Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cordial Discussion (P-Marlowe and pseudogratix) COMMENTS BY OBSERVERS.

Posted on 12/21/2002 7:10:11 AM PST by drstevej

This thread is for COMMENTS on the "Cordial Discussion between P-Marlowe and Pseudogratix."

Please do not clutter the original discussion thread.


TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: kneadno; steekinkeywords; wedont
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 621-629 next last
To: CARepubGal
Your #509: To clarify one more time: Prophetic utterances are only valid for the life of the prophet

Who says that? If that were true, we could not know that Jesus will come again, that the lion will eat straw like the ox, or that there will be a White Throne Judgment.

We could not know of the resurrection to come, of the new heaven and new earth, of the holy city coming down from God out of heaven with pearly gates.

521 posted on 12/28/2002 9:41:31 PM PST by White Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 509 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Your #485: tries to paint MOSES as THE SAME AS Christ

No, it doesn't. It says we are created in the image of God. See my #478.

522 posted on 12/28/2002 9:50:27 PM PST by White Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 485 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
My #522: It says we are created in the image of God.

If you need to be more precise, it says that Moses, and by extension all of us, is in the image of God.

523 posted on 12/28/2002 9:54:43 PM PST by White Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 522 | View Replies]

To: White Mountain; P-Marlowe
You did state words of YOUR dead prophets were not valid. And your leaders have said the same.
524 posted on 12/28/2002 10:01:26 PM PST by CARepubGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies]

To: White Mountain
That is WHY I posted the DICTIONARY definition of similitude.

To show EXACTLY what it means.


If you are admitting that the LDS organization has a NEW definition, then they'd better inform the dictionary writers of the world about it! Your 'scripture' uses that word and it is stuck with the 'target audiences' definition of it.

We ALL saw your post #478, and we ALL saw the cut&paste I took from Merriam-Webster.

We ALL will decide what is right by judging the EVIDENCE.

525 posted on 12/29/2002 5:34:36 AM PST by Elsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 522 | View Replies]

To: CARepubGal
Your #524: You did state words of YOUR dead prophets were not valid.

Earlier you claimed something about expiration dates. Now you are claiming something about invalidity. Try again to say something that has some relevance to what I said.

On second thought, don't bother.

God bless you anyway!

526 posted on 12/29/2002 4:34:11 PM PST by White Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 524 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Your #525: If you are admitting that the LDS organization has a NEW definition

Try again, Elsie. Go back and read what I posted.

527 posted on 12/29/2002 4:38:01 PM PST by White Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 525 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; drstevej; pseudogratix
OK, I am fed up with this "warm and fuzzy feeling" crap that keeps showing up here. Those who play this game are either being intentionally offensive, loathsome, facetious, or ignorant. Hopefully it is just ignorance.

How did the disciples describe their experience when they met Jesus after His resurrection?

Luke 24: 32 (13-34) And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

So enough with making fun of a burning in the bosom.


Or at least use it properly, within context. At least two of Christ's disciples experienced their "heart burn within" them as they experienced truth. Let's at least respect that this can happen, or at least has happened in the past.

/rant

528 posted on 12/29/2002 9:07:34 PM PST by T. P. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole
They already knew it was Scripture. The burning bosom wasn't an authentication of Scripture, Jesus explained how He fulfilled Scripture already given and accepted as such.

27And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

LDS use the burning bosom as a spritual geiger counter. There is no support for this in Luke 24.

529 posted on 12/29/2002 9:52:28 PM PST by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 528 | View Replies]

To: White Mountain

Why?

BTDT
530 posted on 12/30/2002 3:38:55 AM PST by Elsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 527 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole
And... it quite CLEARLY states that it was JESUS talking to them, not the Holy Spirit.

It's amazing, since that 'burning' verse was NOT 'removed' from the Protestant OR the Catholic Bible, that it NEVER made it into our 'traditions' on how to athenticate 'things of the Lord'.
531 posted on 12/30/2002 3:51:22 AM PST by Elsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 528 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
They already knew it was Scripture. The burning bosom wasn't an authentication of Scripture, Jesus explained how He fulfilled Scripture already given and accepted as such.

27And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

LDS use the burning bosom as a spritual geiger counter. There is no support for this in Luke 24.

Spiritual geiger counter. That's pretty funny. I like it.


I think everyone keeps getting stuck on the scripture part of the burning bosom. However, LDS feel that the burning bosom is a sign of truth, and not just of the truth of the Book of Mormon.

After all, the next verse after the famous "Book of Mormon challenge" (the pray about it routine), it says (Nephi 10:5) And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

Can we at least agree that at least one time recorded Biblically, two disciples felt their hearts burn when exposed to truth? We may quibble over the details (like was it Christ who caused it, or was it the Holy Spirit), but there is some Bible support for such an idea.

532 posted on 12/30/2002 7:27:43 AM PST by T. P. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 529 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
And... it quite CLEARLY states that it was JESUS talking to them, not the Holy Spirit.

It's amazing, since that 'burning' verse was NOT 'removed' from the Protestant OR the Catholic Bible, that it NEVER made it into our 'traditions' on how to athenticate 'things of the Lord'.

