It's just too easy to say that there are some errors in his bible version, and to do so would just be wrong.
Incidentally devinlw40, there are a ton of differences between the New World Translation of the JWs and the NIV. The NWT was errantly translated by decidedly non-Greek scholars whose sole aim it was to shoehorn the Bible into a version that fit their own cultic doctrines. They did this by the emphatic ignorance of every type of Greek lexicographical lapse (fully proven in court when one of their "Greek scholars" had to admit that he was not one) and by the subtle replacement of punctuation.
They used their version to make Jesus a "created being," by re-translating the Greek in John 1:1 as "and the Word was a god." That is also a blasphemous reference which diminishes Christ, as He is so in all cults, and the NIV does no such thing.
You said The reason Joseph Smith's translation is being compared so closely is simply because Joseph Smith did not pass the test.
The entire mormon world has been waiting for this evidence. How did he not pass the test?
As for the priesthood, you said One example of such Biblical perversion by Joseph Smith is his concept of a Melchizedek priesthood order within his church organization. The true Biblical concept only and always makes exclusive reference to Jesus Christ and His role alone.
God would never author an institution within His church which would detract from His glory, or that of His only begotten Son.
Jesus alone was a priest and "King" after the order of Melchizedek...This is why Jesus, and His priesthood alone has power forever. His position cannot be shared with anyone else, not even His followers.
Either Joseph Smith missed that in ignorance, or he went on to initiate the practice anyway.
I have posted about this many times. Christians always say that there is no such thing as the priethood. In this case, you now admit that the preisthood is the true saving power, but it was only held by Jesus Christ himself. I will show you biblical evidence, that Jesus was not the only one to hold the priesthood.
Let's answer that first.
Hebrews 7:5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who recieve the office of the pristhood, have a commandement to take tithes of the people according to the law...
This shows very clearly that Jesus Christ was not the only one to hold the priesthood.
Now, to better understand the pristhood, it's power, and how it is used, I will explain how Jesus called the twelve apostles.
Mark 3:14-15And he ordained twelve, that they shoud be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, And to have power to heal sickness, and to cast out devils.
John 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you...
To ordain means; To invest with ministerial or priestly authority; confer holy orders on. Jesus ordained the twelve apostles with his power. The power to heal and cast out devils. The power of the priesthood; otherwise known as the power of God.
Jesus knew his purpose. He knew he was sent to die for the world. He also knew that the only power that can save man, is the power of the priesthood, known as the power of God. That is why the priesthood needs to be on earth, to perform those saving ordinances required to return to God. So God can save his children. John the Baptist held the same priesthood when he baptized Jesus. So if you are going to have the same baptism as Jesus, you must be baptized by one who has this authority.
Now, how does one obtain this authority? It is also clearly written in the scriptures.
Hebrews chapter 5:
1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
This means that man is every high priest is a man and ordained to perform saving ordinances for man on behalf of God.
Furthernore, it is evident that the power must be passed on. Jesus speaking to Peter said the foundation of His (being Jesus) Church would be built upon the rock of revelation. He was calling Peter as the next prophet.
Matt. 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsover that shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
We all know what happened next. Jesus was betrayed by Judas and was crusified. After Judas died, there was a vacancy left in the 12 apostles. Peter, being the prohpet, called together the disciples, speaking about Judas, For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry[Acts 1:17]. He then explains that one must be called and ordained in the stead of Judas, to fill the vacancy and to continue in the ministry.
Acts 1:22-26
22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Notice in verse 22, Peter's statement (not question), that one must be ordained to be a witness. So they prayed that the Lord whould show them who HE chose. They prayed because as stated in Hebrews, he must be called of God.
The reason the priesthood had to be restored was because it was taken from the earth. The people were so wicked, they killed off all the prophets and apostles. The priesthood keys and authority was taken from the earth. Without the priesthood, doctrines were corrupted and unauthorized changes were made in Church organization and priesthood ordinances, such as baptism and conferring the gift of the Holy Ghost. It has now been restored to the earth and is the same organization that Jesus Christ established while on earth. Joseph recieved the Aaronic Priesthood (also known as the Levitical Preisthood), the authority to baptize, from John the Baptist. He later recieved the Melchisedec Priesthood, or the keys of the kingdom of heaven as given to Peter, directly from Peter, James, and John. He had the authority given to him in an unbroken chain directly from Jesus Christ.
So is it Joseph that missed this in ignorance, as you claim? Or is it the world that is confused?
Why was the keys of the kingdom of heaven given to Peter? Why would Jesus ordain the twelve apostles if he was the only one to have this power? Why then would he ordain apostles at all?
Devin, a lengthy response to my post does not make it more accurate. Neither does your attempt to pigeon hole my response to yours by insisting that I respond to "your points." That's a rather old and tiresome game that draws attention away from where it belongs.
"kai theos ein ho logos" literally translated says, "and God was the Word." The JWs ignore that to make Jesus less than He is. They make Him a created being. He is not.
Neither is Jesus the brother of Satan, as Joseph Smith put forth. He was not born in Heaven from the celestial union of a heavenly father and mother.
You want me to respond to your points, yet you studiously avoid mine. Clever avoidance of facts to allow your own explanation will get you nowhere. I did not say that there was no such thing as the priesthood. I said that it belongs solely to Jesus and no one else.
You say you will show me biblical evidence for the "restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood to anyone other than Jesus and then you fail to do just that. You chose to ignore that the Levitical priest all died, and that Jesus rose from the grave. That is not a little fact nor a small point.
Heb 7:11-17
11 Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. 13 For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. 15 And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest 16 who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. 17 For He testifies:
"You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek."
NKJV
Again, Jesus is the one being spoken of here as the everlasting holder of the Melchizedek priesthood, not the Levitical priests, and not anyone from the LDS organization. Life is a gift from God and is sustained by God. Jesus held this priesthood and rose form the dead. He has lived without interruption since. The Melchizedek has never needed "rerererstoration. He has held it.
Again, this practice seeks to diminish the priesthood of Christ. Did you think I used the word "blasphemy" lightly, and without thought? I do so without the intention to insult or slight. I do so becasue to do otherwise would be false and wrong.
Throw away your Book of Mormon, your Pearl of Great Price and your Doctrine and Covenants. They will not help you into Heaven, they will only lead you away from it.
Joseph Smith did not pass the test because he was not a true prophet of God. His many failed prophecies and the many public lies he told to cover up his aberrant behavior should tell you that.
If you want to breeze right past that, then go ahead. But I choose not stake my eternity on what such a man has said. Saying that one hundred percent accuracy is not required to be a prophet of God doesn't cut it either. God does not make mistakes, and when someone prefaces their speach with, "Thus saith the Lord," he is saying his subsequent words are from the Lord and are therefore prophetic. Joseph Smith failed this test so very miserably.
Devin, you are probably very intelligent, moreso than I probably, but clever ability to skirt facts and use subtle wordplay to win arguments is worth absolutely nothing to God.
I will not respond to you any further, and this is not out of cowardice. It is out of respect for God's holy Word. I wish no more to hear it twisted.
I wish you well.
P. S. chuck, I'm sorry I forgot to include the mention of your name at the parts directed toward you. The post was meant for both you and for devin, but I think you will get the drift.
God bless.
I did understand which parts were directed toward me. Thanks for the clarification and your concern.
I understand what you are saying about Jesus holding the priesthood. I do not deny the scriptures you are providing. But I also do not believe they are "ALL INCLUSIVE" and the only scriptures that speak about the priesthood and that all other scriptures can simply be ignored.
It's ok that you disregard the information I provide as blasphemy and that you disaree, but help me understand why you disagree. I cannot simply ignore the rest of the scriptures I have provided that clearly state the contrary to what you are saying. In order to help me understand your way of thinking, you will have to change mine or make me see it your way. I happen to look at the scriptures and see that Jesus did ordain his apostles. He gave the power to them. He gave the keys of the kingdom of Heaven to Peter. Even after he was crucified, they continued the practice of ordination and the passing of the priesthood power. It shows in the scriptures that I have included.
So if you disagree, then answer the following questions to help me better undertand why it is not that way when the scriptures are so clear that it is.
Why was the keys of the kingdom of heaven given to Peter? Why would Jesus ordain the twelve apostles if he was the only one to have the power of the priesthood? Why then would he ordain apostles at all and give them power? And why would they say after the order of Melchisedec and not after the order of God?
David,
My response to your post was not only accurate, but true. Your attempt to avoid the "important points." That you term "a rather old and tiresome game that draws attention away from where it belongs." seems to be your attempt at a non sequitur .
The Apostle Peter In 1 Peter 3:15 tells us
"..Always be prepared to give to every man who asks you a reasoned defense for the hope that lies within you but do this with gentleness and respect.."
Also, Apostle Jude 3 states
"Earnestly contend for the faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints."
Instead you seem to want to run away from these truths about modern translations. I understand this is hard to answer, but running away or dodging the issue is not the Christian way
Many Christians feel the NIV, NASB, RSV and other translations have used Greek manuscripts which is corrupt, in the translation process.
They state this is the work of Satan who guide translators and that Christians would never should these bibles. It would seem the Holy Spirit is not helping Christians discern truth from error in these translations.
It is a fair question, Why attack JST? when there is so much disagreement about different translations, yet?
Apologies for joining the debate all ready in progress. I have been travelling for the Holiday and only recently returned to land of Web Logs.
First, Christians hold the priesthood in high reverence. Jesus Christ is the high priest for everyone offering and officiating all the "work" that was needed for salvation. As believers, both male and female, we are called to be priests and offer ourselves as living sacrifices. [See Rev 5:10; Romans 12:1] Most translations will do.
This argument about Bible translations especially when it relates to Joseph Smith is centered around him being a "prophet, seer, and revelator". Many believe him to be a fraud. Others do not. My question for any Latter Day Saint is 1.Did Joseph finish it? and then 2.If yes, then why not publish and use the completed work? If no, why include it in the "footnotes" and rely on it for important doctrines like the priesthood?
Second, why does the JST Bible remove the sovereignty of God and hold "free agency" supreme as exampled by the Pharoah. who hardened the pharoah's heart was it God, the Sovereign of the universe, or was it an earthly king, who recieved all he had from God?
You asked: 1. Did Joseph finish it? and then 2.If yes, then why not publish and use the completed work? If no, why include it in the "footnotes" and rely on it for important doctrines like the priesthood?
Seeing how I am not an official spokesperson for the LDS Church, you will need to direct those questions to the leaders of the church.
I do find it interesting that Christians alike avoid the topic of the priesthood.
You said This argument about Bible translations especially when it relates to Joseph Smith is centered around him being a "prophet, seer, and revelator".
This topic boils right down to whether or not Joseph Smith held the authority of God (the Priesthood) being a prophet, seer, and revelator. If he is not, than nothing else matters. If he is, then everything holds true regardless of the arguments.
I have provided a very clear answer as to why he is, and that he holds the true priesthood of God. The same priesthood that the Apostles hold. The same priesthood that Peter was given. No one as of yet has been able to show me otherwise. So as far as I am concerned, the priesthood power is as described in the bible.
If you disagree with the Bible's description of the priesthood, then answer the following:
Why was the keys of the kingdom of heaven given to Peter?
Why would Jesus ordain the twelve apostles if he was the only one to have the power of the priesthood?
Why then would he ordain apostles at all and give them power?
And why would they say after the order of Melchisedec and not after the order of God?
Jonathan
1)No, but did finish most of the bible and yes it is important because if as a LDS Christian we hold he was a prophet it helps give clearity, however most schoalrs who have researched this area Agree according to his writings and others Joseph used the term translation in a broader and more inclusive sense, which included explanation, commentary, and harmonization while using the God’s power.
It is important to note as I have before-There is a translation method used and accepted within Christianity called “..Dynamic Equivalence- Rather than translating words, these translate ideas and whole thoughts. Examples are: CEV, New Living Translation.
The CEV and New Living Translation has helped many in their walk with Christ even though there are Many within Christanity that claim these bibles "are not the true word of God"but an "other gospel" and Christians should stay far away from them.
This JST does offer myself and millions of others many interesting insights and is very valuable in understanding the Bible and helps our walk in Christ.
"...There are many interesting examples of the correction. For example, when Mary encounters the Resurrected Lord in the garden before Christ has ascended to heaven, the King James Version of
John 20:17 has Christ saying, "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father. . . ." The Joseph Smith Translation instead has "Hold me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father" which actually proves to be in excellent agreement with the best available Greek texts for that passage.
For other examples of the nature of the corrections made, I'll quote from the article, "Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible" in Vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of Mormonism:
In the KJV [King James Version] the wise men ask Herod about the birth of the "King of the Jews" (Matt. 2:2); in the JST [Joseph Smith Translation] they pose a more searching question: "Where is the child that is born, the Messiah of the Jews?" (JST Matt. 3:2). .
. . When Herod inquires of the scribes, he is told that it is written that Christ should be born in Bethlehem, "For out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel" (Matt. 2:6); the JST reads, "for out of thee shall come the Messiah, who shall save my people Israel" (JST Matt. 3:6).
In the JST a transitional passage without a KJV equivalent is inserted between the end of KJV Matthew chapter 2 and the beginning of Matthew chapter 3:
And it came to pass that Jesus grew up with his brethren, and waxed strong, and waited upon the Lord for the time of his ministry to come. And he served under his father, and he spake not as other men, neither could he be taught; for he needed not that any man should teach him. And after many years, the hour of his ministry drew nigh [JST Matt. 3:24-26].
At age twelve, when Jesus was teaching in the temple, the KJV (Luke 2:46) records that Jesus was "sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions." The JST reads, "they were hearing him, and asking him questions" (JST Luke 2:46).
The KJV account of Jesus' forty days in the wilderness states that Jesus went there "to be tempted of the devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered" (Matt. 4:1-2). The JST reads: "Then Jesus was led up of the Spirit, into the wilderness, to be with God. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, and had communed with God, he was afterwards an hungered, and was left to be tempted of the devil" (JST Matt. 4:1-2). Luke's record (KJV) says that Jesus was "forty days tempted of the devil" (Luke 4:2). The JST reads, "And after forty days, the devil came unto him, to tempt him" (JST Luke 4:2).
The KJV states that "the devil taketh" Jesus to a "pinnacle of the temple" and also to a "high mountain" (Matt. 4:5-8; Luke 4:5-9). The JST says it was "the Spirit" who transported Jesus to these places (JST Matt. 4:5-8; Luke 4:5-9).
In the KJV John 3:23 states that Jesus performed baptisms, but John 4:2 largely negates Jesus' activity as a baptizer by stating: "Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples." The JST reads, "Though he himself baptized not so many as his disciples; For he suffered them for an example, preferring one another" (JST John 4:3-4).
Jesus' parables are touched upon in many JST passages. One of the most important is a statement, presented as the words of Jesus himself, explaining why he used parables to veil the spiritual message when speaking to certain individuals: "Hear another parable; for unto you that believe not, I speak in parables; that your unrighteousness may be rewarded unto you" (JST Matt. 21:34).
In Mark 7:22-24 (KJV) Jesus enters a house "and would have no man know it: but he could not be hid." JST Mark 7:22-23 reads, "and would that no man should come unto him. But he could not deny them; for he had compassion upon all men."
Luke reports that while Jesus was on the cross, he cried out, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" (KJV Luke 23:34). The JST adds a parenthetical clarification: "(meaning the soldiers who crucified him)" (JST Luke 23:35).
The JST Is a help in the study in the LDS life Our coanized Bible is the KJV. As statted above in the history of the church and according to the whole sum of his wittings (which I have a copy from Dean Jessee's book, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith(all vol) he used the term translation while working with the bible project in a broader and more "inclusive sense", which included "explanation, commentary, and harmonization" while using the God’s power.
Many Christian Pastors are asking of the new modern english translations the same questions of why do they seem to remove the sovereignty of God and weakens verse that support the Trinity?
see below links as examples:
Modern Bible Versions
Rev. David Engelsma
http://www.truth.sg/resources/modernbv.htm
10/20/2006
The Problem With Bible Translations
Filed under: Christianity Personal—
http://beyondtherim.meisheid.com/index.php?p=637
I ask again in fainess and honestly How can one attack the JST? When there is so, much confussion about translations that currently is going on within the Christian family, yet many Christians are saved and are welcomed in fellowship. (Seems a bit dysfunctional to me)
Chuck,
Here are the answers to your questions.
Why was the keys of the kingdom of heaven given to Peter?
In Matthew 16:15-20
15) He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16) Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17) Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18) And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19) And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
20) Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ.[NKJV]
This often misunderstood passage explains to us that Jesus is the Rock of the church. Remember the name Peter means pebble not rock. The keys that Peter was given to unlock the kingdom of heaven were first his belief that Jesus was the Son of God, the promised Messiah, and second, he was made a priest offering himself as a living sacrifice. Peter's later evangalical messages to others in the early chapter of Acts along with his own salvation and the salvation of others set in motion on earth the building of the Kingdom of heaven. [John 3:16, Rev 5:10, Rom 12:1]
Why would Jesus ordain the twelve apostles if he was the only one to have the power of the priesthood?
Throughout the New Testament whenever one of the twelve or even other later disciples of Jesus preformed any miracles, They were always done by faith and with the Power of Jesus, not from any power originating from the discple. Since Jesus is the source and completion of Faith, He gives the same power to all believers. [Matt 10:1, Heb 12:2, Rev 5:10]
Why then would he ordain apostles at all and give them power?
Any miracle the apostles did was to reveal and show the glory of God; It was not for their honor. He gave them each a measure of Faith so they could demonstrate God's love through service to others. Their ordination was no different than what all believers in Jesus are given. A measure of Faith. Faith in Jesus can move mountains. However, all the power is from God, not from men. No man can heal the sick or raise the dead by any power he is given. The man in faith can appeal to Jesus, the only High Priest, to preform these miracles, but he has no power within himself to do so. But all this "power" is insignificant next to love. [1 Cor 13]
And why would they say after the order of Melchisedec and not after the order of God?
Where in the King James Bible does it say that these discples (apostles) were after the order of Melchizedek? The name Melchizedek or Melchisedec only appears in the King James bible in Gen 14:18, Psalm 110:4, and in Hebrews 9 times (5:5, 5:10, 6:20, 7:1, 7:10, 7:11, 7:15, 7:17, 7:21) All references are either refering the early King of Salem or Jesus, no one else; Most believe that this early King of Salem was a pre-incarnation of Jesus. So they all reference Jesus only and that is it.
The answer is only in the JST translation of Hebrews can you find any reference to anyone other Jesus, becoming a High Priest after the order of Melchisedec. It just shows that without Joseph Smith's alterations to the bible the priesthood Mormons claim to hold was never meant for men, only for the Son of God, Jesus.
First, we are not discussing the question of translation of Peter. That is a more common argument about revelation. Peter (greek petros = small rock) and "upon this rock" (greek petra = bed rock) are different. When Jesus states "upon this rock," he is refering to revelation, not Peter. Jesus is saying that revelation is the foundation he will build his church upon, not Peter.
But that wasn't the question that you still have yet to answer. The question is why does Jesus give the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter, if only Jesus has that power and authority? You cannot just deny that they were ordained, as was Aaron. It happened.
You are right. The apostles performed miricles with the power of Jesus Christ, known as the priesthood. That is what the power of God is. As far as giving the same power to other believers,it was given by the laying on of hands only. Not just because someone believes. I have shown clearly that the apostles were ordained. They were called of God to serve in the ministry. It says specifically that "no man taketh this honour unto himself." So just because someone believes, does not give them the power either. Strike two.
You said He gave them each a measure of Faith so they could demonstrate God's love through service to others. Their ordination was no different than what all believers in Jesus are given. A measure of Faith.
Sure they were given faith. We all have varying degrees of faith. That is different the the priesthood. It says in Hebrews that he must be called of God as was Aaron. Your agruments are not very compeling and do not coincide with scripture. You are speaking in half truths, but they are distant from what the scriptures show. Yet another miss.
Perhaps the question about Melchizedec was not specific enough. Why was Jesus called a High Priest after the order of Melchizedec if it was the priesthood of God and Jesus was the only one to hold the priesthood? Why wouldn't it be called the priesthood after the order of God or after the order of Jesus? Are you trying to teach re-incarnation as Doctrine? You mean to say Jesus came to earth twice already? Melchizedek, king of salem, was the priest of the most high God. (Gen.14:18) He held the priesthood. He was so faithful, they named God's priesthood after him showing honour to him for his faithfulness.
As far as the priesthood is concerned, there is a specific place in the Bible that talks about men holding the office of high priest; as I have explained before.
Hebrews 5:1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.
Why would the bible talk about men being ordained as high priests if Jesus was the only one? There are many more scriptures that speak of ordining men to the priesthood.
You have yet to answer any of these questions. An explanation of your understanding does not suffice as an answer to the questions. Not when the topic is so clearly defined and written in the scriptures.
You mention Acts. Let's talk about Acts 6
2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.
3 Wherefore, bretheren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.
5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Phillip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte Antioch:
6 Who they set before the apostles: and when they has prayed, they laid their hands on them.
7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.
Only through the laying on of those who have the authority of God (the priesthood) can one recieve this power. Once they recieve it, they must maintain themselves worthy to continue to hold it was well.
I am not certain which bible you read, but the KJV is very clear about the matter.
Chuck,
I don't want to argue counterpoint to every thing you presented, here are several things to consider.
Melchezedek="King of Peace"; Jesus is the King of Peace. Jesus made several appearances in the Old Testament before His birth in Bethelehem. It is a pre-carnation; It is not reincarnation. Even most mormons belief this. Does not your Book of Mormon tell that Jesus visited Nephi, in third Nephi, before his birth? If you hold that book to be correct, then Jesus can appear in a pre-incarnate form.
Priesthood is related to the law. We now live under grace; The grace of the final High Priest, the only in the order of Melchezedek. There were other high priests in the old testament. Each year one priest would enter the holy of holies, he was a high priest. But Jesus fulfilled the law and the new covenant was given. The law was replaced with love. Our new command was to love God and love each other. It was not to have other officials, priests, to offer burnt offerings or preform any other sacred ceremony. It is to believe in Jesus and love Him. Not in other men taking honor for themselves, gods in training.
Apologies to my fellow Christian brothers and sisters for my inadequacy to explain Biblical truth, and to others that desperately need to understand it. But mostly apologies for hijacking this web log entry which is intended to show yet another vain and incomplete attempt by a false prophet to re-write the bible to fit into his religion.
I forgive you for your inadequacy in Biblical truth.
You said Jesus made several appearances in the Old Testament before His birth in Bethelehem. Does not your Book of Mormon tell that Jesus visited Nephi, in third Nephi, before his birth?
But he appeared as himself, not as someone else. So if you hold to pre-incarnation, then when he was born, that would mean he was re-incarnated. To be incarnated, means to have flesh and bones. To have a body. You can call you what you want, but if he already had one body, and then recieved another, that is re-incarnation. It didn't happen like that.
You said We now live under grace
I agree, we do not need sacrifices because of the saving grace of Jesus Christ, but that has nothing to do with not needing the priesthood. Nobody has the right to take the honour unto themselves to act in the name of Jesus Christ. They must be called of God as was Aaron. I have shown specifically that the priesthood is given to men by the laying on of hands. You have not provided any scriptures or explanation that counters this doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
You said Our new command was to love God and love each other.
What do you think the 10 commandments are about? By obedience to the first 4, we show our love for God:
1. No other Gods
2. No graven images
3. Don't take his name in vain
4. Keep the sabbath day holy
By obedience to the last 6, we show love for our neighbor
5. Honour father & mother
6. Don't kill
7. Don't commit adultry
8. Don't steal
9. Don't bear false witness (lie)
10. Don't covet
That is exactly what the Lord meant by love God and thy neighbor as thyself. It doesn't do away with the ten commandments. We still are required to live up to each one.
David said The true Biblical concept only and always makes exclusive reference to Jesus Christ and His role alone. For any human being to take this title or ministerial role onto themselves is a blasphemous act. They would be engaged in saying that the singular and unique function which belong to Jesus, and Jesus alone also belongs to them.
God would never author an institution within His church which would detract from His glory, or that of His only begotten Son. By attempting to "restore" the "Melchizedek priesthood" to the LDS church, Joseph Smith sought to grab something that belongs to Jesus and Him alone.
Jonathan said There were other high priests in the old testament. Each year one priest would enter the holy of holies, he was a high priest.
So which is it? It was either Christs alone, or there were other high priests. I would say Jonathan is closer to the truth in that many men have held the priesthood from the foundation of the world.
I testify that the priesthood is on the earth, For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God(Heb. 5:1). Men are still ordained to the priesthood of God today, by the laying on of hands by those in authority who are worthy to do so.
For those of you desperately need to understand the doctrine of the preisthood, you can read all about it at the Official LDS Church Website.
Chuck,
I took your advice and checked out the official site for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints at LDS.org. I found several things that were very interesting and thought I would share them with you. This response does constitute a hijack of this web log, because when I checked your profile to email you this information there was no contact information. In fact, there was only your first name, Chuck. And it looks like you have been a member of the web log community for less than thirty days. It must feel really great to follow the letter of the law (not the spirit of it) in posting to this web log and set up a profile, yet remain 99.9% anonymous.
First, Pre-Incarnation of Jesus. When Jesus touched the stones for the Brother Jared, in the book of Ether, did he have a physical body, before He was born, or did he not actually touch them? Let's take a look at the passage.
Ether 3:6
"And it came to pass that when the brother of Jared had said these words, behold, the Lord stretched forth his hand and touched the stones one by one with his finger. And the veil was taken from off the eyes of the brother of Jared, and he saw the finger of the Lord; and it was as the finger of a man, like unto flesh and blood; and the brother of Jared fell down before the Lord, for he was struck with fear."
According to another Translation by Joseph Smith, Jesus had a finger of a man, like unto flesh and blood, before Jesus was born in Bethelehem. Would this constitute an incarnation and then Jesus was reincarnated in the manager centuries later.
In the passage found in Genesis 14:17-20, the only actions taken by this King of Salem was to offer wine and bread to Abraham, and bless him. It does not explicitly state that He actually touched anything physically. Besides if he was a King would he not have his servants serve the bread and wine.
Further exploration about the priesthood found at LDS.org, Again I found the following passage in the Translated work of Joseph Smith, in the Book of Mormon, the most correct of any book as testified by your prophets.
Mosiah 2:3
"And they also took of the firstlings of their flocks, that they might offer sacrifice and burnt offerings according to the law of Moses;"
How could Lehi from the tribe of Manassah as claimed by the writer Joseph Smith hold the Levitical or Aaronic Priesthood to offer these sacrifices according to the law of Moses? The answer is they could not. They would have been killed like other priests in the old testament that offered strange fire unto the Lord. The translation is not so good. I wonder if is the same with his incomplete translation of the bible.
Second, In exploring how Aaron was called of God, a key word search in the King James Bible of "Aaron, Hand, and Head", a logical search to see if Aaron received his priesthood by the laying on hands upon his head. The search provided ten references to Aaron and his sons laying their hands on the heads of sacrifices and then offering them to the Lord. But, I was unable to locate a passage that provided that Aaron received his priesthood by the laying on of hands by anyone. There is mention in Exodus 29:4-9 how Aaron was consecrated for his priesthood service. Are priests or high priests in the Mormon church consecrated for their service as Aaron was? Or do they follow modern revelation for their consecration?
If people love God, would they break any of those first four commandments? Likewise, If people love on another would they break any of the remaining six? Of course they would not. It would be impossible to love God and your fellow man and break any of those commandments. So in theory a person need only follow those two commanments to keep all ten.
Clarifying point. The other high priests in the old testament were of the order of Aaron, not Melchizedek. Again only Jesus is a high priest in the order of Melchizedek. I do not know how many times I have to say that every believer is a priest. No other mediator is necessary apart from Jesus. No lines of succession are needed. It is simple. The believer then Jesus, no middle official is needed.
Finally, Chuck said, I agree. It is great to be able to quote others words isn't?
You said Would this constitute an incarnation and then Jesus was reincarnated in the manager centuries later.
It was his spiritual body, like unto flesh and blood. You forgot to keep reading. In vs 16 it says: Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh. So the answer is NO.
It was not an incarnation, pre or otherwise. As I stated before, he has appeared to many in the spirit as HIMSELF, not pre-incarnated as another person.
You said How could Lehi from the tribe of Manassah as claimed by the writer Joseph Smith hold the Levitical or Aaronic Priesthood to offer these sacrifices according to the law of Moses? The answer is they could not.
Why not? Where is the scripture to support your claim?
If you read in verse 11, you will see that King Benjamin was given the priesthood by his father. You can trace the lineage of the preisthood back to Jerusalem through Lehi. That's what gave him the authority to perform the ordinances. Just like I have stated from the bible all along, no man taketh this honour unto himself except he is called of God as King Benjamin and Mosiah were.
You said I was unable to locate a passage that provided that Aaron received his priesthood by the laying on of hands by anyone. There is mention in Exodus 29:4-9 how Aaron was consecrated for his priesthood service. Are priests or high priests in the Mormon church consecrated for their service as Aaron was?
Here is two definitions from dictionary.com that apply to your statement.
1. to make or declare sacred; set apart or dedicate to the service of a deity
2. to admit or ordain to a sacred office, esp. to the episcopate.
The scriptures I have provided show that the consecration is performed by the laying on of hands. The scriptures are clear. Aaron was called by the laying on of hands. And to answer your question, yes. Mormons are given the priesthood as was Aaron.
You said Again only Jesus is a high priest in the order of Melchizedek... No other mediator is necessary apart from Jesus. No lines of succession are needed.
Your claim is not true. Moses was a judge in Israel. (Leviticus 18:4) In Ezekial 44:24 it says that the priests shall judge according to the judgement of God. Revelations 20:4 talks about those who will sit in judgement with Jesus. Again, in Hebrews 5:3 they offer for sins. Priests are taken from among men and ordained for men in things pertaining to God.
You said I do not know how many times I have to say that every believer is a priest.
You can say it until the day you die. But no matter how many times, or how many ways you say it, it is simply not true. So everytime your say it, remember you are speaking blasphemy.
It says that no man taketh the honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. Why do you keep overlooking that? I have shown that Aaron was called by the laying on of hands and ordained both by definition of the dictionary and in the scriptures. Mere belief does not make you a priest. You're right, it is simple. It's just as the scriptures say. But you still refuse to accept it, even though it is so simple.
I have shown where others were called (chosen) and ordained by Jesus Christ to work in the ministry. You cannot just shrug off the scriptures that point that out, unless you are saying you do not believe in the Bible? We believe in the Bible as far as it is translated correctly. There are so many scriptures provided here on this subject, that a clear definition is available.
Heb. 5:1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God.
It is clear that Jesus Christ was not the only high priest. It says right in this scripture they are men who are ordained for men in things pertaining to God. How much more clear does it have to be?
Trying to unravel the tangled web of Mormonism is as simple as removing one card (a single false doctrine) from a house of cards (collective false teachings). Yet a complicated issue. Repeated debates distract from the real issue, simply stated, Got Jesus? Is Jesus Lord of your Life? Do you believe that Jesus is the Messiah? Everlasting? Born and lived a perfect sinful Life? Died to save man by His crucifixtion? Giving Salvation through faith in Him? Granting everlasting life through His resurrection? and His Truimphal return and victory over the enemy?
The essence of the Book of Hebrews, the most comprehensive examination of the priesthood in the New Testament is that Jesus Christ is superior and His seven attributes (Chapter 1) prove that He alone is sufficient. Jesus Christ's superior priesthood was not given him because of lineage or by ordination as others received their lesser priesthood, It comes from His nature. No one else is perfect and without sin and could ever qualify to hold this superior priesthood, order of Melchizedek. Once Jesus sacrificed Himself, the lesser priesthood, Aaronic or Levitical, was no longer necessary. He is superior to the prophets, who preached repentance and the coming of a future Messiah; to the angels, heavenly messagers again that spoke of the coming Messiah; to priests, officiating the Law of sacrifices a shadow (Chapter 10) of the coming sacrifice of the Messiah; and that all believers must anchor their hope in Jesus alone (chapter 6), place their faith in Jesus alone (chapter 11), and demonstrate their hope and faith by loving God, through obedience to the law written in their hearts (Heb 10:16, Jer 31:31-34), and loving and serving their fellow man (chapter 12).
Any gospel, church, philosophy, or organization that teaches Jesus is not sufficient is false. Mormonism teaches Jesus plus human efforts are required for salvation (exaltation) including false priesthoods ordained by Joseph Smith, no man can take this honor unto himself. Back to the topic of this web log, the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible; It was Joseph's attempt to incorporate supposed modern revelation into the text of the Bible to justify these human efforts and priesthoods.
I am not denying good works or human efforts just the origin and intentions of those works including supposed priesthoods. Are these works to guarentee exaltation (Jesus plus human efforts) as taught by Mormonism, or Do these works flow from your salvation found only in Jesus?
One correction. Jesus lived a Sinless Life not a sinful one...
Hey Chuck,
If you read the Bible then you will see, if a angel appers to a man or women, they tend to fall down and worship that angel. The angel ALWAYS SAYS, Get up, do not worship me at all.
But we know that Lucifer wanted man to worship him, and look what happended to him, he was cast out of heaven and awats hell.
Well we see a few cases in the OT of a person appering at different times throught out the OT, And people fell down to worship Him, Once he even said, remove your sandles, your on Holy Ground, Do you really think a mere orinday angel could say that and allow him to recive worship? Not a chance.
Guess who that was all those times, It was Jesus. So Yes we find Jesus all throughtout the OT. If He is God, how hard is it for God to put on a body and talk to man.
What about the Angels who meet abraham on the way to destory Sodom. Do you really think a mere angel has the athourity to tell abrham I will not destory the city if I find 50 rightouess men? Then widdle it down? No. Only God can do that. Yes Jesus is all throught out the OT. Rick b
Jonathan said Is Jesus Lord of your Life? Do you believe that Jesus is the Messiah? Everlasting? Born and lived a perfect [sinless] Life? Died to save man by His crucifixtion? Giving Salvation through faith in Him? Granting everlasting life through His resurrection? and His Truimphal return and victory over the enemy?
Absolutely. I agree with all of this. The only addition I would make is that his Atonement for sin will save man. This not only includes the crucifixtion, but his suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane.
But this still avoids why in Hebrews is says that high priests taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God. You say that Hebrews is the most comprehensive examination of the priesthood. But you still fail to accept Chapter 5 verse 1. Why?
Rick, you bring up an interesting topic. You said But we know that Lucifer wanted man to worship him, and look what happended to him, he was cast out of heaven and awats hell. Are you saying that Lucifer lived in Heaven? What relation does that give him to God? Why was he in heaven?
You also said If He is God, how hard is it for God to put on a body and talk to man.
It wouldn't be hard, there is just no scriptures that show he ever put on a body prior to his birth. He always appeared to man as HIMSELF. Never as someone else. Why would he have the need to appear as someone else?
You also said Do you really think a mere angel has the athourity to tell abrham I will not destory the city if I find 50 rightouess men?
What if that was the commandment the angel recieved from God? Then he would absolutely have the authority, if God instructed the angel to say so.
So Jonathan, I look forward to your explanation on high priests taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God.
Rick, I look forward to your explanation about Satan being cast out of Heaven, why he was in heaven, and what is relation to God was.
Jonathan,
When you make a statement like "-"Trying to unravel the tangled web of Mormonism is as simple as removing one card (a single false doctrine) "
"When you ask Got Jesus? Is Jesus Lord of your Life? Do you believe that Jesus is the Messiah? Everlasting? Born and lived a perfect sin-free Life? Died to save man by His crucifixtion? Giving Salvation through faith in Him? Granting everlasting life through His resurrection? and His Truimphal return and victory over the enemy? The LDS Christian would say yes!, but according to a paper by TheologicalStudies.org researcher and pastor Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D shared the following:
“The Christian body in America is immersed in a crisis of biblical illiteracy,” warns researcher George Barna. “How else can you describe matters when most churchgoing adults reject the accuracy of the Bible, reject the existence of Satan, claim that Jesus sinned, see no need to evangelize, believe that good works are one of the keys to persuading God to forgive their sins, and describe their commitment to Christianity as moderate or even less firm?”
Other areas found in the research:
The most widely known Bible verse among adult and teen believers is “God helps those who help themselves”—which is not actually in the Bible and actually conflicts with the basic message of Scripture.
• Less than one out of every ten believers possess a biblical worldview as the basis for his or her decision-making or behavior.
• When given thirteen basic teachings from the Bible, only 1% of adult believers firmly embraced all thirteen as being biblical perspectives..”
Main .”.documented a rejection of key Christian doctrines. Only 35% of mainline Protestant church members believe Christ was sinless; 34% believe the Bible is totally accurate; 27% agree that works don’t earn heaven; and 20% believe Satan is real.
Denominations which are more evangelical report higher levels of commitment to key theological truths than their mainline counterparts, but large percentages of people in these more theologically conservative churches still deny essential Christian doctrines.
