Posted on 01/12/2014 7:49:32 PM PST by restornu
The Apostle Paul admonished young Timothy, "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;" (1 Timothy 4:1)
The Greek word that was translated into English as "depart from" is aphistemi (Strong's G868) pronounced ä-fe'-sta-me meaning ...
1) to make stand off, cause to withdraw, to remove a) to excite to revolt 2) to stand off, to stand aloof a) to go away, to depart from anyone b) to desert, withdraw from one c) to fall away, become faithless d) to shun, flee from e) to cease to vex one f) to withdraw one's self from, to fall away g) to keep one's self from, absent one's self from
Some use this portion of Scripture to accuse those of us who embrace the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine, as opposed to the Holy Trinity, as being the ones who are being described above. However, what should be determined is who said and did what ... and when did they say and do it. First off, we know the "foot print followers" of our Lord Jesus Christ had it right! If anybody has ever had it right, they had it right. And, no where do we find where they were authorized to come up with anything other than what Jesus gave them. By the way, Jesus did NOT leave them with a bunch of pages with a lot of blanks on them, which would have to be filled out a couple centuries later, either. Therefore, what they embraced and taught was "first". Any thing other than that came along later, period!
Brother Paul being as bold and blunt as he was, put it this way ... But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)
Again, the Apostle Paul admonished Timothy, "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." 2 Timothy 4:2-4 The Greek word that was translated into English as "endure" is anecho (Strong's G430) pronounced ä-ne'-kho meaning ...
1) to hold up 2) to hold one's self erect and firm 3) to sustain, to bear, to endure
Many are taught, firmly believe and will adamantly defend a position, that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity comes straight from the pages of the Bible, itself. When, in fact, the word "Holy" is the only part that can be found in the Bible. The word "Trinity" can't be found in a single solitary Scripture in the entire King James Version of the Holy Bible. Neither did anyone in the entire King James Version of the Holy Bible ever refer to God or the Godhead with these words, "One God in three persons", as multitudes do today.
With such a widely accepted belief, and millions just going with the flow, the crowd has to be right, right? Well, let's see what Jesus had to say in Matthew 7:13-14 ... "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
Folks, it's time for a "gut level" reality check. According to the greatest Teacher ever to walk upon Planet Earth, when it comes to spiritual matters ... THE CROWD IS WRONG!
Not one single solitary person in the entire Bible ever used the following terms ...
"One God in three persons", "God the Son", "God the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit) "The Holy Trinity"
So, how and when did the doctrine of the Holy Trinity come into existence? And, why is it so widely accepted, today? Those two questions are certainly valid ones, and deserve serious examination and consideration.
Encyclopedia International, 1975 Edition, Vol.18, p.226 - The doctrine of the "Trinity" did not form part of the apostles' preaching, as this is reported in the New Testament.
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967 Edition, Vol.13, p.1021 - The first use of the Latin word "trinitas" (trinity) with reference to God, is found in Tertullian's writings (about 213 A.D.) He was the first to use the term "persons" (plural) in a Trinitarian context.
Encyclopedia Americana, 1957 Edition, Vol.27, p.69 - The word "Trinity" is not in Scripture. The term "persons" (plural) is not applied in Scripture to the Trinity.
World Book Encyclopedia, 1975 Edition, Vol. T, p.363 - Belief in Father, Son and Holy Ghost was first defined by the earliest general council of churches. This was the First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.
New International Encyclopedia, Vol.22, p.476 - The Catholic faith is this: We worship one God in Trinity, but there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Ghost. The Glory equal - the Majesty co-eternal. The doctrine is not found in its fully developed form in the Scriptures. Modern theology does not seek to find it in the Old Testament. At the time of the Reformation the Protestant Church took aver the doctrine of the Trinity without serious examination.
Life Magazine, October 30, 1950, Vol.29, No.18, p.51 - The Catholics made this statement concerning their doctrine of the Trinity, to defend the dogma of the assumption of Mary, in an article written by Graham Greene: "Our opponents sometimes claim that no belief should be held dogmatically which is not explicitly stated in Scripture... But the PROTESTANT CHURCHES have themselves accepted such dogmas as THE TRINITY, for which there is NO SUCH PRECISE AUTHORITY in the Gospels"
Many use the human reasoning and logic that the non-Biblical words "trinity", "triune" or "persons" (pertaining to God and/or the Godhead) should be accepted just as the word "rapture" is .... or even the word "sandwich" (for that matter). And, even though "sandwich" is not a Biblical word, I know they're real 'cause I ate one yesterday. So, my point ... or my question ... is, what Biblical words could be used in the place of the words "trinity", "triune" OR "persons" pertaining to God and/or the Godhead? I wouldn't have any trouble at all finding Biblical words to use in the place of "sandwich", "rapture" and "Bible". They are: "bread" and "meat", "caught up" "Word of God" and "book".
Now, if those who embrace the man-made theory of the Trinity can find any words that will do for "truine", "persons" or "trinity" what the words "bread" and "meat", "caught up" "Word of God" and "book" will do for "sandwich" and "rapture", I would love to see them. Unless or until they can, I suggest that they stop adding to or taking from (depending on how you look at it) the Word of God by embracing, as dogmatically held doctrine, theories which aren't specifically mentioned in the Bible ... and without any Biblical words which could serve as a substitute for such.
While the Bible does NOT authorize a belief in three "persons" who jointly form One God. However, the Bible does accurately describes God as the Father in Creation, the Son in Redemption and the Holy Spirit living in the hearts of believers throughout the New Testament Church Age. But, that is three "forms" of God ... three "manifestations" of God ... three "titles" of God ... three "offices/positions" which God holds and ... three "roles" in which God functions ... BUT NOT THREE PERSONS. NOWHERE can it be found in the Bible which says that is that there is one God "in three persons". That's an "add on" that people would do well to just leave off.
I can very accurately be described as a father, son and husband ... or a teacher, student and minister. While I function in more than one capacity and occupy more than one office, and wear a number of different hats, I am still just ONE person. As a matter of fact, I can be in the same room with, and in the presence of, my mother, my wife and my daughters, and I can speak, act and function as a father, son and husband without anybody getting confused as to how many persons I am or who is talking.
English was my worst subject in school, but I do remember a few things. For illustration purposes only, it is not proper to link the singular pronoun "He", which refers to one "person", to verbs like: "see", "hear" and "warn" ... which would look like this ... "He see", "He hear" and "He warn". When using the singular pronoun "He", it is necessary to use the verbs "sees", "hears" and "warns" ... "He SEES", "He HEARS" and "He WARNS". In order to use the verbs "see", "hear" and "warn", you must use a noun or pronoun which is "plural" and identifies "more" than one person like, "People" ... "People see", "People hear" and "People warn". Yet, intelligent people who know this rule, but who have been indoctrinated to believe that there are three "persons" of God, ignore this rule when it comes to the word "GOD" (the Hebrew word Elohim).
**IF** the word "GOD" (Elohim) identifies more than one "person", as the trinitarians insist, the Bible should read like this, "God SEE", "God HEAR" and "God WARN" ... AND IT DOESN'T! The word "GOD" is never linked to a verb like that. Instead, the word "GOD" is ALWAYS linked to verbs just as the word "He" (a singular person) is ... like this, "God SEES", "God HEARS" and "God WARNS". Again, I use these particular words for illustration purposes only, but I hope I have made my point ... and that it's CLEAR.
