Romans 4:5 and the JST

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Granted, there are many sects that believe Peter's underwear was green, but many of them disagree as to which shade of green. The fundamentalist insist they were forest green, but there is much evidence emerging that suggests his underwear was, indeed, kelly green. I've also read some authors who insist that J.M. Barrie was color-blind and that his concept of green has nothing in common with our modern day perception of green. It's a thorny issue, to be sure.

Green? Hades, I was always taught Peter didn't wear underwear!

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

Looking at the Greek just makes things worse: It shows how Smith got it absolutely wrong, and how he turned the passage upside down.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Yes, you have lit upon the crux of Mormonism, which is, that the true gospel has been restored to the earth by the prophet Joseph Smith. And that you may gain faith and knowledge of this through the power of the Holy Spirit.

That's why your arguments have no impact. Because they don't address the fundamental process by which Mormons believe one gains knowledge.

So, I'm beginning to see a problem here, which may be Mike's point.

Now if both parties rely on presuppositionalism, and the two parties appeal to separate authorities in the presuppositionalist approach...well then I don't see how this discussion will go anywhere.

Please correct me if I'm missing something, and forgive me if I offend. I am, after all, speaking as an outsider and somewhat less than an expert.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Green? Hades, I was always taught Peter didn't wear underwear!

I thought his shadow stole them.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Maybe I'll have to post something on my views of the JST.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

You're working off an unwarranted, anti-supernaturalistic assumption. What makes it impossible to take an educated, integrated approach to supernatural events or miracles or the mind of God as described by human witnesses?

I see no reason to assume absolute naturalism or materialism or anti-supernaturalism from the get-go.

Anti Supernaturalism? How can I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet and be anti-supernaturalistic?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Not to take Aaron's side -- because he's kind of a dick -- but your approach is an end run, at best. If you're going to apply the above standards, you might as well throw out the entire Bible -- and Book of Mormon, for that matter -- because you've just rendered them meaningless.

Using scholarship to bolster one's religious views is a silly exercise. It ultimately comes down to faith, and the gulf between the fantastic claims made in the Bible -- regardless of how you interpret them -- and that which is verifiable is so great, that no amount of scholarship will ever get you an inch closer to the truth. I don't care how many original texts you have or how adept you are at translation or how capable you are of reading the mind of Paul, you're still arguing about a book that talks of Gods, angels, miracles, resurrected beings, virgin births, etc.. If you're going to accept all of those incredible claims, isn't it kind of silly to insist on an educated approach when discussing them?

Of course it's silly. And yes, using those standards you WOULD have to throw out the Bible AND the Book of Mormon-- UNLESS Joseph Smith was a prophet.

That's the point. It is beyond silly to try to show us that Joseph Smith mistranslated a verse in the Bible. It fails to address the core issue, which, as you point out, is an issue separate from scholarship.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

So, I'm beginning to see a problem here, which may be Mike's point.

Now if both parties rely on presuppositionalism, and the two parties appeal to separate authorities in the presuppositionalist approach...well then I don't see how this discussion will go anywhere.

Please correct me if I'm missing something, and forgive me if I offend. I am, after all, speaking as an outsider and somewhat less than an expert.

No, I think you're on the spot. Playing Aaron's game will take us nowhere. I had hoped to demonstrate that beyond reasonable doubt.