Posted on 06/11/2017 10:27:59 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
Were you aware that the Book of MORMON is NOT the only scripture that the LDS folks use?
They really don't get much of their current beliefs from it at all; but looking into the D&C's you'll find most of their stuff.
Oh; the Pearl of Great Price is a nice little read as well.
My observations below.
I think it is a matter of when an Evangelical presents Holy Scriptures they are usually applying exegesis. What is witnessed on chat boards across the interweb, when Catholics use Holy Scriptures they apply eisegesis. And in many cases readily admit such but maybe not directly.
My observation is Catholics apply Scriptures through their CCC (and other teachings). For example, the CCC will say 'this is the church teachings' and then they will quote Scriptures to support the church teaching and/or a church father or theologian.
The difference between eisegesis and exegesis is quite important to note.
Eisegesis: is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants.
Exegesis: is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text.
Before we make this a Prot vs. Catholic issue, I readily admit there are Protestant/Evangelical churches out there which readily make use of eisegesis to condone many unbiblical practices.
That is why exegesis is most important for all Christians. It helps us interpret passages without rose colored glasses.
I could provide examples if you would like to discuss. However, given the history of this RF, dispassionate objective discussion is rare.
“And you think Holy Tradition does change?”
Of course it has!
If you know otherwise, please post evidence from before 100ad that any of the Apostles practiced, taught or encouraged prayer to departed saints, including Mary.
“Where’s the beef?”
This and most of what defines the Roman religion was added much later and the declared as “tradition.”
That's the key to a proper understanding of the Word.
Great... Humpty Dumpty references on a religion thread. Now I’ve seen it all.
But (speaking to a first c. follower of the sect of the Nazarene how dare you reject any of them, seeing as we gave you the very Scriptures you invoke!
Why one of your own (a renegade to us) affirmed "unto them were committed the oracles of God." "Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises."
Instead you follow some itinerant Preacher, a cousin of that hairy man eating locusts in the desert, yet even he stated, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat."
And he does miracles which can have only one source, since he dares to reprove us by quoting Scripture, as if we were not the sure authorities on what it means!
But rejecting the leading intellectuals, you are just like the rest of those common people who hear him gladly, to this we say, "Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed."
We are the recipients and stewards of Divine revelation and assuredly know what it means, and our tradition must be kept! Thus the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) which was the recipients of the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23) but which they overall did not.
And instead we had followers of an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved by Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
Catholic: "This is what The Church [master] believes, therefore it must be supported in Scripture [servant]."
Sound evangelical: This is what Scripture [master] teaches therefore it must be believed by the church [servant].
But in order to maintain the tradition of the perpetual virgin, the RC hermeneutic is applied to make brothers mean cousins ... and there is nothing you could say to a RC to convince them otherwise. Some on these forums will just throw it back at you and mutter to themselves in writing why you hate the virgin mother.
It is exactly what Jesus condemned the Pharisees for doing in Mark 7:9 ...
He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition." NASB
I know a more about Mormonism than I let on but I just didn’t want to get into the debate. I am on vacation this week and didn’t want to spend the week debating Mormonism. :>)
(Per coincidence: just yesterday, honestly, one of my Jewish friends remarked to me in an email that so many of the prayers of the Mass, particularly the Latin Mass, were straight translations from the Aramaic. I smiled. Good to know, Steve.)
What you would notice, since you are an intelligent observer like Steve, would be that the liturgies --- whether Latin, Greek, Slavonic, Syriac, Russian, Armenian, etc --- are packed with Hebrew and Aramaic expression, rich with verbatim Scripture, and replete with the awareness that the angels and saints in heaven are praying with us.
It's been said (by me!) that wherever Western Christianity has two sentences of doctrine, the Byzantines will have 30 verses of (sung) poetry. (You can see why I love and esteem those weirdo beardos.). Sure enough, the Assyrian Church of the East, as well as the Catholic Chaldeans, praise Mary as "Second Heaven" (because within her He chose to dwell) as well as "Ever-Virgin". This is true throughout Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy as well.
You would notice also references to Mary the Mother of the Messiah as Panagia and Theotokos as well as Aeiparthenos.
This was true throughout all Christian lands and peoples, until some hotshot modernist German theologians, circa 16th-17th century, acted on the assumption that they understood Syriac sacred texts better than the Syrians, Aramaic better than the people of Aram, and Greek better than the Greeks.
I'm bound to say I find the testimony of the ancients more convincing.
.
Follower is indeed the standard.
Little to nothing in mainstream Christianity today follows the word that Moses and Yeshua presented.
It is man made through and through.
.
And yet on the 6th day, an even numbered day, God pronounces creation as VERY GOOD.
So much for that kind of reasoning.....
Good job.
Thanks for the explanation.
Those in heaven may well be praying with us and for us, but that still does not give us license to violate God’s prohibition against communicating with or contacting those who have passed on from this earthly life.
Leaving out the middle data and jumping to a conclusion which ignores the middle data is a form of deceit, and the fallacy of the undistributed middle. MRS Don-o uses that one too often, such that even casual readers are now seeing it for what it is ...
Yes, that is the sum of it nicely.
Something the apostle Paul reminded his hearers and readers quite a few times.
Thank you, BB, for the relevance and clarity of your research on this topic. I will save it as a note to refer to in on-going debates.
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.