"Charles P. Locke" wrote:
> >DAVEH: If nothing has changed, then it seems to me that expansion of Canon
> >would be possible, if not expected, based on previous expansion of Canon.
>
> I don't think that I (or the "protestants" for that matter) have ever
> offered a statement saying that additional revelation is NOT possible.
DAVEH: IF you believe Canon is closed, then I would assume you would think it not
possible.
> I (and I believe the protestant church, too) believe that 1) None has been
> given, 2) None will be given, and 3) Jude seems to support this (as does
> Hebrews, as we'll see later).
>
> This is about the 5th time I've typed this in...I am surprised you haven't
> seen it yet.
DAVEH: I'm having to draw conclusions of what I think you believe based on your
answers which to me seem to sidestep my questions. I understand you have previously
stated #1, #2 & #3. But from your statement above ("I don't think........additional
revelation is NOT possible"), I will assume you believe it is not closed then. If I
am assuming wrong, please correct me. I don't want to drag this on and on, Perry. I
want to understand your belief. I just hesitate to make assumptions about it due to
my failure to understand your (seemingly sidestepping) answers to my questions.
> To use the Jews, as you have done, as an argument...I am sure that they
> expected to hear from God during the 400 years of silence prior to
> Christ...why was he silent?
DAVE: I'm not sure that he was. As I've previously mentioned, I believe the Lord
has revealed a lot that is not included in the Bible. Perhaps he revealed some during
that period too.
> He had already told them that the Messiah was
> coming and had, in fact, been quite detailed. There was nothing more to tell
> them, until He arrived, and He told the rest.
>
> >
> > > Just because the LDS think that he
> > > SHOULD and DID reveal secrets certainly is no indication that he HAS
> > > revealed more, especially when those who do not have an LDS bias
> >recognize
> > > the lies and deceit in his writings.
> >
> >DAVEH: I'm not trying to push LDS latter-day Scripture or even defend it.
> >I'm just trying to figure out why Protestantism has not added to the Bible
> >in the past 1900 years.
>
> Because nothing new has been revealed. Every so often (since the f1rst
> century, in fact) some heretical group comes up with "revealed" information
> that just doesn't hold up to the fire of the scripture.
DAVEH: Disregarding latter-day revelation, there have been many documents found in
the past couple hundred years that purport to be of early Christian origins. Do you
know if anybody has seriously proposed adding any of them to the Canon of Scripture?
Are they automatically rejected for inclusion, or is there any option that if they
pass the "test" they could be included in the Bible at some future date?
Or......would there be such a firestorm of criticism from traditional Christianity,
that that
event would be impossible?
> Think about the Heaven's Gate Cult. They relied on the "revealed prophecy"
> of a man, and they believed with their very hearts that he was right...and
> I'll tell you something, I cannot say whether they are in heaven or hell
> (not my call), but I don't believe they are on some flying saucer! And, if
> we were to compress the LDS history into a few years, it looks very similar.
> David Koresh, Jim Jones, L. Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith...there is a very
> long list of false prophets.
>
> > > >DAVEH: Btw.......Do you remember the "Is God Dead" days some 3 decades
> >ago
> > > >or so?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > >DAVEH: Did that question not arise because the Lord seemingly isn't
> > > >speaking to man nowadays?
> > >
> > > Maybe that is the reason, but I do not see the connection to our present
> > > discussion.
> >
> >DAVEH: I remember the argument at the time being that the reason God has
> >not revealed himself since Biblical times is that he might be dead. The
> >reason I mentioned it is because it reflects a common perception at that
> >time (within our lifetime) that the
> >Lord has not, and does not speak (through revelation) to man anymore.
>
> Isn't that the way of the world, though? They expect God to act in their
> way, on their schedule. Again, this does not affect our discussion.
DAVEH: I understand. I was relating it as an observation why some people thought God
was not revealing himself in present day.
> > > >DAVEH: Now you are saying that it is not closed, is that correct? How
> > > >should I understand your belief Perry......is Canon open or closed???
> > >
> > > Sorry that you were confused, David. You might want to read through my
> > > explanation again. I though I made it very clear, and I don't think I am
> > > capable of making it any clearer.
> >
> >DAVEH: It is an answer like this that makes me wonder why you accused me
> >of side-steping your questions, Perry. Since your answers have obviously
> >been confusing me on this issue, why did you not simply answer one way or
> >the other (open or closed) so
> >that I don't have to continue wondering what you believe? Is there a
> >reason you don't want to answer directly and simply? If you think I'm
> >trying to bloody your nose over this, or pit you against DavidM (who has
> >made his belief about it understandable
> >to me) in a major doctrinal battle.....I say, relax. I'm not here to cause
> >contention or bloody your nose. Answer straight away and IF I sucker punch
> >you, remind me of this discussion.
>
> David, really. I have typed my views in on this topic at least 5 times...and
> I wonder why you have not seen it.
DAVEH: I guess I was hoping for a simple open/closed answer.
> I have been as concise and clear as I
> know how...and if you have not gotten it by now, then maybe you do not want
> to. And, I also find that you always want ME to retype it, or explain it
> again, or cut and paste this or that, and basically be your TT secretary and
> look stuff up for you. I do not have time to be your girl friday and respond
> to these lengthy posts, too! >G<
DAVEH: Do you have the time for a simple answer? If you don't want to type the whole
word out, just the first letter....O or C.
> > > >DAVEH: Can you give me a thumbnail view of how you define it, please?
> > >
> > > If you have read the NT, you have my view of it.
> >
> >DAVEH: I'm sorry Perry, but if you really don't want to have a meaningful
> >discussion with me, just say so and I'll quit asking you questions. If you
> >want me to understand your belief, I am asking you about it rather than
> >make assumptions as a lot of
> >non-LDS folks do when they tell me what I believe rather than ask me.
> >(Whew.........that was a run-on sentence for sure, but I hope you
> >understand why I find having discussions with Protestants can sometimes be
> >an exercise in futility for me.)
>
> Not a side step...but it was probably a poor answer since you cannot read
> the Bible without the LDS bias.
DAVEH: Which I have admitted numerous times. That is why I like to ask these
questions in TT. If I ask my LDS friends, I get the same LDS biased answers. I know
that I won't get that here.
> I am simply saying that I rely on the Bible to be my guide, not the
> "revealed" work of a 19th century occultic false prophet.
>
> >
> > BTW........I have read the NT and (from my perspective) it nicely
> >agrees with my LDS biases. Now Perry, I'm sure you don't want me to assume
> >you agree with my understanding of the NT, so why do you answer in that
> >evasive (sidestepping) way??? Why
> >not simply respond to my question with a direct answer?
> >
> > > Of course, I do not add the
> > > LDS bias, or capriciously pull random verses out as proof texts to
> >support
> > > LDS heresy, such as the two sticks, the "ye are gods", or the "sheep of
> > > another fold".
> >
> >DAVEH: Yes Perry.....I know you don't subscribe to LDS theology. That's a
> >given. However, it is stipulated that I do have those biases. I read the
> >same Bible as you, and find they support my LDS biases. When I want to
> >know why Protestants understand
> >them differently, I usually get evasive (or sometimes no) answer. I have
> >not mentioned anything about 2 sticks, so I don't know why you find that a
> >problem. I did mention "ye are gods" and received only one answer (from
> >DavidM) which I have yet to
> >respond to due to time....it's on my home computer. Ditto with "sheep of
> >another fold".
>
> I just pulled out three LDS prooftexts...not specifically related to
> anything anyone posted.
>
> >I don't recall there being any more than a single cursory response (from
> >DavidM again, I think). So yes, I am here (in TT) to find out how non-LDS
> >folks understand
> >those passages. I appreciate any responses that directly answer my
> >questions about them. But when I get evasive sidestepping answers, then
> >I'm left puzzled.
>
> Come on, David. If people have been describing the Trinity to you for three
> years, and you have not gotten it yet, then you do not want to get it.
DAVEH: From our discussions, I'm not sure anybody really understands it. That is why
I think somebody (was it you, Perry) used the term 'mystery' in explaining it to me at
one point.
> Understanding it (geting it) and believing it are two separate things. You
> seem to get them confused.
DAVEH: I assume you believe it. But I'm not sure you fully understand it. Do you,
Perry???
> Hey, I didn't like Mathematical Probability, but
> it only took me 1 semester to get it (at least to a 'B' level), and it is
> much harder to understand than the Trinity. >G<
>
> >
> > > >DAVEH: I sure didn't get that feeling when I read it.
> > >
> > > Sometimes we have to go by the words and their meanings, not our
> >feelings.
> >
> >DAVEH: I'm not all that sharp when it comes to the deep meaning of the
> >words, but DavidM suggested that Jude 3 didn't quite say what you were
> >suggesting. (BTW.......I am not trying to pit DavidM against you on this,
> >Perry. But his comments about it
> >would suggest that my feelings about Jude 3 might not be quite so far out
> >in left field.)
>
> Did you see my post on Jude 3 support?
DAVEH: Yes.