Men started "reading" things into the Scriptures a couple centuries or so AFTER Jesus ascended back up into Heaven, and after the "foot print followers" of our Lord had passed on. As a result, there has evolved all sorts of religious beliefs and denominations. However, in order to get people to stop and think about a few things, I use the Clark Kent/Superman analogy quite a bit. Jesus said and did some of the things He said and did to set an example for those who witnessed it to follow, as well as for those of us who would read about it 2,000 years later. At any rate, the reason I use Clark Kent/Superman is because people are familiar with the scenario. And, although Clark Kent/Superman is a fictitious character, I contend that the Incarnate Christ was, indeed, the REAL Superman. And, as a result, Jesus often spoke of the Father as if the Father where someone other than Himself who was way off in another galaxy or solar system.
As a former trinitarian, myself, I understand why those who have been indoctrinated to believe there's two or three of 'em up there believe such, as well as those who interpret ... and try to understand ... the Bible "literally". However, spiritual things are NOT understood with human reasoning and logic. And, Jesus was unlike any one else who has ever walked upon planet Earth. While He possessed the Glory and Power of Deity, He went about as a lowly servant. He had a "human" nature as a result of actually being born of a woman. And, He had a "Divine" nature as a result of Him being God manifested in the flesh. Also, Jesus served as the example ... or the template (so to speak) ... for all Christians to pattern themselves after. And, as a result, He said and did many things for our benefit ... AND to set an example for us to follow. By the way, I am NOT saying Jesus was deceitful, nor that He lied ... far from it. It's just that He could (and did) speak, act and function as any "ordinary" man, at times. And, He also could (and did) speak, act and function as Almighty God, at other times, while here on Earth. Those who have ears to hear, hears what the Spirit saith, and aren't trying to fuel a flawed, man-made, pre-conceived and indoctrinated agenda, will, I believe, come to the understanding as to who Jesus "really" is **IF** they truly hunger and thirst for righteousness. Then, it will be up to them what they do from that point. They can continue on in their traditions and doctrines of men OR they can come out from among them and be ye separate.
Since Isaiah was a MAJOR Messianic Prophet in the Old Testament, my challenge for every "natural" Jew and every professing Christian who believes the man-made theory of the Holy Trinity OR those who believe Jesus was Michael the Archangel or some other inferior subordinate is very simple. I challenge all "natural Jews", all professing Christians who believes the man-made theory of the Holy Trinity, the entire Watchtower Society constituency, the Vatican, and the entire Roman Catholic Church constituency, as well as any and all members and/or associates, past and present, of the various and sundry Protestant denominations, any and all independent Bible students and scholars including the entire constituency of the anything connected to or remotely resembling the Mormon Church ... or anyone else (**IF** I missed anybody) ... to read 11 Chapters in the Book of Isaiah (Chapters 41, 43, 44, 47, 48, 49, 53, 54, 59, 60, and 63) and then provide me with the Scripture(s) they believe supports the belief that the coming (prophesied and promised) MESSIAH would be someone BESIDES Jehovah/God, Himself.
Those of us who embrace the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine understand something very important: The Incarnate Christ was the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last ... God manifest in the flesh. And, these are just a few of the documenting Scriptures I use ... Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 44:6; Isaiah 48:12; Micah 1:2-3; John 1:1-14; John 10:30-33; John 14:6-11; Colossians 2:8-10; 1 Timothy 3:16; Rev. 2:8; Rev. 21:6; and Rev. 22:13.
Yes, the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is a flawed man-made theory, and is NOT "sound doctrine" at all. Therefore, upon learn this, a person should ask themselves this question, "Do I want Truth in its entirety, or do I want man's flawed theories and traditions?" Whatever you decide, it is entirely up to you. In the final analysis of things, you and I will be justified or condemned not by just our faith and beliefs alone, but also by the words we speak AND our deeds. Silence can be interpreted as consent. There are sins of omissions and sins of commission. And, there will be lots of "good" people in hell. Being "good" is NOT good enough. If you doubt or dispute that, read Acts Chapter 10.
A very closely related subject to this is the words that are invoked at baptismal services. The name that was alluded to in Matthew 28:19 is the precious name of Jesus. Quoting Matthew 28:19 does NOT fulfill the Great Commission. Those who knew how it was to be done, invoked the precious name of Jesus in Acts 2:37-41; Acts 8:14-17; Acts 10:44-48; and Acts 19:1-6. Jesus was NOT telling His disciples what to "say" in Matthew 28:19, He was telling them what to "do". And, besides, nobody was baptized in Matthew 28:19. Nobody in the entire Bible was baptized in the "titles" of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. We are admonished in Colossians 3:17 to do whatever we do in "word AND deed", to do it all of it in the "NAME of Jesus". And, besides baptism, here are a couple other places, and direct "quotes", where the "name of Jesus" was invoked in word and deed instead of the "titles" of Father, Son and Holy Ghost ....
Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.
Acts 16:18 And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.
Not only does the Bible reveal baptism in the name of Jesus, but so does history ...
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1951). II, 384, 389: "The formula used was "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" or some synonymous phrase; there is no evidence for the use of the trine name… The earliest form, represented in the Acts, was simple immersion… in water, the use of the name of the Lord, and the laying on of hands. To these were added, at various times and places which cannot be safely identified, (a) the trine name (Justin)…"
Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (1962), I 351: "The evidence… suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, but 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus.'"
Otto Heick, A History of Christian Thought (1965), I, 53: "At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (1898). I, 241: "[One explanation is that] the original form of words was "into the name of Jesus Christ" or 'the Lord Jesus,' Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development."
Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (1947), page 58: "The trinitarian baptismal formula,,, was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ."
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1957), I, 435: "The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus… which still occurs even in the second and third centuries."
Canney's Encyclopedia of Religions (1970), page 53: "Persons were baptized at first 'in the name of Jesus Christ' … or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus'… Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptized 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.'"
Encyclopedia Biblica (1899), I, 473: "It is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times 'in the name of Jesus Christ,' or in that 'of the Lord Jesus.' This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal confession appear to have been single-not triple, as was the later creed."
Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1920), II 365: "The trinitarian formula and trine immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning… Bapti[sm] into the name of the Lord [was] the normal formula of the New Testament. In the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid."
My advice to you is, if you aren't affiliated with one now, that you find yourself a church which embraces, teaches and preaches the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine and baptizes in the precious name of Jesus ... the name that was alluded to in Matthew 28:19 ... and go there, and see (and feel) the difference for yourself.
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. About the Author:
Encyclopedia Internationa
New Catholic Encyclopedia
The King James Bible
Article Source: http://www.articleseen.com/Article_ The Holy Trinity: Sound Doctrine or a Man-Made Tradition?_77437.aspx
What was the date of the first published version of Smith’s so called “vision”
I found this most interesting item about a Mormon boy who had visions about the year 1833...
and he was not called Joseph...
May 7, 1838 - James G. Marsh, 14-year old son of the president of the Quorum of Twelve, dies. The ELDER’S JOURNAL issue of July notes that at age nine this boy “had a remarkable vision in which he talked with the Father and many of the ancient prophets face to face, and beheld the Son of God coming in his glory.” No publication at this time had yet referred to Smith’s vision of the Father and the Son.
Directly from the Greek in the order the words are written in the Greek.
poreuthentes oun mathēteusate panta ta ethnē baptizontes autous eis to onoma tou Patros kai tou Huiou kai tou Hagiou Pneumatos
having gone therefore disciple all the nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
Don’t come to me with stupid statements like that again.
>> So who to believe..how scripture actually SAYS what name they baptized in...or your misreading, mistranslating and revisionist idea?<<
What part of “there are three personages identified in the above verse” do you not understand?
Run out of Bible arguments? Are you kidding me?
Sept 3, 1831 - New York newspaper THE FREE ENQUIRER publishes a review of the Book of Mormon by a correspondent who read a second-hand copy during a canal voyage. It ends with a couplet that the reviewer found written in the copy he read: ‘He who’d believe the plates of brass . . Of Mr. Smith must be an ass.’ This may be the first published anti-Mormon poetry.
It has to be demonic blinding. I guess we were told it would happen but it’s still stunning.
But God can even use an ass. These people I’m not so sure about.
The two “personages” were Peter and the Mormon angel Moroni...
the Mormon god was too busy to come itself...
Nov 8, 1857 - Heber C. Kimball preaches: “Do you suppose that God in person called upon Joseph Smith, our Prophet? God called upon him; but God did not come himself and call, but he sent Peter to do it. Do you not see? He sent Peter and sent Moroni to Joseph, and told him that he had got the plates. Did God come himself? No . . .” He further preaches: “But if you are told by your leader to do a thing, do it. None of your business whether it is right or wrong,”
Well they all got that one down! LOL
“the Mormon god was too busy to come itself”
It happened during Spring Break at Kolob Beach, during the convention of Mormonic Gods. Can’t miss that! That’s where they dole out all the “unsealed” women to the new Mormonic gods.
Jan 6, 1870 - Wilford Woodruff writes in his diary: “There is a great Exhertion Now making By the wicked & Esspecially By the Congress of the United States to get up a Crusade or war against the Saints under pr[etense] of [opposition to] Polygamy. A Bill is Before Congress to deprive the Latter Day Saints of keeping the Commandments of God. The Lord has Revealed the Law on the Patriarchal order of Marriage & the Lord says we shall be damned if we do not obey it & Congress says we shall be damned if we do. So it is the Lord & Congress for it. I would rather obey the Lord than Congress.”
” you turn on the flamethower....nice move jack....”
Don’t worry, when you get to hell you’ll wish that his flamethrower burned down your entire religious cult! But, alas, the most you can hope for is to fall somewhere next to Armstrong so you can shout at him for eternity.
Note the change:
DouglasKC wrote “I’m not claiming anything. I showed you in the bible where the disciples baptized in the name of Jesus.”
Previously he wrote:
“They understood that this means that we are to receive the holy spirit after being baptized in the name of the father and son.”
The UCG cult apparently does not put a lot of focus on reading comprehension or consistency.
If you reject very early Christian historical teaching tradition, so be it (That's what cultists tend to do).
Please at least honor history -- and don't revise it.
Since this teaching has been around since the first, second, third centuries, etc...(and no, 'twasn't regarded as "heretical" then, either)...please stop your false accusations of us "inventing" something in the 21st century. (Your post #485)
Question at hand: How was the Holy Spirit regarded in the Early Church beyond the Scriptures I ALREADY cited?
* "If you are patient, the Holy Spirit that dwells in you will be pure. HE will not be darkened by any evil spirit...But if any outburst of anger takes place, immediately the Holy Spirit, WHO is sensitive, is constricted. For HE does not have a pure place, and HE seeks to depart."
* "Do not crush the Holy Spirit WHO dwells in you. Otherwise, HE may entreat...and withdraw from you."
* "The Lord has taught us most plainly by His words about the liberty and power of the Holy Spirit...saying, 'The Spirit breathes where HE will...'"
(Tertullian, c. 210, and Origen, c. 228...Novation c. 235 likewise taught the personality of the Holy Spirit)
Source: A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, David W. Bercot, editor, Hendrickson Publishers 1998, pp. 343-346
Tell us, Douglas: Why doesn't Matthew quote Jesus as saying "NAMES" of...if Father, Son, and Holy not united as one identity -- God, Himself?
Same initial comment: If you reject very early Christian historical teaching tradition, so be it (That's what cultists tend to do). Please at least honor history -- and don't revise it.
Source: A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, David W. Bercot, editor, Hendrickson Publishers 1998, pp. 57-59
Apparently so. It seems to be a condition for belonging to any of the cults.
***..when so many books are missing as stated in the Bible?***
Simple. Some of the books probably were added to other books, and some were probably secular books.
Isaiah for example is probably three authors combined, and some have Ezra-Nehemiah together. And some are simply history which was not Holy so not saved.
Just because men of God referenced some writings not in the bible does not mean that those writings were “Holy”.
St Paul quoted pagan authors and Jude referenced Enoch. That does not mean these works by Pagan authors are considered Holy Writ.
But then, by your own words you only have 1/3 of the BOM.
***1 John 5:7 was added to scripture. The fact that it was added to scripture is verified universally by every biblical scholar, protestant or Catholic.**
It is still printed in the Mormon printings of the KJV.
Let’s not forget the Book of Commandments, and those lost 116 pages of the BOM that J Smith could not recall even though he was a “prophet”.
Even Jeremiah recalled his burned book and added much to it.
Then there is the 2/3 of the BoM Resty says they still don’t have.
Simple. Some of the books probably were added to other books, and some were probably secular books.
***
Thank you I already address that
Sometimes called missing scripture, they consist of at least the following:
book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14);
book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18);
book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41);
book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29:29);
book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29:29);
book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29); prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29);
visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22);
book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15);
book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34);
sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19);
an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9);
possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3);
an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4:16);
and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1:14).
To these rather clear references to inspired writings other than our current Bible may be added another list that has allusions to writings that may or may not be contained within our present text but may perhaps be known by a different title;
for example, the book of the covenant (Ex. 24:7),
which may or may not be included in the current book of Exodus; the manner of the kingdom, written by Samuel (1 Sam. 10:25);
the rest of the acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah (2 Chr. 26:22).
The foregoing items attest to the fact that our present Bible does not contain all of the word of the Lord that He gave to His people in former times and remind us that the Bible, in its present form, is rather incomplete.
Matthew’s reference to a prophecy that Jesus would be a Nazarene (2:23) is interesting when it is considered that our present Old Testament seems to have no statement as such.
There is a possibility, however, that Matthew alluded to Isa. 11:1, which prophesies of the Messiah as a Branch from the root of Jesse, the father of David.
The Hebrew word for branch in this case is netzer, the source word of Nazarene and Nazareth.
Additional references to the Branch as the Savior and Messiah are found in Jer. 23:5; 33:15; Zech. 3:8; 6:12; these use a synonymous Hebrew word for branch, tzemakh.
The Book of Mormon makes reference to writings of Old Testament times and connection that are not found in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or in any other known source.
These writings are of Zenock, Zenos, and Neum (1 Ne. 19:10; Alma 33:3–17). An extensive prophecy by Joseph in Egypt (which is not in the Bible) is also apparent from 2 Ne. 3:4–22, and a prophecy of Jacob (not found in the Bible) is given in Alma 46:24–26.
These writings were evidently contained on the plates of brass spoken of in the Book of Mormon (1 Ne. 5:10–13).
Many like to edit Gal 1 to fit their scenario and ignore the Lord inquire to Paul through revelation.
Gal. 1 (Preachers of false gospels are accursed—Paul received the gospel by revelation—)
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Paul did correct it, but after all were gone from the earth... there were Religious wars for almost 3 hundred years all during that time the manuscripts were in jeopardy, in-between that time now I am sure there were many good men at that council along with designs of men it is just the way things are played out on earth.
We live in a temporal situation the only way to protect the gifts the Lord gave us is through prayer and keeping his commandments.
No one every talks about those things are about trying to the will of the Lord there are Clear commandments the Lord gave how we are suppose to act as followers of the Lord and when we do those things all the rest fall into place.
There are things now creeping into history saying that representatives form Islam was among them... I don’t it is just strange it among the writings on the internet when one does a research. I did not look closely I have enough on my plate.
________
Most of all I want to make it clear I love the Bible I know it is the word of God, I know some places have been brought to life because of the Book of Mormon which testifies 0f the Bible.
It was the Bible, it is my benchmark that I knew the Book of Mormon was true. Because it is the same spirit that talks to me when reading the scriptures.
I also know there was more that Lord had for the children and someday it will be restored to the earth.
It will be the hand of God that will make that happen we are living in the times of the Restoration of all things.
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.