01-18-2007, 03:37 PM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The People's Republic of Monsanto
Posts: 3,085
|
Quote:
Letters to a Mormon Elder Is the Mormon my Brother? Various articles from CRJ His debate about temples in 2004 Assorted pamphlets and whatnot from Alpha and Omega ministries From my reading and listening, his breadth and depth of knowledge on his subjects is underwhelming, to say the least.
__________________
"Do not despise the words of prophets, but test everything; hold fast to what is good; " 1 Thess. 5:21 (NRSV) We all trust our own unorthodoxies. |
|
01-18-2007, 03:57 PM | #12 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
|
01-18-2007, 04:05 PM | #13 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
We should have an approved list of scholars? Eh?
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
01-18-2007, 04:19 PM | #14 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 95
|
δικαιοῦντα - to justify (regard as righteous, godly, just, and innocent). Verb. Present Active Participle Accusative Singular Masculine
τὸν - article (the). Accusative Singular Masculine. ἀσεβῆ - irreverent, impious, ungodly, or wicked. Adjective. Accusative Singular Masculine Put together: δικαιοῦντα (justifies) τὸν (the) ἀσεβῆ (ungodly) If it was "justifies NOT the ungodly", the phrase would have included an important word: μὴ - not. Adverb. More here. Not only does the Greek speak against the JST, but all reputable Greek scholars (secular and religious) and all major English translations and the very context in Romans surrounding 4:5. So basically you're giving Smith authority to turn the meaning of a passage of God's authoritative word upside down, into something that doesn't fit the wider context of the surrounding text. The only thing you have going for you is the euphoria of an emotional epiphany concerning a money-digger's 19th century restorationist movement. Grace and peace in Christ, who justifies the ungodly like me by faith apart from works (Romans 4:1-8), Aaron Last edited by aaronshaf; 01-18-2007 at 04:29 PM. |
01-18-2007, 04:26 PM | #15 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Quote:
That's why your arguments have no impact. Because they don't address the fundamental process by which Mormons believe one gains knowledge. |
|
01-18-2007, 04:35 PM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,177
|
Quote:
|
|
01-18-2007, 04:37 PM | #17 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 95
|
Quote:
|
|
01-18-2007, 04:39 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,177
|
Clarification meaning fixing a passage that could easily be misinterpreted in a way that could be seriously damaging to the reader. It's not Paul's fault that we don't always get what he's saying, but JS had his back.
|
01-18-2007, 04:40 PM | #19 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Quote:
We would never dare suggest that what you believe is the same as what we believe. You can't call on the Bible as the ultimate source of truth because, frankly, we do not believe it to be the ultimate source of truth. If you don't operate in our framework, you can't convince us. That's why when we Mormons spread the gospel, we teach non-believers about our framework. And that is why we win, and you fail. |
|
01-18-2007, 05:13 PM | #20 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
Now, show me how we can count on every word of the New Testament being exactly what the original author wrote. Be sure to deal with variations in manuscripts that are being discovered on a nearly daily basis. That will be level 3. Then, show me that what Paul wrote was exactly what he meant-- in other words, that he always correctly and exactly conveyed the thought that he had in mind when he wrote everything that you just proved that he wrote. Given the fact that he used a human language, this may prove somewhat difficult, but if you can pull it off, you will have not only won quite a bit of academic prestige, but you will have progressed to level 4. Next, show me that what Paul had in mind is exactly correspondant to the truth. Show me that Paul was never wrong and that his own ideas are laced with infallability. That bit of mind reading over 2000 years ex post facto will get you to level 5. Finally, show me how the truth is identical to your interpretation of the text. In doing so, not only will you have solved the answer to the sectarian question that has plagued the world since day one, you will have FINALLY arrived at the point wherein you will gain some sort of credibility on this particular issue, and you will have demonstrated that there really is no need for a prophet to clarify and/or correct biblical passages. You are way too far behind on this game, mon frere. I'd suggest you pick a different argument. Why not start on Joseph Smith and his claim to prophetic authority that justifies his rewrite of Romans in the first place? In fact, go even deeper and take on the Book of Mormon. I dare you. Much greater minds have tried and failed-- it will be entertaining to see your attempt.
__________________
εν αρχη ην ο λογος Last edited by All-American; 01-18-2007 at 05:34 PM. |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|