Of Baptists (any type) in America, only 34% believe Satan is real. Only 43% believe that works don’t earn heaven. Although most Baptists affirm that Christ was sinless and that the Bible is totally accurate, the majority is not strong. Only 55% affirm that Christ was sinless, and 66% hold that the Bible is totally accurate.
Of nondenominational Christian churches, Barna reports that 48% believe Satan is real; 60% say works don’t earn heaven; 63% affirm the sinlessness of Christ; and 70% believe the Bible is totally accurate.
According to Barna, the denomination with the highest commitment to essential Christian doctrines is the Assembly of God denomination. In the AOG, 77% believe the Bible is accurate; 70% believe Christ was sinless. Yet only two-thirds (64%) affirm that works don’t earn heaven. Only 56% believe Satan is real. So even in the most theologically committed denomination, large percentages of people still deny essential Christian doctrines.." It would seem unravelling the tangled web of non-LDS Christianity is eassier
Are you willing to hold many fellow Christians to the same standard? As the above shows Christians would fail your test that you have put for those of the LDS faith.
I would like to know how you can even define what an "exclusion" factor for the LDS faith is very interesting and shows your lack of knowleage of Christianity history and curent events.
Is the Bible your only doctrinal source of authority, if so, Which Bible ? NIV, NKV do you accept early creeds? You want to ex
- NIV, NKV ect.MANY Christians feel this has changed the Gospel and is a different Gospel. But you have ignored these points even though they are vaild
"...All that has gone before makes it very clear that Christian Doctrine is greatly affected by the changes. The MINORITY Text is the source of these changes and the New Modern Versions usually follow that Text. It is unthinkable that men of God would continue to advocate the use of these versions when they are in complete possession of all the facts. The ministry of the Holy Spirit is to guide us into "all truth." May he be allowed to have his way in our hearts..."BIBLE DOCTRINES AFFECTED BY MODERN VERSIONS By Paul L. Freeman http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/doctrine.txt or http://www.wholesomewords.org/etexts/freeman/pfdoctr.html
The NIV Teen Study Bible Perversion by -Dial-the-Truth Ministries wrote "......After studying their extensive analysis of Christian teenagers, Barna Research writes of the consequence of these "water downed" youth programs:
"The consequence is a watering down of Christian theology to such a low standard that it often conflicts with, rather than conforms to, Scripture."
(Barna Research Group, Third Millennium Teens: Research on the Minds, Hearts and Souls of America’s Teenagers, p.47)
We no longer train Christian soldiers – we entertain and amuse the "kiddies". And we are reaping the fruit.
Here’s some of the troublesome observations, Barna Research discovered during their exhaustive survey of today’s teens:
"Similarly, while teenagers are enthusiastic about spirituality, relatively few have an abiding faith in God based on a true relationship with Him – and few have either the direction or inclination to pursue such a relationship, in spite of its conceptual appeal"
(Ibid, p. 39)
Absolute truth (found in the Bible) is so far away from most Christian teenagers, they do not even know where to look. Incredibly, less than 8% would even look in the Bible for the truth!
"Discerning the existence of moral truth is so insignificant to most teenagers that half of them (46%) cannot even identify a source of information that has had the greatest influence on their thinking about the matter. The most common influence was their family (21%),. . . Other influences listed were religious teaching and beliefs (9%), the Bible (8%), friends (5%)….
Seven out of ten teens say there is no absolute moral truth and eight out of ten claim that all truth is relative to the individual and his/her circumstances. Yet, most of those same individuals – six out of ten of the total teen population – say that the Bible provides a clear and totally accurate description of moral truth."
(Ibid, p.43)
"The role of the Bible is clearly confounding to most teens. Not only are they evenly divided as to whether or not it provides absolute moral truths that are the same for all people in all situations, but their views on what the Bible contains in relation to truth are consistently inconsistent."
(Ibid, p.44)
"Perhaps the single, most important challenge facing youth workers today is to help young people get on top of the notion of absolute truth."
(Ibid, p.64)
Barna Research summarizes this lack of truth among teenagers as due to the "the distorted and contradictory teaching and modeling they receive from adults". Exactly what is found in the pages of the Zondervan Teen Study Bible and most of our silly, amusement-minded youth activities.
"Without a doubt, teen America’s confusion regarding truth is a reflection of the distorted and contradictory teaching and modeling they receive from adults." (Ibid, p.44)..." The NIV Teen Study Bible Perversion -Dial-the-Truth Ministries http://www.biblebelievers.com/watkins_teen-niv/teen-niv.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits... A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." Matthew 7:15,16,18-20
Those verses have a very simple meaning - FALSE PROPHETS ARE KNOWN BY THEIR ROTTEN FRUITS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note- One independent source of information about young people and religion is The National Study of Youth and Religion, funded by Lilly Endowment Inc., and under the direction of Dr. Christian Smith, Professor of Sociology at the University of Notre Dame, and Dr. Lisa Pearce, Assistant Professor of Sociology at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Smith noted that LDS teens "are the most intensely religious teens in the nation."
They are at
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/11240/study-ranks-mormon-teens-no-1-in-religiosity-nationwide
Also an article LDS teens tops in living faith
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600118667,00.html
New study ranks U.S. adolescents on how religion affects their lives
Their article (available at the website) entitled “Mapping American Adolescent Religious Participation” also suggests that attendance rates for Mormon teens are higher than for many Evangelical groups. LDS faith is producing good fruits
James L. Melton wrote in his The NKJV: A Deadly Translation "....It is estimated that the NKJV makes over 100,000 translation changes, which comes to over eighty changes per page and about three changes per verse! A great number of these changes bring the NKJV in line with the readings of such Alexandrian perversions as the NIV and the RSV. Where changes are not made in the text, subtle footnotes often give credence to the Westcott and Hort Greek Text..."
Now Let’s look at the Book OF Hebrews
Where does it STATE IN Hebrews no longer a need for Priesthood? ?
In general conferences of the Church, the most frequently cited scriptures from the book of Hebrews are those concerning the Godhead (Heb. 1:1-3; 12:9; 13:8); the obedient suffering of Jesus (Heb. 2:14-18; 4:15-16; 5:8-9; see also Atonement); the eternal priesthood of Jesus Christ (Heb. 7-8); how one must be called by God in order to hold the priesthood (Heb. 5:1-4); the nature of true faith, which motivates people to righteous action (Heb. 11); going on "unto perfection" (Heb. 6:1); and enduring to the end (Heb. 12:4-11). These themes are essential pillars of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The Epistle to the Hebrews tells us that "every high priest is taken from among men and made their representative before God to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins" (5:1, New American Bible [NAB]). The epistle's author goes on to say that "no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God as was Aaron" (5:4). How did Aaron obtain his priesthood?
He was called by God through a prophet (Moses) and was formally ordained to the Aaronic (or Levitical) Priesthood (Exodus 28). It should be noted that the Lord himself referred to the Aaronic Priesthood as "an eternal priesthood" (Numbers 25:13; Exodus 40:15).
Hebrews 5:4 echoes the Savior's statement to his apostles in John 15:16: "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you." The apostles did not take it upon themselves to enter the Lord's ministry. They were chosen and then ordained. This is the divine pattern.
As the great High Priest, Jesus offered himself as the eternal atoning sacrifice and became the mediator of this new and better covenant (Heb. 8:6), putting the law of God into the hearts of his people (Heb. 8:10; 10:16). The old law (of Moses), with its performances and sacrifices, had been fulfilled. Through the new covenant, God promised to remember the sins of the repentant no more (Heb. 10:17), and each Saint was challenged to enter into "a new and living way" through the blood of Christ (Heb. 10:15-20). Those who were willing to do so in patience and faith would be justified and receive the promise (Heb. 10:35-38).