How does a Trinitarian handle this kind of conflict? Yes, it clearly states that it was Jesus walking with them. Does that mean that the Holy Spirit was not capable of being there? After all, we see manifestations of all Three at Jesus' baptism (voice from heaven, Christ in the water, Spirit as a dove).

Yes, it doesn't say directly that it was the Holy Spirit that was doing the burning, but a look at John 14:26 and John 15:26 would support this idea.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

In regards to the argument of traditions, one only has to look at the concept of rapture to see how thin that argument is. A few hundred years ago the idea didn't even exist. Then somebody noticed one passage in 1 Thes, and from there a whole set of traditions evolved. Now we have arguments over pre-trib, mid-trib, and post-trib rapture, each with its own set of "supporting" scripture (and sometimes supporting book series).

Can we at least agree that at least one time recorded Biblically, two disciples felt their hearts burn when exposed to truth? There may be conflict over the supporting scriptures (and based on the pre-, mid-, post-trib discussion, this is a common occurrence within the mainline Christian faiths), but it is clear that it happened in some fashion. You most likely have to agree to that if you believe in the Bible. There are, after all, three verses I mentioned that point at it.

533 posted on 12/30/2002 7:28:37 AM PST by T. P. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole
***Can we at least agree that at least one time recorded Biblically, two disciples felt their hearts burn when exposed to truth? We may quibble over the details (like was it Christ who caused it, or was it the Holy Spirit), but there is some Bible support for such an idea.***

My point was not whether it was Christ or the Holy Spirit involved. My point is that this is not a case of burning bosom as proof determining whether something is Scripture. And this is precisely how the LDS use the "burning bosom" to authenticate the BoM, PGP, etc. They are taught to do this NOT by the Bible but by the BoM.

The point in the Luke passage is illumination (understanding the meaning of the Scriptures) not authentication/canonicity (determining whether a writing is Scripture). This is a monumental difference.

LDS have a great Catch 22. They ask someone to sincerely read the BoM and ask God if it is true.

Bosom Burns = It is God's Word
Bosom doesn't Burn = You weren't sincere, because if you were it would burn. Afterall, it did for me.

Did you read my "The Word became Fish" post?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/810386/posts?page=38#38







534 posted on 12/30/2002 7:58:51 AM PST by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 532 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole
Can we at least agree that at least one time recorded Biblically, two disciples felt their hearts burn when exposed to truth? We may quibble over the details (like was it Christ who caused it, or was it the Holy Spirit), but there is some Bible support for such an idea.

Is your thinking on this verse based on the concept that these two disciples had a physical sensation within their physical chests? If so, you should consider that the word "heart" is used as an idiomatic expression--a figure of speech, in the Bible.

 

There are over 500 uses of the word "heart" in the Holy Bible. I am unable to find ANY which refer to the physical heart, or chest, or bosom. Do you know of any? If not, it may well be that this verse has absolutely nothing to do with "burning in the bosom."

It is likely that I do not correctly understand the concept.

I can find only one reference to this concept, in the LDS distinctive scriptures:

D&C 9: 8

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must cask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

It looks, to me, that this passage (all of D&C 9) is a personal prophecy to Oliver Cowdery, not to the LDS in general.

 

Is there an online location where someone could learn more about this concept, so we could discuss the reality of it, instead of our (non-LDS) possible minconceptions of it?

 

DG(Fool and Liar)

535 posted on 12/30/2002 8:22:48 AM PST by DoorGunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 532 | View Replies]

To: drstevej; T. P. Pole
Steve who is SJT? You are a strange dude!

http://scriptures.lds.org/jst/jhn1134


JOSEPH SMITH TRANSLATION
JOHN 1: 1-34

14 And the same word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.


536 posted on 12/30/2002 8:47:51 AM PST by restornu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: restornu; Wrigley
JST = Joseph Smith Translation
SJT = Steve Johnson Translation

If the Prophet Joseph Smith, SBUHN can produce his own whacky version, why can't others. It's fun. Just put new words in whenever it suits your fancy. Just like Joe Smith did.
537 posted on 12/30/2002 9:11:50 AM PST by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 536 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole
In regards to the argument of traditions, one only has to look at the concept of rapture to see how thin that argument is. A few hundred years ago the idea didn't even exist. Then somebody noticed one passage in 1 Thes, and from there a whole set of traditions evolved. Now we have arguments over pre-trib, mid-trib, and post-trib rapture, each with its own set of "supporting" scripture (and sometimes supporting book series).

David Copperfield And the other illusionists call this tactic 'misdirection'.

I like the "You skin this one, I go get another" analogy of the bear hunters, myself.

We Protestants have LONG ago given up arguing minor points interpretation, like you LDS have tried to steer us into, as well......


Let's just stick to the topic at hand first.
538 posted on 12/30/2002 9:36:13 AM PST by Elsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 533 | View Replies]

To: restornu
536 posted on 12/30/2002 11:47 AM EST by restornu

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

#38??!?!?

Golly Rest.. you are REALLY going back, gleaning for nuggets here!
539 posted on 12/30/2002 9:38:04 AM PST by Elsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 536 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole
How does a Trinitarian handle this kind of conflict?

Golly! I don't know!

540 posted on 12/30/2002 9:43:55 AM PST by Elsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 533 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 621-629 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson