Quoted: "And I, Brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. "For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified."

Amen to that, Brother!

St. Paul was a very special fellow, indeed.

Why else would the Risen Lord have sought him out on the Road to Damascus?

Eric The(Converted)Hun

Quoted: You are forgetting the origin of Algebra, zero and astronomy

Gun powder?

Post from Shane333 -

So, according to you, the canon is closed.

Yes, indeed, and so it has been believed for almost 2,000 years by...both Christians and Jews.

There can be no more scripture after the writings of John.

Well, if you believe that St. John wrote the final Book, Revelation, in the Canon, yes.

I find that very interesting.

Yes, the Judeo-Christian World has understood this for, as I say, almost 2,000 years.

Everything that was needed for Salvation had been authoritatively written by, let's say, the year 95 AD, which is the traditional dating for Revelation.

Whatever followed was merely pious writings by those who were motivated to write further.

But even they never claimed to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit when they wrote, IF they were honest about it.

For thousands of years from Adam to John the Beloved (who was also the Revelator) the Lord blessed His people with direction.

That's not quite factual, now, is it?

From the Biblical period from Malachi, who wrote about 400 BC, until we hear the Voice in the Wilderness of John the Baptist, probably around 30 AD, Heaven was quite silent, was it not?

Even the Rabbinic Jews of this Period were struck by the silence of the Voice of Heaven, as they called it.

Then came the Lord's Forerunner in the person of John the Baptist, and the Son of God appeared, taught, gave us His example, suffered, died, and rose again, to be assumed into Heaven.

Following that, His Disciples taught and wrote with authority what was inspired by His Holy Spirit.

By the time of the death of the last Apostle, Heaven had said everything that needed to be said to Man.

Why stop at John?

Why did the Lord stop His Discourse with Israel at Malachi?

Because everything that He had to say to His Chosen People, Israel, had been spoken.

Why John? Because everything that He had to say to His People had been spoken.

Don't we have as much need for guidance now as then?

We have His Word and that is sufficient. For everything that we need.

Doesn't the Lord love us as much today as 1900 years ago?

Of course, He does.

What sort of knavish question is that?

Hasn't He supplied us with His Word?

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16,17

Now, what do you wish to add to that?

It isn't finished ETH.

Yes, I believe, along with the entirety of Christianity, more or less, that direct inspiration of Scripture has ended and it ended long ago!

God loves and guides us now with continued revelation, in the same pattern that He's used since Adam.

Well, we have the concrete examples of both the Old and New Testaments.

Let's say, for a moment, that Jesus came to visit His People and to give them further advice and instructions on how to live their lives more perfectly.

Now, since Jesus is unchanging, and does not contradict Himself in any manner, would we not expect that He would be able to give us a Sermon of such exquiste beauty and depth of spirit as one would expect from the Author of the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, the Similitudes, the Lord's Prayer, His Intercessory Prayer, His Parables, His Teachings, and such other Words that 'never Man spake thus'?

Well, please point to something that Our Redeemer has said, since He last spoke to St Paul, that is the equal of the beauty and depth of spirit of anything which He said in the New Testament.

I have read that most miserable so-called 'Gospel of Thomas' and there is nothing that was said in that book that was anything like what was spoken by Jesus in the New Testament.

So, do you have a book with supposed 'sayings' of Jesus that postdates the Christian Canon?

Then simply quote something that Jesus supposedly said in that book and those of us who have Jesus written in our hearts can easily discern whether the Lord said it or not!

Should be rather easily done, if the Lord has been making continued Revelations to His People for the last 2,000 years!

Let's have it, if you please!

Eric The(Eager)Hun

Quoted: Quoted: Should be rather easily done, if the Lord has been making continued Revelations to His People for the last 2,000 years! Let's have it, if you please! Eric The(Eager)Hun Oh, that's easy.  Doctrine and Covenants, often referred to as D&C.

Hmmm, that's not something that anyone not well-versed in Mormon doctrine might know right off the bat.

But, pray, give us some pithy quotes from your 'scriptures' that would make ALL believers KNOW and UNDERSTAND that it is their Savior Who is speaking:

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: John 10:27

Let's have a 'better' sermon than the Sermon on the Mount from this New World 'Christ' that is found in Joseph Smith's book.

Surely the Risen Christ would have been able to preach a Sermon that would equal His Sermon on the Mount in the New World.

Let's hear one.

Eric The(HisPeopleAreListening)Hun

Quoted: Geez not this crap. BTW, has anyone investigated Buddhism?

I'm a practicing Buddhist with the Wat Thai LA temple. It's more of a way of life. You'd be surprised how much of Buddhism has been adopted by other religions if you compare. I don't have problems with those that actually live their religions rather than just attend services. The fundamental wisdoms of morality are pretty consistant between Buddhism and other religions.

Life is but a journey ... it is a matter of choice to where. I have a problem with speaking nine magic words to get one's reward. There are those here who will defend the notion that someone who has spent their entire life robbing, cheating, stealing and breaking all Ten Commandments hourly can speak nine words on their death bed and be welcome into heaven. There's parts of the bible that have problem with that notion as do I. I rather belive that one's life measure leads to ones reward.

Post from Jame_Retief -

Eric, Would that not mean that the writings of Paul are outside of the Gospel?  He did, after all, write after the passing of Christ.  By the logic which you state all writings should have ceased with the death of Christ, since it was his Gospel.  That would mean no NT, none of it, since it was all written down after the death of Christ.

Hardly! It is not called 'the Gospel by Christ', as if He, Himself, had written it, but 'the Gospel of Christ', for it was written of Him, by certain inspired writers.

There were no New Testament Scriptures written until AFTER the Death and Resurrection of Christ, so, if you supposed that I think that ALL inspired writings ceased after Christ's Death, you have NOT read what I have written very carefully, at all, have you?

St. Paul, being an Apostle, was perfectly suited to write a great deal of the New Testament, and he did receive the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit to do so.

All sacred writings of the Christian Church were either written by the Apostles, or written at the direction of the Apostles by men of the Early Church. Each of the Four Gospels were written in just such a manner.

As were the Epistles, and the remaining Books of the Canon.

Or, if you like, we can look at only the writings of the Apostles.  This would mean that the writing of St. Paul falls outside the religious Canon, since he was not of the original Twelve.

No one in Christendom, and certainly no Christian Doctrine, holds St. Paul as anything less than an Apostle of Christ.

The fact that he came after the others is not relevant to the Church, and has never been held to be a disqualifier in its Doctrine or Beliefs.

As a matter of fact, St. Paul refers to himself as an Apostle, and there is no tradition that anyone ever believed otherwise.

Sorry, but Jesus may choose whom He wishes to be His Apostle. St. Paul raised individuals from death. He healed many people, and performed such miracles as to confirm to any Believer that he was, indeed, an Apostle of the Lord's.

Do you seriously doubt that?

If you do, and are a Christian, then what denomination do you belong to that believes that St. Paul was NOT an Apostle?

I would love to know the answer to that!

I believe that what is not being gotten across, Eric, is the belief in the need for Authority.

Sorry, but the Canon has been argued and approved of by men whose shoes we would all be unfit to tie.

Their authority was the direct inspiration of God in the Early Church.

It was NOT the result of any council held by the Roman Church, as some would hold, for there are many Christian Churches in the World who do not take anything that the Roman Church holds with authority, and yet, they recognize the same Canon as the Roman Church.

The common Christian belief is that authority is either not necessary or is conferred by belief.

I don't know that this statement is a common Christian Belief, at all, for I have never heard it!

And I have been both Roman and Protestant in my life, and am pretty familiar with all sects of Christianity.

A proper perusal of the relevant scriptures easily refutes either statement (a man must be called of god, as was Aaron,  or Acts 19:3-5 where the people had been baptized after the baptism of John, but not by John, then had to be baptised again by Paul who had the authority to baptize).

Since I do not believe that your previous statement IS a 'common Christian belief', the foregoing means nothing to me, since 'authority' is always required for whatever we do in His Name.

In the scriptures there is never a reference to any ordinance being performed properly except that those performing it have the proper authority.

I have no idea with whom you are arguing that authority should mean something to the Church, for that has always been understood by the Church.

Who doesn't understand it? What sect are you talking about? What group?  

Oh, BTW, the Catholics claim to have the scriptures of the time from the end of Malachi onward, called the Macabeans (sp?).

Actually, that is terribly incorrect.

Are you certain that you wish to discuss this further? It doesn't appear that you are sufficiently versed in these matters to understand anything that I would write about the Book of Maccabees.

Go read up on the Apocrypha and ask this question later, if you still have it.

Now, getting back to your point that the Roman or catholic Bible has books in it that Protestant Churches do not have, the first point that you must recognize is that even the Roman Church does not consider these books 'sacred' in the general sense of that term when used with the rest of the Canon.

Indeed, the Roman Church itself recognizes that these 'hidden' writings do not form part of the inspired writings of the Bible, and call such writings either protocanonical or deuterocanonical, depending upon their source'

Protocanonical is defined as 'pertaining to the first canon, or that which contains the authorized collection of the books of Scripture; - opposed to deuterocanonical.'

Deuterocanonical is defined as 'pertaining to a second canon, or ecclesiastical writing of inferior authority; - said of the Apocrypha, certain Epistles, etc.'

Since the protocanonical books of the Apochrypha were Palestinian in origin, and confined themselves to issues found in Judaism between Malachi and the Advent of Christ, the Roman Church held that these writings were worthy of being included in Scripture.

They didn't deal directly with Christian beliefs and doctrines, so, I would imagine the Roman Fathers thought, 'No harm, no foul.'

The deuetrocanonical books of the Apocrypha DID belong to the Christian period and DID address some Christian issues, so the Roman Church held that these writings were of patristic or traditional value, but that their authority was inferior to that of the Canon.

Are you still awake?

But it is widely held to be Apochryphal.

'Widely held to be Apocryphal'????

Who doesn't hold the Book of Maccabees to be Apocryphal? It's printed universally in the Apocrypha!

What denomination did you say you belonged to?

Also, by the assertion made by you on Revelations being the last of the books of the NT,  Revelations was written before some of the letters to the Churches.

I did NOT 'assert' that Revelation was 'the last book of the New Testament', did I?

Do you remember precisely what I wrote? In case you don't remember, let me copy it here:

Well, if you believe that St. John wrote the final Book, Revelation, in the Canon, yes. Everything that was needed for Salvation had been authoritatively written by, let's say, the year 95 AD, which is the traditional dating for Revelation.

Now, I am not quite certain that Revelation was written as the last Book in the Scriptures, and am not convinced that it was written in or around 95 AD, which is the 'traditional' dating.

I favor a much earlier date for the writing of Revelation. Possibly as early as 60 AD, or so.

Now if you say, but doesn't the Lord say in Revelation 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:

And surely that must mean that no Scripture can be written thereafter with authority?

You should consider the use of the word, 'Book', which surely must mean the 'Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ' and NOT the New Testament, for whether this Book was written in 95 AD, as tradition says, or in 60 AD, there was, at either date, NO SINGLE BOOK OF THE BIBLE, BUT A COLLECTION OF BOOKS!

Does this mean that those letters should be taken out?

No! Why would anything need to be taken out?

How about the letters that are reffered to, but not included?  At least three, IIRC, are mentioned.

OK, now what are you talking about, Willis?

What letters are mentioned but not included?

Be specific, for you know that I will be in my response!

The layout of the NT was done by comittee, not God.

No. I don't think so.

Even if you mean that some committee somewhere thought that 'Matthew, Mark, Luke and John' sound so, well, pleasing to the ear in that order, I don't buy it.

I believe that the Hand of God was involved in every aspect of the creation, writing, preservation, rendition, and ordering of the Books that came to be known as the Bible, both Old and New Testaments.

If you think otherwise, I have no way to prove you wrong, but then, you cannot prove me wrong, either!

Revelations was put last because it seemed like a good capper.

Well, if tradition is correct and it was written last, then it should be last!

If it's a good overview and final testimony of Jesus to His Church through the Ages to come, then it should be put last.

And, if you believe as I believe that the Hand of God ordered the Books, then He put it last!

Many of the writing of Paul and other apostles were left out because of either dislie by the comittee members or because of concern over space.

Name these ommitted works by St. Paul and other Apostles, if you please!

They simply do NOT exist!

There were pseudographical writings that were attributed to everyone from Joseph of Arimathea to Pontious Pilate that were know to the Early Church.

But they NEVER formed a part of any Church's Canon.

You got some homework to do now!

I shall await your responses to what I have written here.

Eric The(Patient)Hun

Quoted: I'm sincerely curious if you did any reading of the Doctrine and Covenants?

Yeah, and I think I have some rather disappointing news concerning my views about the quality of thought that was expressed by the Speaker of what was said in that quoted material.

I think that my views on this selected quote is best stated by Samuel Johnson (1709 - 1784), from Boswell's Life of Johnson:  

'Your manuscript is both good and original, but the part that is good is not original and the part that is original is not good.'

With all due respect, the language in what you selected from the D&C is just how I would imagine that a white male from New England in the mid-1800s might think that an Old Testament prophet would speak.

And that's the main problem that I have with the quoted passage.

IF that is the Voice of Jesus that is supposed to be speaking those words, then it is a very, very strange Jesus indeed.

Jesus never spoke in such a clumsy, and awkward manner. Everything that he said was just the way that it should have been phrased, with just the right meaning driven home by the force and majesty of His language.

In these quoted verses, we get none of that.

It reads like the Old Testament, and a very dull part of that work, indeed, with a few scattered allusions to the actual Words of Jesus in the Christian New Testament thrown in without much energy.

Such talk would put the average person to sleep. Not the sort of language and authority that would compel thousands, with keen enthusiasm, to come see and hear Jesus teach in the Wilderness for hours on end!

Sorry, but is that is the voice of a Christ, it is most defintely NOT the Christ Who we learn of in the Gospels!

Joseph Smith was out looking for buried treasure and found Golden Plates that were buried and written in a language that he referred to as 'Reformed Egyptian', which language is unknown to any expert in Egyptian Antiquity, and those written tablets told the story of a Church founded by Jesus in the New World?

Please, as a Christian I find the need to defend the Faith that we all have in Christ, which we have received from trustworthy sources as sacred Scripture, inspired by God, as transmitted by the Church Fathers, whose lives and writings are well known to history.

To somehow discover at the late date of the Mid-Nineteenth Century a whole new inspired book of extremely dubious and unknown origins just does not fit anywhere within the Gospel of Christ that has formed the foundation of His Church for the past 2,000 years.

Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and today, and forever. Hebrews 13:8

The one named Jesus in the Book of Mormon is not the Jesus of the New Testament.

Eric The(Fundamental)Hun