> Maybe your feelings result from your
> LDS bias which indicate that Jude 3 MUST not mean "once for all", otherwise
> you may have to abandon your "new revelation" beliefs. That is bias in
> action, doing what bias is meant to do...obscure the facts.
DAVEH: Certainly my LDS biases do affect my understanding of that (and other)
passage. Regarding vs 3, my KJV...........
".........that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto
the saints."
.........as for which words are correct, and specifically what the root words mean,
I'll leave that to folks (DavidM and such) who are much smarter than I. But for the
purpose of why I don't think your answer is the only one, just because the 'gospel'
had been delivered to the saints, does not mean that it is all contained in the Bible.
For instance, from my LDS perspective, I believe baptism for the dead is referred to
as a practice of some early Christians that is not discussed much in the Bible.
That it is mentioned at all, causes most Protestants to vehemently deny it's divine
origins even if the Bible does not condemn it. I don't even try to promote it in TT,
but have simply mentioned it to as evidence that some early Christians practiced it
due to their belief that baptism was necessary for salvation.
> DavidM also seems to have a vested interest in your feelings about it.
DAVEH: ?!?!?!?! Are you suggesting that DavidM is supporting my position for any
reason other than accurate scholarship, Perry? I firmly believe DavidM is a 'nice
guy', but I don't think he's going to sell his soul to Mormonism just to please me!
> > > >DAVEH: Isn't that the gospel message......to explain the mysteries of
> >God
> > > >that have been hidden from the non believers?
> > >
> > > Basically. But only the mysteries He chooses to reveal, which are
> >necessary
> > > and sufficient for our understanding the gospel in his view, not our
> >view.
> > >
> > > >DAVEH: Was Moses' (and some of the other prophets) revelations tested
> >when
> > > >they were given?
> > >
> > > I am sure they were put to the tests to which all prophets were put. One
> > > false prophecy and it was the stone pit.
> >
> >DAVEH: I hesitate to mention this for fear that you will think I'm
> >denigrating the Bible, but have you pondered how those testers must have
> >rationalized about Moses writing about his own death?
>
> That is a non-problem. If I wrote 4.9 books, and my assistant wrote the last
> chapter of the last book, I am sure I would get credit for the whole work.
> Why should Moses be any different?
DAVEH: I suppose it has to do with how stringent those testers were, and where they
drew the line on what they accepted and rejected and for what reasons. BTW....If I
remember correctly, the TV program mentioned that there was some diverse opinions
amongst the scholars about not only who wrote for Moses, but also how many
contributed. I think they said there may have been as many as 4 authors, but I should
review the program with a notepad in hand before relying on my poor memory.
> > > (Or, in modern terms, the Carthage
> > > Jail.)
> >
> >DAVEH: Did you mention that as a 'dig' about Mormonism?
>
> Not as a dig, but as a statement to evoke the thought that there is a
> possibility that the JS and HS deaths may have been God's judgement on false
> prophets. We cannot rule that out. In that sense, it would have been the
> modern equivalent of stoning false prophets.
DAVEH: Or alternatively, perhaps they religious martyrs. On the other hand, if the
death of a prophet at the hands of his enemies qualifies one for "God's judgment",
consider that there are a lot of Primitive Church folks who suffered the same fates.
> > > >If the authorship is questionable, then how scrutiny was given to the
> >books
> > > >examined for Canonization?
> > >
> > > One must be careful where one looks for their theology. Secular TV is
> > > probably not the best place.
> >
> >DAVEH: I wasn't looking for theology there. I was interested in finding
> >out about the development of the Bible. Sometimes secular TV will explain
> >things in a way that is not as biased as those closer to the cloth. (And,
> >that is not to say secular TV
> >isn't biased.)
>
> Your comment seemed to use it as an authority.
DAVEH: I suspect they are a lot smarter than me. Whether it is totally accurate or
not, I cannot ascertain at this point. It did seem to be a scholarly approach rather
than a faith based work though. Perhaps DavidM has some thoughts about its
accuracy.....???
> > > >DAVEH: I assume that is a rhetorical question?
> > >
> > > Not really, but I did add some cynicism which may have made it sound
> > > rhetorical. My point being that what you see as shortsightedness I see
> >as
> > > being cautious not to accept lies and heresy as new revealed doctrine.
> >
> >DAVEH: I'm not asking you to throw caution to the wind. I'm just trying
> >to figure out why you don't expect and look forward to further
> >revleation/Canon from the Lord.
>
> If there ever was any new revelation that held to the test of scripture, and
> brought glory to God, and brought more light into the world, I would
> definitely have to rethink my position, as would the whole world. But, none
> have ever passed that test.
DAVEH: I just wonder if the Christian world would even consider rethinking changing
Canon at this point. Or, has the die been cast and it is not now changeable.
> However, to date there has been none, so my belief about the delivery of the
> faith ONCE FOR ALL to the saints, and the Hebrews author's comments about
> Jesus speaking to us in these last days holds up entirely.
>
> What the LDS refuse to do is to see the very blatant and plain
> contradictions of the Bible that the LDS works contain. I try to explain it,
> and I have NEVER heard an LDS say, "WOW! I never saw that before. I better
> pray about this and find out why that contradiction is there." They are not
> turth-seekers, they are lie-justifiers. My mother-in-law's favortie response
> is, "Well, some people will say anything." That's it! (Of course, she is not
> a deep doctrinal kind. The warm fuzzies are enough for her).
>
> The official LDS positions are things like "theBook of Mormon is the most
> correct [except for the 4000+ changes] book in the world", and whenever JS
> encountered a contradictory passage in the Bible he would comment, "that was
> written by some old Jew with no authority".
DAVEH: That is new to me. When/where did he state such? Or, did you just make that
up as a rhetorical comment, Perry?
> Now that sure sounds like an
> honest way for a prophet of god to treat Holy Scripture.
DAVEH: To me it sounds like words somebody put in JS's mouth, but I will reserve
judgment until I see your references.
> So, the bottom line is, if any of the Mormon works contradict the Bible,
> they are considered correct, and the Bible wrong.
DAVEH: You are forgetting the possibility that your understanding of those particular
parts of the Bible may be in error.
> I know, "The Bible is the
> word of God, so long as it is translated correctly"
DAVEH: Do you disagree, Perry?
> . Joseph Smith could not
> even translate the Book of the Dead...how are we to assume he could even
> understand if the Bible is translated correctly?
>
> If LDS, such as yourself, are truly seeking the truth,
DAVEH: As I have said previously, I'm in TT to seek your understanding and beliefs.
Whether they constitute 'truth' may or may not be the case.
> how can they
> continue, day after day, to ignore the contradeictions, lies, deceit,
> plaigerisms, false prophecy, secret enclaves, hate mongering, occult
> practices, stolen ceremonies, adulteries of their prophet, ludicrous
> self-serving "revelations" of the Mormon Church? The answers are one or all
> of the following:
>
> 1. They have been truly blinded and it is, therefore, impossible for them to
> see the truth.
>
> 2. They are brainwashed into believing that all of this is true.
>
> 3. They know at some dseep level it is false, but do not have the courage to
> face their family, friends, brothers, and sisters, and church authorities
> with the truth.
>
> 4. They suffer from the "what if LDS is really true" syndrome, in that if it
> is true, then they may miss out on an opportunity to become a god.
DAVEH: Or Perry, it could be that you really don't understand us or our theology.
> > As I see it, the possible reasons are........
> >
> >1) God is dead
> >
> >2) Canon is closed
> >
> >3) All that is necessary for salvation has been revealed and is included
> >in the Bible
> >
> >4) Other
> >
> > From our previous discussions, I assume #3 is the reason to which you
> >subscribe, Perry. What I am not sure is if you subscribe to #2. I don't
> >want to put words in your mouth, so may I ask you again for a simple
> >answer....do you believe Canon is open
> >or closed?
> >
>
> Closed. For at least the 5th time.
DAVEH: Whew......Thank you Perry.
> > > Take a look at Hebrews 1:1,2.
> >
> >DAVEH: I'll quote it for those who may not take the time to read it.....
> >
> >"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the
> >fathers by the prophets. Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,
> >whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the
> >worlds;"
> >
> >.......OK Perry, I'm not sure where you are going with this.......did you
> >have a point to make?
>
> Actually, the author makes the point for me. Let me explain it without the
> LDS bias...
>
> 1. God spoke to us in times past via his prophets...
> 2. He has spoken to us in THESE LAST DAYS by his son...
> 3. The author does not say that he will speak to us again by prophets, but
> indicates the finality of the message delivered by Jesus. Otherwise, he
> would not have claimed these were the last days! Otherwise, he might have
> said, "today by his Son, and in the last days by the prophets again".
>
> With this statement, plus the statement of Jude, I think a VERY strong case
> can be made for no more revelation.
DAVEH: You seem to want to extrapolate such passages to mean that there will be no
more revelation, but that seems to be to drawing a conclusion that is unwarranted.
> Perry
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you
ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who
wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be
subscribed.
