My Dear Gojira,
It isn’t. http://aramaic-plain-english.scripturetext.com/matthew/5.htm It is Aramaic the language of the common Jew at that time and the language Jesus spoke.
Your reply is ideal, though, because it points out a real truth: we complain oft about indoctrination of the school system through college, but neglect to complain about the same in the seminary system. Your “was probably in Hebrew” is nonsense as they spoke Aramaic. NB: you specifically sate “was probably”. A phrase without certitude. Your translaion of even the Hebrew is pure exegesis. One cannot want something true, it has to actually be true.
Furthermore, let’s accept what you say as true. The only conclusion to be then drawn is that the Bible is not the inerrant book readable by any layman, but one subject to interpretation by those intitiates who have been trained up in its proper interpretation. The average Christian cannot hope to understand it without esoteric knowledge. Again if the pastorate were a union we’d be laughing, but the seminary guild doesn’t have a lock on knowledge or interpretation. Gutenberg started it, but sites like Biblos guarantee it. Anyone can go there and read all the translations/interpretations they want including the original Hebrew, Greek and now Aramaic in context.
Next, parsing a verse here and there in a patchwork attempt to build an argument is to ignore the whole. Do I really need to revisit the many errors Christians have made in mistinterpreting the Bible by removing a passage from the context? Every translation is an interpretation subject to individual bias. We recognize it when Catholics do it, but why not when the Reformers do it, unless you are a Catholic defending your church? In either case it is self serving.
You see there is one circumstance where Joseph Smith and accurately any human being can be “pure in heart” or “of God”: when their sins are forgiven. Smith claims just this as part of his First Vision experience.
We know this is possible because the Bible tells us as much:
Woman caught in adultery - http://bible.cc/john/8-11.htm
Paralytic man - http://bible.cc/matthew/9-2.htm
The problem with the Anti-Mormon movement is that their arguments are so easily refuted. Yet, they persist not because of good scholarship, logic or facts, but because of a fervent belief that Mormons cannot be Chrisitian. If you so badly want to believe in something you’ll ignore all the counter arguments, facts and logic to simply believe what you want to believe. This has been true since the dawn of history as the story of Cain and Able prove and modern misinterpretation of the Bible confirms.
All arguments against the LDS as Christians fail except one - the Trinity. If the Trinity is the true nature of God and Jesus is a part of the Trinity, then Mormonism is not true. That’s it and it is the only argument that holds water. LDS apologists have repeatedly and effectively refuted the most serious issues in Mormon theology.
But, the Trinity is also the weakest argument by far. The Bible itself undermines it as a basic doctrine. The Biblical evidence by a vast preponderance is against a Trinitarian God and toward a more complex relationship between God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. Particularly, that they are different, distinct and for two out of three exist in a glorified, but recognizably human body. Finally, we know from the Bible that even if the Trinity were the true nature of God it is not a necessary precondition to salvation. Without salvation then Christianity is simply a decent philosophy.
Therefore the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Christian, Q.E.D.
Were you standing there at the time 10? Now while you are able to cite an aramaic version, the oldest MS we have are all greek. So consider that before you try to 'educate' me about school indoctrination. BTW, the lds church does not accept this 'translation' as its official version - when the GA in lds central make it so, then we can evalate it further.
Yes, the text spoke out - thats exegesis - not eisegesis of mormonism. But that is not surprising considering the fact that you wasted a whole post and did not address the facts brought forth by the whole bible.
The only conclusion to be then drawn is that the Bible is not the inerrant book readable by any layman, but one subject to interpretation by those intitiates who have been trained up in its proper interpretation. The average Christian cannot hope to understand it without esoteric knowledge.
LOL, nothing is further from the truth 10. As you state - we have at our fingertips the Greek and Hebrew to which we can go back to, as well as other works by biblical scholars. Nothing esoteric about it.
Do I really need to revisit the many errors Christians have made in mistinterpreting the Bible by removing a passage from the context?
That would be more of a mormon problem 10.
We recognize it when Catholics do it, but why not when the Reformers do it, unless you are a Catholic defending your church? In either case it is self serving.
In either case you are staggering around in the dark.
You see there is one circumstance where Joseph Smith and accurately any human being can be “pure in heart” or “of God”: when their sins are forgiven. Smith claims just this as part of his First Vision experience.
Which version of the 'first vision' 10? there are multiple conflicting version out there. But since we are dealing with mormon mythology - the official version states nothing about his sins being forgiven. Smith has problems with even his own revelation found in D&C 84:22 which states, "For without this [authority of the priesthood] no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live."
In your citations of the woman caught in adultery (we won't go into whether or not if it belongs there) and teh paralytic - nothing is said about their hearts being made pure - only that Jesus wouldn't condemn on the issue of adultery and his establishment of his authority to forgive sin.
The Bible itself undermines it as a basic doctrine. The Biblical evidence by a vast preponderance is against a Trinitarian God and toward a more complex relationship between God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost.
I just love the overconfidence of some of these mormon scholars. The biblical record is very clear - there is only one TRUE God - period. The bible is also very clear, the Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God. What these profound mormon apologists have to do is either misdefine the Trinity and build a strawman that does not reflect true Christian theology on the matter - or they contort the definition of the word "God" to force it to mean a committee or a council. Again, these astounding mormon apologists ignore the strict monotheism presented in the bible and cherry pick their way around in an attempt to show otherwise. And you charge Christians of 'esoteric' knowledge 10 LOL.
. . . two out of three exist in a glorified, but recognizably human body.
LOL, even this goes against mormon teaching for to be a 'god' one must go through human testing first. Precarnate Jesus and the Holy Spirit have no bodies - thus violating the laws of eternal progression to attain that which heavenly father couldn't. And you insist the Trinity is weak?
Finally, we know from the Bible that even if the Trinity were the true nature of God it is not a necessary precondition to salvation.
Incorrect assumption again. The understanding of the Doctrine of the Trinity has everything to do with salvation. It reflects upon the total nature of God - and not some segment of greek mythology smith cobbled together.
Without salvation then Christianity is simply a decent philosophy.
Except that salvation as defined by mormonism is not salvation defined by Christianity. As much as lds want to put lipstick on it, it doesn't change the fact that they are not christian.