Posted on 10/23/2013 11:12:44 AM PDT by Colofornian
Going outside the Bible for references unique to you and your beliefs is unfair. I do not know the author or the book.
I’ll discuss anything in the Holy Bible with you, but not your other sources, documented or not. I have no interest in doing so.
Except I told that I wasn’t referring only to that text once you asked. Perhaps, jumping into the thread you lost context. Should a reader of the Bible parse it word by word or verse by verse ignoring the context, audience and other Biblical references? The answer is unequivocally no. That’s not eisegesis, but correct and proper exegesis.
Perhaps, you don’t like the answers, but Apostolic succession is a reasonable inference from the text of the New Testament. Many Christian churches adhere to this interpretation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession#Churches_claiming_apostolic_succession
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession
Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? Are you arguing from a hatred of Mormonism and desire for the approval of your fellows? If these, who you accept and admit as Christians, believe in Apostles and Apostolic succession, why the beef with Mormons? You just don’t agree with the doctrine, right?
As regards your interpretation of Acts 1 in toto and for 1:22 specifically, you are simply wrong. Take another look at the entire chapter and do so in context. http://biblehub.com/ylt/acts/1.htm
NB 1:22 is describing Jesus’ ministry as beginning with John’s baptism to his [Jesus’] ascension, not that an apostle must be one who witnessed all those things first hand. If you know which Apostles witnessed the baptism of Jesus Christ please tell me and cite your verses (from the Bible only).
Here’s the Greek: http://biblehub.com/text/acts/1-22.htm
Note that witness/martyr is in the genitive in 1:22
http://biblesuite.com/greek/3144.htm
Therefore it is a figurative witness, not a literal [your word - physical] witness. They may have been physical/literal witnesses, but it is their Spiritual witness that really matters.
Do you honestly believe that the Apostles named in Acts were witnesses to the ends of the earth, everywhere, and that their mission was completed within their lifetimes?
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/1-8.htm
This verse from Rev. might help: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/1-5.htm
Take a look at John 1:35-51
http://biblehub.com/kjvs/john/1.htm
It would also benefit you to look at the references given for Matthew, Mark and Luke under the heading Jesus Calls His First Disciples as well.
As for delivering Peter’s letter look here: Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia,
http://biblehub.com/1_peter/1-1.htm
Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia are provinces and very big: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Roman_Empire_125_political_map.png
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Augusto_30aC_-_6dC_55%25CS_jpg.JPG
You’d have to deliver the letter to someone in each of the churches in that region. To whom would that be? How would you determine that? By what authority? What political boundary would that church have? How many people should get it and would you just give it to anyone who claimed to be a leader or a Christian?
The question of delivering Peter’s letter is fundamental to understanding the nature of the early Christian Church and its organization and leadership. That’s how we can come to an expectation of what His True Church will be like.
OK with this I've answered two of your "who would you vote for" Q...yet you failed to answer my would you vote for a muslim Q?
Re: Orthodox Jew...they call upon the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob...as does the Catholic.
The Mormon god in a crisis might appeal to someone who hasn't been omnipowerful...and is no "buck stop here" God.
The same Milton Hunter book I cited (Pearl of Great Price Commentary, 1951/1972)...[btw, why do you care if what your Mormon General Authorities said made it in a book or not...? Doesn't them writing it down make it even "more" official?]
Anyway, here is Hunter quoting your beloved "prophet" Joseph Smith:
"'The head God called together the Gods and sat in Grand council to bring forth the world. The grand councilors sat at the head in yonder heavens and contemplated the creation of the worlds which were create at the time." (Original quotation found in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith by Joseph Fielding Smith, pp. 348 349; also found in Hunter's book, pp. 67-68)
Questions for you 1010:
1. Why should we trust a POTUS candidate who might appeal to some low level god for some aid in a crisis?
2. Who is this guy -- this unknown, un-Mormon worshiped "head god" Joseph Smith referenced?
3. Why don't YOU worship Him, 1010? [More glory thievery on your part? Failing to give proper glory & worthiness to the 'Head god'???)
Break the word down:
"Tri" = 3 (as in 3 persons)
"nity" = short for "unity" [these 3 are united as ONE]
What's REALLY funny 1010 is that Mormons talk ALL THE TIME about God in the singular! [Including MUCH of their "scriptures"]
You would think that since they make a HUGE DEAL about being anti-Trinitarian that they would emphasize the plurality of their gods much more than they do.