The New Testament is replete with references to the various priesthood offices that existed in the Savior's original church, such as apostle, seventy, bishop, elder, and deacon and prophet The New Testament also mentions the fact that men were ordained to these offices by the laying on of hands.
Non-LDS Christians even invent new meanings for Greek words in an attempt to provide rationalization for their theology. Dr. Brown writes: "contemporaneous Greco-Roman source ever uses the term aparabaton with the meaning 'intransmissible’--it always means ‘unchangeable.’”8 Michael Griffith writes: “some commentators assert that the Greek word for ‘unchangeable’ used in reference to the Savior's priesthood in Hebrews 7:24 actually means ‘untransferable,’ ‘without a successor,’ or ‘that doth not pass from one to another.’ Thus, it is argued that since Christ's priesthood is ‘untransferable,’ then no one else can hold the Melchizedek Priesthood. However, this rendering, which at best has always been viewed as a marginal reading, has long been rejected by the best Greek scholars."9 Most recent English Bible translations render the meaning of the word as “unchangeable” and not as “untransferable.”
Many non-LDS Christians believe that Christ was the only Christian high priest and the only person to hold the higher or Melchizedec priesthood. However, scriptures contradict this view. James A. Carver writes: “Christ was after the Order of Melchizedek. Observe that he was after the Order of Melchizedek. For there to be an order, a group of people must belong. The Greek word for ‘order’ is taxin, which means, ‘a fixed succession’ or ‘manner.’ If Christ belonged to an ‘order’ then Jesus was not the only one to hold the Melchizedek Priesthood. He established an order of that priesthood in his day.” 7
The Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate that some ancient Jews understood that men could hold the Melchizedek priesthood.
BYU Professor S. Kent Brown who got his Ph.D. in Religious Studies from Brown University and is an expert in with an emphasis in New Testament and Early Christian Studies and researched areas in areas New Testament Gospels; Lehi and Early Egyptian Christianity
states:
“There was further concern for priesthood matters at Qumran. Not only do we find a good deal said about the priests (the direct descendants of Aaron) and Levites as distinct from the laymen of the community, but there was additional interest in Melchizedek's priesthood and those who would share his sacred lot, that is, those who would bear the same priesthood. The rather late Christian understanding that Jesus would be the last High Priest of the Melchizedek order (see Hebrews 7:24, marginal reading no. 5 in most King James Version translations) is based on an erroneous interpretation of the Greek word aparabaton which does not mean ‘intransmissible’ but means ‘unchangeable’ when referring to Jesus' priesthood. Because the Essenes of the Dead Sea obviously expected other priests to arise after the order of Melchizedek and because their Melchizedek text bears a close connection to the ideas expressed in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the notion that Jesus was to be the last High Priest cannot be sustained by an appeal to this scroll [11Q Melchizedek] which was being read by Jews contemporary with Jesus and Paul."
LDS Christian Michael Griffith continues: "Other indications that Christ was not the only one who held the Melchizedek Priesthood can be found in Hebrews 4:14 and 5:5, where we read that Christ was ‘a great high priest’ and that he ‘glorified not himself to be made an high priest.’ If Jesus had been the only Christian high priest ‘after the order of Melchizedek’ (Hebrews 5:6), then it stands to reason that the definite article ‘the’ would have been used in these verses instead of the indefinite articles ‘a’ and ‘an.’"
The apostle Paul notes that one of the roles of properly-constituted priesthood authority of apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, and evangelists in Christ’s Church is to help us to “all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive” (Ephesians 4:13-14). The Lord’s priesthood authority today is found in the LDS fAITH. The unity and order in the LDS Faith today stands in stark contrast to the confusion of the fragmented world of non-LDS Christianty.
Resources qouted and good reading
Crisis in America’s Churches:Bible Knowledge at All-Time Low
by Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D.TheologicalStudies.org
http://www.theologicalstudies.citymax.com/page/page/1573625.htm
BIBLE DOCTRINES AFFECTED BY MODERN VERSIONS
By Paul L. Freeman
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/doctrine.txt
The NIV Teen Study Bible Perversion -Dial-the-Truth Ministries
http://www.biblebelievers.com/watkins_teen-niv/teen-niv.html
The NKJV: A Deadly Translation By James L. Melton
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nkjvdead.htm
"The NIV Almost Killed My Faith in Christ!"
"...e-mail from a Chinese Christian. It needs no further introduction. -www.jesus-is-lord.com
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nivmusli.htm
Apostasy from the Divine Church by James Barker (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, Inc., 1984, reprint of 1960 edition.
Understanding Paul - Richard Lloyd Anderson, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1983), pp. 209-215.
Epistle to the Hebrews by Richard D. Draper Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 2, Hebrews 1992 by Macmillan Publishing Company
Divine Authority-Written by David Stewart
The RelationshipBetween Grace, Works,and Eternal Life Jeff Lindsay,
http://www.jefflindsay.com/faith_works.html
Where does it STATE IN Hebrews no longer a need for Priesthood?
I never stated that Hebrews taught that their was no longer a need for priesthood. I only stated that there was no longer a need for the Aaronic or Levitical priesthood to continue in the law of sacrifices. Jesus fulfilled the law through his broken body and blood in sacrificing His life for us. We honor that memory when we partake of the Bread and Wine in holy communion.
Surely, Hebrews 5:1 "every high priest is taken from among men and made their representative before God to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins" is referring to times past when a single priest would be designated on the day of Atonement to offer the sacrifice for the sins of the people. Today no priest even in the LDS church can lay claim to offering sacrifices for sin. Jesus alone is able to do this.
I am not a denominational Christian. I am just a Christian. There is great need in the body of Christ (the Church) to teach the people. I do my part using my spiritual gift to edify the body. Do you use yours? I wonder what the statistics are for the Mormon. How many Mormons are temple worthy? How many attended church regularly? How many smoke and drink "hot drinks" including Hot Chocolate? How many believe all the Mormon Doctrines outlined in a single compendium "Mormon Doctrine" by Bruce?
Chuck, you are very arrogant. Their are times where me or others say, we will not endlessy debate you, then you start with stuff like, well I see you cannot answer me or whatever else you say. I dont mind giving evidence in a reply or two, But to keep going around endlessy with you simply will not happen. Here is the info on lucifer you wanted. I suspect by the way you worded your question, You are implying Lucifer was in heaven because he is a brother to Jesus. I hate to disapoint you, but both the Bible and BoM teach Lucifer wanted to exalt himself above God, and that was why he was cast out of heaven.
The Bible and BoM do not teach, Lucifer was cast out of heaven because of the two great plans of salvation did not go lucifers way. The Bible does not tell us how long Lucifer was in heaven before the creation of Earth and Adam and eve. If that is a problem for you or you then twist your theoglay to make of prove your case then so be it, I wont add to Scripture like you.
Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Isa 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
Eze 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone [was] thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
Eze 28:14 Thou [art] the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee [so]: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
Eze 28:15 Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
Eze 28:16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
Eze 28:17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
we read in 2 nephi chapter 24 an account almost word for word as to what we find in the book of Isaiah. 12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! Art thou cut down to the ground, which did weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thy heart: I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north;
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High.
15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
2 nephi 9:8
8 O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more.
If Lucifer is an Angel and Jesus and Lucifer are Brothers, then that makes Jesus an Angel Also. So Does this mean we will Judge Jesus some day?
1Cr 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
Dont Kid yourself Chuck, I will not endlessy debate you. If I dont reply, dont allow pride to fill your heart and think I won, Rick cannot answer me, Lucifer was fill with pride, and the Bible tells us God hates pride. Rick b
Jonathan, what do statistics matter. We all sin. God knows that. Nobody is perfect. Why do you hold mormons to a higher standard? Do all christians not take the name of God in vain? Do they remember the sabbath to keep it holy? Do they all not steal? Not covet the property of their neighbors?
There are varying degrees of spirituality for each individual. The goal remains unchanged. Just because the followers of a specific faith are not perfect, does not have anything to do with the authority of God.
Rick, as for all your quoted scipture, it doesn't answer the question still! The question was, if satan was in heaven, What relation does that give him to God? Why was he in heaven?
I know he was cast out. I know he wanted the Glory for himself.
You said I suspect by the way you worded your question, You are implying Lucifer was in heaven because he is a brother to Jesus. Well you suspect wrong. I want to know what you, as a Christian, believe about satan. Why was he in heaven? What relationship does that give him to God, if any? What do you and Christians believe?
The scriptures you quote do not answer those questions. Can you?
I did not mean to ignore the question on which translation I use in my study of the Bible. I use NIV, Amplified, NASB, NKJV, KJV, NLT, and Holman. I wish I new Greek and Hebrew well enough to study the Bible in the original language, but I don't have a great knowledge of those languages. For me to get a greater understanding of the essence of each word, I prefer more than one perspective, a total or full colored spectrum of a word can be seen. Relying on the God given talents of translators and the Holy Spirit to fill in the language gap in reading the Bible.
Have you read the Book of Mormon? It can help to clarify the doctrine as well. Any book, including the Bible can be read with scrutiny, but if you read it as you would the Bible, you will see how it helps to clarify the doctrines.
Start with 3 Nephi 11. It talks about Jesus visiting the earth after his crusifixion.
Chuck,
I have read the Book of Mormon three times; Once when I was twelve and part of a deacon quorum. Once in high school the year that my seminary class studied the book of Mormon; and Finally once, when I was taking a two semester series on the Book of Mormon from institute while I was attending JR. College.
I could never understand why the "Church" never completely embraced the teachings found in the Book. Teachings that often mirror what the Bible teaches about the nature of God and salvation by grace only. So many members of the church have never read the Book of Mormon and know what is in it.
I will admit that since I have been drawn to Jesus and have received my second birth, I have not read the Book of Mormon again completely.
It was not the Book of Mormon that caused me to begin to loose faith in the "Church". It was the contradictions by the modern prophets that went against the written word; Particularly as it related to the practice of polygamy which is stated to be an abomination in the Book of Jacob, yet was practiced by modern prophets. Having been recently married, It did not feel right for a man to be married to more than one women. Eventually I did start to find inconsistancies within the Book of Mormon as I started to really study and compare it to the Bible. Like with the use of priesthood according to the Law without any Levites to officiate.
I am sorry to hear that you could not connect with the truths that are found in the Book of Mormon. Some individuals cannot. Finding fault with the Book fo Mormon as with anything; a Movie, the Bible, and even Disneyland; can be accomplished if approached from the angle of scrutiny. It causes one to percieve things that may not have the same meaning as percieved by the beholder.
For example, if I sat down and studied Disneyland from a negative perspective, I could eventually convince myself it was the work of the Devil. I could find things that I could distort in my mind to make them fit my premise. It can be done with virtually anything.
But if you approach something from the purpose of which it was intended, you will see the plain and simple truths that are provided there in.
Most non-members read the Book of Mormon with eyes of scrutiny. They do not approach it for what it is; another testament of Jesus Christ. That is why they find fault with it. They fix their beliefs, they are unwilling to accept additional teachings of Christ; therefore, if it doesn't fit the way they think, it must be wrong. That does not make the Book of Mormon incorrect. That just means there are people who do not accept it.
That's ok. We all have to learn line upon line, precept upon precept.
Let's face it. It is not easy to be a Mormon. Many people despise you (for some reason), you have more commandments to keep track of, more is expected of you, dilligence is more difficult for the amount of service that is required (lay ministry and all), etc. It would be so much easier to say, "I am saved in the grace of Christ, I have nothing more to do and I will be saved." The problem is, I just don't believe that is true. I am a firm believer in works. Through good works, I can glorify the Father, just as Jesus Christ did. I cannot save myself or anyone else, but I can serve. I don't take the glory for myself, I work diligently with an eye single to the glory of God.
I also believe that you cannot simply be called of God cause you have knowlege or because you think you are. I believe that you must recieve his authority to be able to do works in his name, like Baptize. I cannot accept a baptism from somone who simply claims that authority because they feel like they were called.
Anyway, maybe you should give the Book of Mormon another shot. Start from 3 Nephi 11 and read it with different intent. Not to tear it down, but to see if it really is true. Don't ask me or anyone else, ask God. He knows for certain the truth from fiction. Anyone can lead you astray, but God cannot and will not. Either way, good luck to you in where ever your path takes you.
Jonathan,
Let's read Hebrews-5:1-4 — this helps put it in context
(1) FOR every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things[pertaining] to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
(2) Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also iscompassed with infirmity.
(3) And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself,to offer for sins.
(4) And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as[was] Aaron
What Paul is teaching in Hebrewss is a priesthood holder must be “called of God” rather than “[take] this honour unto himself”.
During His ministry Jesus Christ was the presiding high priest on earth (see Heb. 3:1). And as the great high priest, the Savior made an eternal sacrifice for us (see Heb. 9:11–12). He continues to preside as the GREAT high Priest.
I want to testify that Jesus is the Christ I also believe in Jesus of Nazareth, in the One sent of the Father For us (Isaiah 61:1; D&C 138:11-18).
He was and is the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh (John 3:16; 2 Nephi 25:12; D&C 20:21)and he is the great High Priest forever. While you and Rick and others on this Blog want to exclude us from that term yet really proving using the Bible only why the exclusion?
I do want to thank you for answering my questions even if it means we end up agreeing to disagree;0)
Have a good night,
Devin
Chuck, I know your not going to like my reply but so what. The answer is simply, God created Lucifer, He appers to be the Chief music player by what is said about him. As to all the Rest, it would only be guesses as the Bible does not tell us. Rick b
That's a perfectly fine answer Rick. It's one thing to admit that there is no answer; it's entirely different to make something up. I respect the answer you give. I agree with the answer too in that there is nothing in the Bible that indicates what he was doing in heaven, how he relates to God, etc. I believe however that there is an answer, but I was curious as to what Christians in general believe. I figured you of any would be able to provide it if there was any.
Anyway, I was just curious as to your belief. And for future refrence, when I ask questions, it's not always to trap you. I really like to know what your beliefs are. Don't be so defiant about what you believe. You seem to know my beliefs, and most ( I use the word "most" carefully ) of them are accurate. But I know very little about the Christian's belief system. (I use the term Christian as a noun referring to the denomination, not the adjective, since I consider myself Christian and I know the basic beliefs of a Christian.)
Come to think of it, that is why I get so frustrated with these blogs. I want to hear your beliefs... yet I only seem to get what is believed to be wrong with mine. It could profit you more to provide the Gospel truths about Christianity, than to criticize the Mormons all the time. (Just my 2 cents).
Chuck, their is a topic on my blog called (What I rick believe). This covers what I believe. Also you want more of what I believe and less of me talking about what LDS teach, well that Wont exactly happen. I share what I believe when asked, but also this blog is about posting both problems I find in mormonism, and sharing the evidence from LDS sources.
You could also go to the link I have provide for the Church I go to and listen to the teachings. Rick b
Post a Comment