Post Reply
Page 8 of 10  •  Prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Chat between a Missionary and an Evangelical
6 years ago  ::  Feb 18, 2009 - 11:32AM #71
withwonderingawe
Posts: 5,172
Now most of the time it’s not a matter of mistranslation but miss interpretation. This is caused by several different things.

Prior assumptions, idioms not understood and a lack of knowledge concerning history and the arguments surrounding the theology of the time.

Here is a web page which is taking another and important look at Paul.

http://www.thepaulpage.com/

“Over the last three decades, a revolutionary breakthrough in New Testament scholarship has been rocking the academic Christian world. The scholars at the forefront of the revolution -- E.P. Sanders, James D.G. Dunn, N.T. Wright, and others -- have been pioneering a new approach to the letters of the first-century apostle to the Gentiles, Paul of Tarsus.
These Protestants are engaging first-century Judaism on its own terms, not in the context of the Protestant-Catholic debates of the sixteenth century. The result: A new historical perspective on the meaning of Paul's polemic against the Judaizers which occupies so much of his recorded correspondence.
What is this new perspective? At its core is the recognition that Judaism is not a religion of self-righteousness whereby humankind seeks to merit salvation before God. Paul's argument with the Judaizers was not about Christian grace versus Jewish legalism. His argument was rather about the status of Gentiles in the church. Paul's doctrine of justification, therefore, had far more to do with Jewish-Gentile issues than with questions of the individual's status before God.”

If this is right then everything you think you understand about Paul is wrong!

If you take Eph and change the “we”s and “ye”s to ‘us Jews’ and ‘you gentiles’ you’ll see a whole new meaning pop out at you.

"That we/Jews should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ …you/gentiles hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins.. For by grace are ye/gentiles saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God…For we/Jews are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them”

Paul was actually paraphrasing Isaiah to some extent. The Jews were preordained to have Christ first and were given the Law to live by. They were the chosen people, chosen to witness too and teach Christ to the Gentiles. The gentiles through Christ ministry often showed more faith in Christ than the Jews even though He referred to them as dogs.

“a woman of Canaan …Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith…”Matt 15

“a certain centurion’s …..When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel” Luke 7

And then there is “Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house” Acts 10

This is why they as a people were saved through faith.

Simply put Paul was not addressing our individual salvation when he said ye are saved by faith but gentiles as a whole, as a whole the wall or barrier between the Jews and Gentiles has been broken down through the blood of Christ and the New and Everlasting Covenant was established.

Paul taught clearly that God “will render to every man according to his deedsRom 2

Can you at least acknowledge that we have a point!
Wise men still seek him.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Feb 18, 2009 - 12:51PM #72
Lonesentinel
Posts: 2,423

christianincollege wrote:

I see disharmony with the scriptures. One thing I like to do with Mormons is to say "do you agree or disagree that ..." and I say something exactly from Biblical scripture and they tend to say they disagree.  If they knew it was in the Bible, they tend to try to explain it away of say that the Bible in that verse was mistranslated.

Not to debate as this is not a debate forum.  Just a genuine question for LDS: wouldn't it be more fair to simply list the Bible verses that are mistranslated than to let each individual Mormon pick the ones they say are mistranslated?  Asked in love...


I figured that I would ask you if you believe that there are NO mistranslated verses in the Bible?

How do you understand psalms 104:4?  Feel free (please) to use the whole chapter for context...

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Feb 18, 2009 - 2:42PM #73
bytebear
Posts: 1,451
It should also be noted that Joseph Smith often used the terms "translate" and "interpret" interchangably. It wasn't that the Bible was necessarily mistranslated, which clearly it was (at least in some cases), but the bigger issue was that it was misinterpreted. The necessity of baptism for instance. I have heard Mark 16:16 interpreted to mean "baptism by fire" or the Holy Ghost, which negates the need for water baptism (ignoring the implications of John 3:5 and Acts 2:38, but that leads to another re-interpretation just to avoid the "work" of baptism).
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Feb 18, 2009 - 6:10PM #74
christianincollege
Posts: 12
I would like to answer the baptism question.  I believe baptism is required, but not a prerequisite or requirement for salvation.  If anyone has a Bible verse they think says otherwise, feel free to bring it up and I'll try to explain.

Baptism is something we MUST do in the sense that we are commanded to be baptized, but not in the sense that if determines our salvation.  It is like this.  If your Mom tells you to clean your room, you must clean it, but that does not affect whether or not you are her son.

Traditional Christians don't have modern day prophets.  This means we must rely on scripture interpreting scripture for the correct interpretation.  Ephesians 2:8-9 says "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."  Because of this, we must interpret all verses as no works being necessary for salvation - including baptism.  Certain verses come up like Mark 16:16 which says "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."  Does this say one must be baptized to be saved?  Absolutely not.  It says if you believe (have faith) and are baptized you will be saved and that is true.  Let me give you an example sentence. "He who eats a meal and goes jogging will overcome hunger, but he who does not eat will remain hungry."  It is the eating of the meal (or the belief of the Christian) that overcomes hunger (saves), but jogging (baptism) is mentioned because burning calories (getting baptized) should be closely related with eating (getting saved).  The verse makes it clear that the salvation hinges on faith by going on to say " but he that believeth not shall be damned".
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Feb 18, 2009 - 6:29PM #75
bytebear
Posts: 1,451
I would agree with you if it were not for John 3:5 and Acts 2:38 (and other verses, plus the witness of modern prophets) which say that you must be born of water and the spirit (i.e Holy Ghost0 and that you receive the Holy Ghost only AFTER baptims. There is an order of things. and you are putting the proverbial cart before the horse. Strait is the gate and few who find it. The gate is baptism and it opens salvation to us. Without it, we can hever have the Holy Ghost.