But they don't.
Why? (1) would chase off many potential proselytes; (2) not very good PR/image.
And so they purposely live in that tension... promoting plural gods when it's convenient to militate against the Trinity; and promoting a single God when it's convenient to "sound" Christian!
My Trinitarian blessing for you, 1010: May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you... (2 Cor. 13:14)
So you’d vote for a Jew or a Catholic for President as could I, depending on their support of conservatism. I wasn’t crazy about Bush I or II. I couldn’t vote for a Muslim for POTUS because we’re at war with a faction that is, allegedly, the most Moslem in practice. It’s a group that believes that imposing Sharia is acceptable and would undermine American liberties. So the more adherent the Muslim, the more anti-American. I don’t find that in conservative Mormons, Protestant Reformers, Catholics or Jews. I don’t need perfect religious unity or harmony to vote for them, just sincerity/honesty in their conservatism and a wish for the best for America. So the dividing line for me is their conservatism not their religion. I see a lot of bad thinking among the religious and find fervor for your cause blinds you to reality or the counterfactuals. For instance, if I felt that a Jewish or Catholic, Mormon or Protestant POTUS would put the needs of Israel, or the Vatican or his own religious group over the needs and his duties to America, then I wouldn’t vote for them. Since any politician can lie and many do, their actions count for more with me than their rhetoric. I find that there are many good and observant American Muslims, but I wouldn’t feel comfortable with one as POTUS given that America’s enemies believe themselves to be good and observant Moslems. Saudi Arabia is a good source of some solid , actionable intelligence and a nominal ally (enemy of my enemy), but they’re also the source of Whabbism. Do you get what I mean?
Sorry, I got thinking about it and forgot the rest of your post. I really don’t know a thing about what you’re talking about in the last half and cannot answer any of your three questions. Ask me about the Bible and I’ll talk to you day and night, until I get bored with the monotony...and Mormon monomania. ;-]
Thanks for your kind blessing and the same to you. Now do you believe that the “oneness” is in purpose and perfection/completeness or are they a single being? I don’t find that the single being jives with the Bible. Christ ascended with a physical body to heaven, so heaven must be a place where you can have a body. Plus, we have the testimony of the martyr Saint Stephen, the creation story in Genesis, the expectation of the Resurrection when we get bodies, which we don’t lose, etc. It doesn’t make sense unless God has a body and, if he has a body, do Trintarians think it is Jesus’ body they’re all residing in?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Martyr#The_Stoning_of_Stephen
I never said that a reasonable inference couldn't be made. A compelling argument is a different issue altogether. I warned against dogmatism on the position since there are many churches and theologians who do not hold to apostolic succession.
Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?
I had already decided that my last post was going to be just that, my last post on the issue. It was clear that we were just going round in circles.
Are you arguing from a hatred of Mormonism and desire for the approval of your fellows?
This is insulting and in violation of the religion forum rules on impugning motives.
If these, who you accept and admit as Christians, believe in Apostles and Apostolic succession, why the beef with Mormons?
There are many issues with which I can agree with these churches. Theologically, there is little or nothing in Mormonism with which I agree.
You just don’t agree with the doctrine, right?
Right. I don't agree with it whether held by Mormons, Catholics, whoever.
NB 1:22 is describing Jesus’ ministry as beginning with John’s baptism to his [Jesus’] ascension, not that an apostle must be one who witnessed all those things first hand.
Huh? Acts 1:21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” From the text: one of these men MUST become with us a witness. Which men? "One of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us..."
If you know which Apostles witnessed the baptism of Jesus Christ please tell me and cite your verses (from the Bible only).
Apparently, Justus and Matthias. However, why would I have to know? I'm not making the selection. Presumably, the eleven Apostles knew.
You’d have to deliver the letter to someone in each of the churches in that region. To whom would that be? How would you determine that? By what authority? What political boundary would that church have? How many people should get it and would you just give it to anyone who claimed to be a leader or a Christian?
If Peter commissioned me to deliver his epistle, I'm sure that he would tell the necessary information to complete the task. It takes no apostolic powers or office to accomplish this. Anyone with common sense who sends a messenger would do it.
Authority? Political boundaries? Sounds like the type of leading questions which someone with preconceived notions would ask.
Who is Peter to you? Why can he "commission" you? Are you just doing him a favor? Do you recognize his authority, if yes, why? After Peter's death who would you look to for Christian direction?
Authority? Political boundaries? Sounds like the type of leading questions which someone with preconceived notions would ask.
There aren't any preconceived notions, unless Peter is paying you, why are you obligated to deliver his missive? Regarding the political boundaries of those territories, Rome, as the political authority in the region, set those boundaries. You do realize that you'd be delivering Peter's epistle to an area about the size of modern Turkey, correct? So Peter would need to know by name and location who the proper Christian authorities are in each locale and there would be dozens of them. How did they get their authority?
As a schismatic Catholic these are the questions you must ask if you reject the authority of the Catholic Church.
(Isn't that what the forthcoming resurrection of the dead clearly presents?)
...we have the testimony of the martyr Saint Stephen, the creation story in Genesis...
Luke doesn't say in Acts 7 that Stephen saw the glory of Jesus and the glory of the Father. It says Stephen saw Jesus at the right hand of the glory of God.
IoW, God's eminating presence was visible...says NOTHING at all about a "body"...
As for the creation story, yes, God said, "Let us make man in OUR image." a plurality-in-unity: Adam and Eve were indeed a plurality-in-unity who immediately BECAME "ONE FLESH" (Gen. 2:24).
Besides, if Adam was made in God's literal bodily image, are you claiming that ALL of womankind is excluded from being made in God's image?
.. do you believe that the “oneness” is in purpose and perfection/completeness or are they a single being? I don’t find that the single being jives with the Bible.
#1: He is One Essence/Nature -- yet is three Persons
#2: He is so unified 'He' is a 'He' -- vs. a 'Them': "...He, -- while existing alone -- yet existed in plurality." (Hippolytus, 205 AD -- about 175 years after Christ died)
When Jesus said in John 10, that "I and my Father ARE one"...both Hippolytus (205 AD) and Tertullian (213 AD) made a big emphasis that the "are" there is "plural":
* "He did not say, 'I and my Father AM one', but ARE one. For the word 'are' is not said of one person." (Hippolytus)
* "...'I and my Father are one.' ... This is an indication of two Beings -- I and my Father. Furtheremore, there is the plural verb, are,'... (Tertullian)
Clement of Alexandria, in 195 A.D., pointed out how time is one...yet "eternity...presents in an instant the future, the present, and also the past of time." Eternity itself represents a derivative of God's 3-in-1 nature.
Also, you need to read all of Acts 7. It doesn't say what you said it says: http://biblehub.com/acts/7-55.htm
But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.
Check out Acts 7:56 for even more clarification:
and said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!"
Spirits don't have right and left sides, do they? Wait, before you dig the hole deeper by saying it's just figurative see Rev. 3:21. Don't even start on the "it's an honorific" track.
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/3-21.htm
That also hits the full heirship part that Christians can expect.
Clement's spot on about eternity. You can imagine becoming eternal, then you too will have no beginning, right?
You'll need to be more specific about what is or isn't the Trinity. Your exposition doesn't clarify anything, really.
How about a mathematical proof:
A. Heavenly Father = Jesus Christ = the Holy Ghost
or
B. Heavenly Father ≠ Jesus Christ ≠ the Holy Ghost
or
C. It's a mystery.
Pick one.
No, the "mathematical proof" actually works against the common "one God in the Bible"...
1010...read all those verses in Isaiah 43, Isaiah 44, Isaiah 45 where the God of the Bible doesn't know of any other God...that there's NO God beside Him
The Mormon "math" assessment is:
1 + 1 + 1 = 3
[plus when you include Mom-God, the "Ultimate Mormon god" who appointed Elohim to become a god, the "council of gods," other possible Mormon goddess-wives, and then all those Mormons who become gods, you've got more than just "3"...]
The real Math reality is:
Re: Isaiah 43,44,45 (my favorite book of the OT) (I could read Isaiah all day) (I really love Isaiah)
You do know that names and nomenclature are critical and a fundamental part of the story in Hebrew.
Biblical naming systems aren’t for the casual or eisegesic reader.
Read it again with that in mind.
(Yeah, I mean how could ANYONE possibly "read into" the Bible that ONLY ONE TRUE GOD exists...boy, you Mormons got me there)
Are you at all familiar with Biblical nomenclature and the importance of names in the Bible?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