There was also a lively debate on the Christian2Christian board over wheter ordinances constituted a work, or if Paul was talking about boasting about our accomplishments. I think it the latter, personally, and that good works in and of themselves are a necessity in the kingdom of God.

Finally, I see your website link promoting the video Jesus Christ / Joseph Smith. Just know that the producers of that video are the same producers of the Godmakers (although this particular video is far more slick). Of that particular video, the National Conference of Christians and Jews said:

The film does not fairly portray the Mormon Church, Mormon history, or Mormon belief. It makes extensive use of half-truths, faulty generalizations, sensationalism, and is not reflective of the true spirit of Mormon faith. We find particularly offensive the emphasis that Mormonism is some sort of subversive plot-a danger to the community, a threat to the institution of marriage, and destructive to the mental health of teenagers. We are of the opinion that the film relies heavily on appeals to fear, prejudice and unworthy human emotions.


And the Anti-Defamation League had this to say about the current video:

"This is the same kind of plain, old-fashioned Mormon-bashing that Jim Robertson and his group have been spewing for over a quarter-of-a-century. The only difference is that back then, it was the film, 'The God Makers,' and today it's the DVD, 'Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith.' It was wrong then, and it's wrong now."


So, I would say if that is the "truth" you are understanding about Mormonism, then I think you need to find better sources.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Feb 18, 2009 - 6:47PM #76
Ironhold
Posts: 11,490

christianincollege wrote:

This means we must rely on scripture interpreting scripture for the correct interpretation.


That line of reasoning would never survive any sort of logic or rhetoric class.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Feb 18, 2009 - 6:59PM #77
Ironhold
Posts: 11,490

bytebear wrote:

Finally, I see your website link promoting the video Jesus Christ / Joseph Smith. Just know that the producers of that video are the same producers of the Godmakers (although this particular video is far more slick). Of that particular video, the National Conference of Christians and Jews said:


*notes that Sandra Tanner was involved in the video*

Sorry, but that right there kills it for me.

The simple truth of the matter is that, despite what people would have non-Mormons believe, the Tanners have established a track record of being deceptive in regards to their arguments against the church. In fact, she and her husband were synonymous with "cherry-picking verses" and "intellectual dishonesty" to such an extent that their name alone renders any work about the church in doubt.

The Tanners also got sued not only for breaking the law but for attempting to circumvent the settlement they made after the first suit. The Tanners reprinted an entire chapter from the Church Handbook of Instructions without permission, violating the church's copyright on the work. The Tanners settled out of court when the church threatened legal action, but promptly violated the spirit of the agreement by linking to no less than four websites that had the same material and encouraging other people to make as many copies as possible.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Feb 18, 2009 - 7:12PM #78
bytebear
Posts: 1,451

christianincollege wrote:

Baptism is something we MUST do in the sense that we are commanded to be baptized, but not in the sense that if determines our salvation. It is like this. If your Mom tells you to clean your room, you must clean it, but that does not affect whether or not you are her son.


Are you saying you can choose not to be baptised and be saved?  There are no consequences for choosing not to be baptised?

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Feb 18, 2009 - 9:17PM #79
christianincollege
Posts: 12

bytebear wrote:

I would agree with you if it were not for John 3:5 and Acts 2:38  which say that you must be born of water and the spirit (i.e Holy Ghost0 and that you receive the Holy Ghost only AFTER baptims. There is an order of things. and you are putting the proverbial cart before the horse. Strait is the gate and few who find it. The gate is baptism and it opens salvation to us. Without it, we can hever have the Holy Ghost.


As far as John 3:5: It is my opinion that the water spoken of here means the water of the womb referring to the natural birth process. Jesus said in verse three that Nicodemus needed to be born "again." This meant that he had been born once--through his mother. Nicodemus responds with a statement about how he can't enter again into his mother's womb to be born. Then Jesus says that he must be born of water and the Spirit. Then in verse 6 He says that "flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.." The context seems to be discussing the contrast between the natural and the spiritual birth. Water, therefore, could easily be interpreted there to mean the natural birth process.

As far as Acts 2:38, see http://www.carm.org/christianity/baptis … d-acts-238 but in short in the context of the entire Bible, it is not teaching baptism as necessary for salvation.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Feb 18, 2009 - 9:18PM #80
christianincollege
Posts: 12

bytebear wrote:

Are you saying you can choose not to be baptised and be saved?  There are no consequences for choosing not to be baptised?


No, there are consequences for disobedience.  it is just clear from scripture that baptism is not a prerequisite to salvation.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 8 of 10  •  Prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook