|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:44 pm
I will re-quote what I wrote in another thread about those over used and highly misunderstood verses in the book of Revelation when it comes to LDS theology. Passage Revelation 22:18-19: Quote: 18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Look at the wording in those verses that have been cited. It says "this book of prophecy". John the Revelator is talking about the book of Revelation specifically. If there was to be no revelation after the Book of Revelation was written, which was written in about 95AD or 96AD, then John broke his own rule and so did several other biblical prophets. The Gospel of John was dated 96 to 104AD and was thought to have been written by Ephesus. All three of John's epistles were believed to have been written about the same time that the Gospel of John (96 to 104AD). Also if stopping future revelation was the purpose of these scriptures that have been cited, then the saints of John's day and for undreds of years afterwards greatly misunderstood this scripture. The Book of Revelation was a separate document for hundreds of years before it was assembled with the other writings of the scriptural library that we call the Bible. Bible comes from the Greek word "ta biblia" meaning "the books". So John was only referring to the words that were written specifically in the book of Revelation. Hence his wording "the words of the prophecy of this book". You know what else? This same prohibition that have been cited is also found in Deuteronomy 4:2; 13:32. Does that mean that all scripture revealed after the Pentateuch (the first five books of the OT) are invalid? You agree with me that it does not, right? So why would the similar statement found in the NT invalidate all modern revelation? The Book of Revelation was not meant to be the end of revealed scripture, it was just a recording of all the warnings of future events to come. Plus the Bible itself talks about additional scripture that is to come forth (Isaiah 29; Ezekiel 37) and future revelations (Matthew 17:11; Luke 10:22; John 16:12-15; Acts 2:17-18; James 1:5). The Book of Revelation itself even talks about future prophets and revelations from Heaven (Revelation 11:3; 14:6). Also, let me add that the Bible says that revelation is part of the true Church iteslf. (See Amos 3:7; 1 Corinthians 14:29-33, 37-39).
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:05 pm
Shadows-shine I will re-quote what I wrote in another thread about those over used and highly misunderstood verses in the book of Revelation when it comes to LDS theology. Passage Revelation 22:18-19: Quote: 18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Look at the wording in those verses that have been cited. It says "this book of prophecy". John the Revelator is talking about the book of Revelation specifically. If there was to be no revelation after the Book of Revelation was written, which was written in about 95AD or 96AD, then John broke his own rule and so did several other biblical prophets. The Gospel of John was dated 96 to 104AD and was thought to have been written by Ephesus. All three of John's epistles were believed to have been written about the same time that the Gospel of John (96 to 104AD). Also if stopping future revelation was the purpose of these scriptures that have been cited, then the saints of John's day and for undreds of years afterwards greatly misunderstood this scripture. The Book of Revelation was a separate document for hundreds of years before it was assembled with the other writings of the scriptural library that we call the Bible. Bible comes from the Greek word "ta biblia" meaning "the books". So John was only referring to the words that were written specifically in the book of Revelation. Hence his wording "the words of the prophecy of this book". You know what else? This same prohibition that have been cited is also found in Deuteronomy 4:2; 13:32. Does that mean that all scripture revealed after the Pentateuch (the first five books of the OT) are invalid? You agree with me that it does not, right? So why would the similar statement found in the NT invalidate all modern revelation? The Book of Revelation was not meant to be the end of revealed scripture, it was just a recording of all the warnings of future events to come. Plus the Bible itself talks about additional scripture that is to come forth (Isaiah 29; Ezekiel 37) and future revelations (Matthew 17:11; Luke 10:22; John 16:12-15; Acts 2:17-18; James 1:5). The Book of Revelation itself even talks about future prophets and revelations from Heaven (Revelation 11:3; 14:6). Also, let me add that the Bible says that revelation is part of the true Church iteslf. (See Amos 3:7; 1 Corinthians 14:29-33, 37-39). There is no Deuteronomy 13:32. Deuteronomy 4:2 is being addressed to the Israelites who would fall away and start worshipping false Gods, they're being told that the statutes of the one and only God are what need to be followed, nothing more and nothing less. If you believe the bible is the inspired word of God then the fact that the very last book of the bible says that: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. Should at least bring a word of caution. So you think that the message being given is that we shouldn't pick up the book of revelation and add to it more revelation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:21 pm
Semiremis Shadows-shine I will re-quote what I wrote in another thread about those over used and highly misunderstood verses in the book of Revelation when it comes to LDS theology. Passage Revelation 22:18-19: Quote: 18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Look at the wording in those verses that have been cited. It says "this book of prophecy". John the Revelator is talking about the book of Revelation specifically. If there was to be no revelation after the Book of Revelation was written, which was written in about 95AD or 96AD, then John broke his own rule and so did several other biblical prophets. The Gospel of John was dated 96 to 104AD and was thought to have been written by Ephesus. All three of John's epistles were believed to have been written about the same time that the Gospel of John (96 to 104AD). Also if stopping future revelation was the purpose of these scriptures that have been cited, then the saints of John's day and for undreds of years afterwards greatly misunderstood this scripture. The Book of Revelation was a separate document for hundreds of years before it was assembled with the other writings of the scriptural library that we call the Bible. Bible comes from the Greek word "ta biblia" meaning "the books". So John was only referring to the words that were written specifically in the book of Revelation. Hence his wording "the words of the prophecy of this book". You know what else? This same prohibition that have been cited is also found in Deuteronomy 4:2; 13:32. Does that mean that all scripture revealed after the Pentateuch (the first five books of the OT) are invalid? You agree with me that it does not, right? So why would the similar statement found in the NT invalidate all modern revelation? The Book of Revelation was not meant to be the end of revealed scripture, it was just a recording of all the warnings of future events to come. Plus the Bible itself talks about additional scripture that is to come forth (Isaiah 29; Ezekiel 37) and future revelations (Matthew 17:11; Luke 10:22; John 16:12-15; Acts 2:17-18; James 1:5). The Book of Revelation itself even talks about future prophets and revelations from Heaven (Revelation 11:3; 14:6). Also, let me add that the Bible says that revelation is part of the true Church iteslf. (See Amos 3:7; 1 Corinthians 14:29-33, 37-39). There is no Deuteronomy 13:32. Deuteronomy 4:2 is being addressed to the Israelites who would fall away and start worshipping false Gods, they're being told that the statutes of the one and only God are what need to be followed, nothing more and nothing less. If you believe the bible is the inspired word of God then the fact that the very last book of the bible says that: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. Should at least bring a word of caution. So you think that the message being given is that we shouldn't pick up the book of revelation and add to it more revelation? It's all in the wording of the verses. It says "the words of this BOOK" NOT BOOKS. If revelation after Deuteronomy was to prohibited then it would've said so. Besides, none of the modern revelation that has been given has been added to the Bible. It's is all compiled into separate books.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:25 pm
E.G. 007 Semiremis Shadows-shine I will re-quote what I wrote in another thread about those over used and highly misunderstood verses in the book of Revelation when it comes to LDS theology. Passage Revelation 22:18-19: Quote: 18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Look at the wording in those verses that have been cited. It says "this book of prophecy". John the Revelator is talking about the book of Revelation specifically. If there was to be no revelation after the Book of Revelation was written, which was written in about 95AD or 96AD, then John broke his own rule and so did several other biblical prophets. The Gospel of John was dated 96 to 104AD and was thought to have been written by Ephesus. All three of John's epistles were believed to have been written about the same time that the Gospel of John (96 to 104AD). Also if stopping future revelation was the purpose of these scriptures that have been cited, then the saints of John's day and for undreds of years afterwards greatly misunderstood this scripture. The Book of Revelation was a separate document for hundreds of years before it was assembled with the other writings of the scriptural library that we call the Bible. Bible comes from the Greek word "ta biblia" meaning "the books". So John was only referring to the words that were written specifically in the book of Revelation. Hence his wording "the words of the prophecy of this book". You know what else? This same prohibition that have been cited is also found in Deuteronomy 4:2; 13:32. Does that mean that all scripture revealed after the Pentateuch (the first five books of the OT) are invalid? You agree with me that it does not, right? So why would the similar statement found in the NT invalidate all modern revelation? The Book of Revelation was not meant to be the end of revealed scripture, it was just a recording of all the warnings of future events to come. Plus the Bible itself talks about additional scripture that is to come forth (Isaiah 29; Ezekiel 37) and future revelations (Matthew 17:11; Luke 10:22; John 16:12-15; Acts 2:17-18; James 1:5). The Book of Revelation itself even talks about future prophets and revelations from Heaven (Revelation 11:3; 14:6). Also, let me add that the Bible says that revelation is part of the true Church iteslf. (See Amos 3:7; 1 Corinthians 14:29-33, 37-39). There is no Deuteronomy 13:32. Deuteronomy 4:2 is being addressed to the Israelites who would fall away and start worshipping false Gods, they're being told that the statutes of the one and only God are what need to be followed, nothing more and nothing less. If you believe the bible is the inspired word of God then the fact that the very last book of the bible says that: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. Should at least bring a word of caution. So you think that the message being given is that we shouldn't pick up the book of revelation and add to it more revelation? It's all in the wording of the verses. It says "the words of this BOOK" NOT BOOKS. If revelation after Deuteronomy was to prohibited then it would've said so. Besides, none of the modern revelation that has been given has been added to the Bible. It's is all compiled into separate books. *nods* That's a good point but what happens when that modern revelation is taken to be inspired by God? That's not adding to the other books inspired by God?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:29 pm
Semiremis Shadows-shine I will re-quote what I wrote in another thread about those over used and highly misunderstood verses in the book of Revelation when it comes to LDS theology. Passage Revelation 22:18-19: Quote: 18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Look at the wording in those verses that have been cited. It says "this book of prophecy". John the Revelator is talking about the book of Revelation specifically. If there was to be no revelation after the Book of Revelation was written, which was written in about 95AD or 96AD, then John broke his own rule and so did several other biblical prophets. The Gospel of John was dated 96 to 104AD and was thought to have been written by Ephesus. All three of John's epistles were believed to have been written about the same time that the Gospel of John (96 to 104AD). Also if stopping future revelation was the purpose of these scriptures that have been cited, then the saints of John's day and for undreds of years afterwards greatly misunderstood this scripture. The Book of Revelation was a separate document for hundreds of years before it was assembled with the other writings of the scriptural library that we call the Bible. Bible comes from the Greek word "ta biblia" meaning "the books". So John was only referring to the words that were written specifically in the book of Revelation. Hence his wording "the words of the prophecy of this book". You know what else? This same prohibition that have been cited is also found in Deuteronomy 4:2; 13:32. Does that mean that all scripture revealed after the Pentateuch (the first five books of the OT) are invalid? You agree with me that it does not, right? So why would the similar statement found in the NT invalidate all modern revelation? The Book of Revelation was not meant to be the end of revealed scripture, it was just a recording of all the warnings of future events to come. Plus the Bible itself talks about additional scripture that is to come forth (Isaiah 29; Ezekiel 37) and future revelations (Matthew 17:11; Luke 10:22; John 16:12-15; Acts 2:17-18; James 1:5). The Book of Revelation itself even talks about future prophets and revelations from Heaven (Revelation 11:3; 14:6). Also, let me add that the Bible says that revelation is part of the true Church iteslf. (See Amos 3:7; 1 Corinthians 14:29-33, 37-39). There is no Deuteronomy 13:32. Deuteronomy 4:2 is being addressed to the Israelites who would fall away and start worshipping false Gods, they're being told that the statutes of the one and only God are what need to be followed, nothing more and nothing less. If you believe the bible is the inspired word of God then the fact that the very last book of the bible says that: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. Should at least bring a word of caution. So you think that the message being given is that we shouldn't pick up the book of revelation and add to it more revelation? Forgive me it was a typo. I will find the proper verse that I meant to quote, then post it in here when I get the chance. Besides, did you even take into account that the Book of Revelation wasn't added to the Bible until several hundred years later? And that the Book of John and the Epistles of John were not written until after the Book of Revelation? So that's where I make my point, if that verse truly meant that no more revelation was to be given and that you shouldn't put books into the Bible after Revelation was written, then that rule was broken long ago. About the modern revelation being taken as the inspired word of God, it very well could be truly inspired of God. He never said revelation would cease just because the original apostles died. I want to know why believing in modern revelation is such a bad thing? Why it's seen as being sacreligious(sp?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 9:16 pm
Shadows-shine Semiremis Shadows-shine I will re-quote what I wrote in another thread about those over used and highly misunderstood verses in the book of Revelation when it comes to LDS theology. Passage Revelation 22:18-19: Quote: 18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Look at the wording in those verses that have been cited. It says "this book of prophecy". John the Revelator is talking about the book of Revelation specifically. If there was to be no revelation after the Book of Revelation was written, which was written in about 95AD or 96AD, then John broke his own rule and so did several other biblical prophets. The Gospel of John was dated 96 to 104AD and was thought to have been written by Ephesus. All three of John's epistles were believed to have been written about the same time that the Gospel of John (96 to 104AD). Also if stopping future revelation was the purpose of these scriptures that have been cited, then the saints of John's day and for undreds of years afterwards greatly misunderstood this scripture. The Book of Revelation was a separate document for hundreds of years before it was assembled with the other writings of the scriptural library that we call the Bible. Bible comes from the Greek word "ta biblia" meaning "the books". So John was only referring to the words that were written specifically in the book of Revelation. Hence his wording "the words of the prophecy of this book". You know what else? This same prohibition that have been cited is also found in Deuteronomy 4:2; 13:32. Does that mean that all scripture revealed after the Pentateuch (the first five books of the OT) are invalid? You agree with me that it does not, right? So why would the similar statement found in the NT invalidate all modern revelation? The Book of Revelation was not meant to be the end of revealed scripture, it was just a recording of all the warnings of future events to come. Plus the Bible itself talks about additional scripture that is to come forth (Isaiah 29; Ezekiel 37) and future revelations (Matthew 17:11; Luke 10:22; John 16:12-15; Acts 2:17-18; James 1:5). The Book of Revelation itself even talks about future prophets and revelations from Heaven (Revelation 11:3; 14:6). Also, let me add that the Bible says that revelation is part of the true Church iteslf. (See Amos 3:7; 1 Corinthians 14:29-33, 37-39). There is no Deuteronomy 13:32. Deuteronomy 4:2 is being addressed to the Israelites who would fall away and start worshipping false Gods, they're being told that the statutes of the one and only God are what need to be followed, nothing more and nothing less. If you believe the bible is the inspired word of God then the fact that the very last book of the bible says that: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. Should at least bring a word of caution. So you think that the message being given is that we shouldn't pick up the book of revelation and add to it more revelation? Forgive me it was a typo. I will find the proper verse that I meant to quote, then post it in here when I get the chance. Besides, did you even take into account that the Book of Revelation wasn't added to the Bible until several hundred years later? And that the Book of John and the Epistles of John were not written until after the Book of Revelation? So that's where I make my point, if that verse truly meant that no more revelation was to be given and that you shouldn't put books into the Bible after Revelation was written, then that rule was broken long ago. About the modern revelation being taken as the inspired word of God, it very well could be truly inspired of God. He never said revelation would cease just because the original apostles died. I want to know why believing in modern revelation is such a bad thing? Why it's seen as being sacreligious(sp?) eh, the Catholic Church accepts the possibility of private revelation although she rarely acknowledges it definitively, its more of as long as nothing in it contradicts the word of God then it is up to the individual Catholic to search their soul and decide for themselves what they think. It's not the idea of modern revelations that troubles me, its when they so clearly contradict the bible and try to make themselves a greater authority then the bible that I really get concerned. So for me the problem lies in the type of revelation. Is it adding on through a clarification in meaning, or is it adding on with new content? I'm not completely sure what was meant in the Book of Revelation on this topic. It's something to think about though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 7:48 am
Semiremis Shadows-shine Semiremis Shadows-shine I will re-quote what I wrote in another thread about those over used and highly misunderstood verses in the book of Revelation when it comes to LDS theology. Passage Revelation 22:18-19: Quote: 18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Look at the wording in those verses that have been cited. It says "this book of prophecy". John the Revelator is talking about the book of Revelation specifically. If there was to be no revelation after the Book of Revelation was written, which was written in about 95AD or 96AD, then John broke his own rule and so did several other biblical prophets. The Gospel of John was dated 96 to 104AD and was thought to have been written by Ephesus. All three of John's epistles were believed to have been written about the same time that the Gospel of John (96 to 104AD). Also if stopping future revelation was the purpose of these scriptures that have been cited, then the saints of John's day and for undreds of years afterwards greatly misunderstood this scripture. The Book of Revelation was a separate document for hundreds of years before it was assembled with the other writings of the scriptural library that we call the Bible. Bible comes from the Greek word "ta biblia" meaning "the books". So John was only referring to the words that were written specifically in the book of Revelation. Hence his wording "the words of the prophecy of this book". You know what else? This same prohibition that have been cited is also found in Deuteronomy 4:2; 13:32. Does that mean that all scripture revealed after the Pentateuch (the first five books of the OT) are invalid? You agree with me that it does not, right? So why would the similar statement found in the NT invalidate all modern revelation? The Book of Revelation was not meant to be the end of revealed scripture, it was just a recording of all the warnings of future events to come. Plus the Bible itself talks about additional scripture that is to come forth (Isaiah 29; Ezekiel 37) and future revelations (Matthew 17:11; Luke 10:22; John 16:12-15; Acts 2:17-18; James 1:5). The Book of Revelation itself even talks about future prophets and revelations from Heaven (Revelation 11:3; 14:6). Also, let me add that the Bible says that revelation is part of the true Church iteslf. (See Amos 3:7; 1 Corinthians 14:29-33, 37-39). There is no Deuteronomy 13:32. Deuteronomy 4:2 is being addressed to the Israelites who would fall away and start worshipping false Gods, they're being told that the statutes of the one and only God are what need to be followed, nothing more and nothing less. If you believe the bible is the inspired word of God then the fact that the very last book of the bible says that: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. Should at least bring a word of caution. So you think that the message being given is that we shouldn't pick up the book of revelation and add to it more revelation? Forgive me it was a typo. I will find the proper verse that I meant to quote, then post it in here when I get the chance. Besides, did you even take into account that the Book of Revelation wasn't added to the Bible until several hundred years later? And that the Book of John and the Epistles of John were not written until after the Book of Revelation? So that's where I make my point, if that verse truly meant that no more revelation was to be given and that you shouldn't put books into the Bible after Revelation was written, then that rule was broken long ago. About the modern revelation being taken as the inspired word of God, it very well could be truly inspired of God. He never said revelation would cease just because the original apostles died. I want to know why believing in modern revelation is such a bad thing? Why it's seen as being sacreligious(sp?) eh, the Catholic Church accepts the possibility of private revelation although she rarely acknowledges it definitively, its more of as long as nothing in it contradicts the word of God then it is up to the individual Catholic to search their soul and decide for themselves what they think. It's not the idea of modern revelations that troubles me, its when they so clearly contradict the bible and try to make themselves a greater authority then the bible that I really get concerned. So for me the problem lies in the type of revelation. Is it adding on through a clarification in meaning, or is it adding on with new content? I'm not completely sure what was meant in the Book of Revelation on this topic. It's something to think about though. The modern revelation that I believe doesn't contradict nor does it take authority away from the Bible. I believe it was given help clarify the doctrines that were revealed within the Bible. What do mean when you say "adding on with new content?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 7:15 pm
Shadows-shine Semiremis Shadows-shine Semiremis Shadows-shine I will re-quote what I wrote in another thread about those over used and highly misunderstood verses in the book of Revelation when it comes to LDS theology. Passage Revelation 22:18-19: Quote: 18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Look at the wording in those verses that have been cited. It says "this book of prophecy". John the Revelator is talking about the book of Revelation specifically. If there was to be no revelation after the Book of Revelation was written, which was written in about 95AD or 96AD, then John broke his own rule and so did several other biblical prophets. The Gospel of John was dated 96 to 104AD and was thought to have been written by Ephesus. All three of John's epistles were believed to have been written about the same time that the Gospel of John (96 to 104AD). Also if stopping future revelation was the purpose of these scriptures that have been cited, then the saints of John's day and for undreds of years afterwards greatly misunderstood this scripture. The Book of Revelation was a separate document for hundreds of years before it was assembled with the other writings of the scriptural library that we call the Bible. Bible comes from the Greek word "ta biblia" meaning "the books". So John was only referring to the words that were written specifically in the book of Revelation. Hence his wording "the words of the prophecy of this book". You know what else? This same prohibition that have been cited is also found in Deuteronomy 4:2; 13:32. Does that mean that all scripture revealed after the Pentateuch (the first five books of the OT) are invalid? You agree with me that it does not, right? So why would the similar statement found in the NT invalidate all modern revelation? The Book of Revelation was not meant to be the end of revealed scripture, it was just a recording of all the warnings of future events to come. Plus the Bible itself talks about additional scripture that is to come forth (Isaiah 29; Ezekiel 37) and future revelations (Matthew 17:11; Luke 10:22; John 16:12-15; Acts 2:17-18; James 1:5). The Book of Revelation itself even talks about future prophets and revelations from Heaven (Revelation 11:3; 14:6). Also, let me add that the Bible says that revelation is part of the true Church iteslf. (See Amos 3:7; 1 Corinthians 14:29-33, 37-39). There is no Deuteronomy 13:32. Deuteronomy 4:2 is being addressed to the Israelites who would fall away and start worshipping false Gods, they're being told that the statutes of the one and only God are what need to be followed, nothing more and nothing less. If you believe the bible is the inspired word of God then the fact that the very last book of the bible says that: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. Should at least bring a word of caution. So you think that the message being given is that we shouldn't pick up the book of revelation and add to it more revelation? Forgive me it was a typo. I will find the proper verse that I meant to quote, then post it in here when I get the chance. Besides, did you even take into account that the Book of Revelation wasn't added to the Bible until several hundred years later? And that the Book of John and the Epistles of John were not written until after the Book of Revelation? So that's where I make my point, if that verse truly meant that no more revelation was to be given and that you shouldn't put books into the Bible after Revelation was written, then that rule was broken long ago. About the modern revelation being taken as the inspired word of God, it very well could be truly inspired of God. He never said revelation would cease just because the original apostles died. I want to know why believing in modern revelation is such a bad thing? Why it's seen as being sacreligious(sp?) eh, the Catholic Church accepts the possibility of private revelation although she rarely acknowledges it definitively, its more of as long as nothing in it contradicts the word of God then it is up to the individual Catholic to search their soul and decide for themselves what they think. It's not the idea of modern revelations that troubles me, its when they so clearly contradict the bible and try to make themselves a greater authority then the bible that I really get concerned. So for me the problem lies in the type of revelation. Is it adding on through a clarification in meaning, or is it adding on with new content? I'm not completely sure what was meant in the Book of Revelation on this topic. It's something to think about though. The modern revelation that I believe doesn't contradict nor does it take authority away from the Bible. I believe it was given help clarify the doctrines that were revealed within the Bible. What do mean when you say "adding on with new content?" I mean not simply serving to illuminate what is already in the bible, adding on with new content would be adding by saying that we can all become Gods for example. The bible says there is only one God so that would be new content plus a complete contradiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 7:23 pm
Semiremis Shadows-shine Semiremis Shadows-shine Semiremis There is no Deuteronomy 13:32. Deuteronomy 4:2 is being addressed to the Israelites who would fall away and start worshipping false Gods, they're being told that the statutes of the one and only God are what need to be followed, nothing more and nothing less. If you believe the bible is the inspired word of God then the fact that the very last book of the bible says that: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. Should at least bring a word of caution. So you think that the message being given is that we shouldn't pick up the book of revelation and add to it more revelation? Forgive me it was a typo. I will find the proper verse that I meant to quote, then post it in here when I get the chance. Besides, did you even take into account that the Book of Revelation wasn't added to the Bible until several hundred years later? And that the Book of John and the Epistles of John were not written until after the Book of Revelation? So that's where I make my point, if that verse truly meant that no more revelation was to be given and that you shouldn't put books into the Bible after Revelation was written, then that rule was broken long ago. About the modern revelation being taken as the inspired word of God, it very well could be truly inspired of God. He never said revelation would cease just because the original apostles died. I want to know why believing in modern revelation is such a bad thing? Why it's seen as being sacreligious(sp?) eh, the Catholic Church accepts the possibility of private revelation although she rarely acknowledges it definitively, its more of as long as nothing in it contradicts the word of God then it is up to the individual Catholic to search their soul and decide for themselves what they think. It's not the idea of modern revelations that troubles me, its when they so clearly contradict the bible and try to make themselves a greater authority then the bible that I really get concerned. So for me the problem lies in the type of revelation. Is it adding on through a clarification in meaning, or is it adding on with new content? I'm not completely sure what was meant in the Book of Revelation on this topic. It's something to think about though. The modern revelation that I believe doesn't contradict nor does it take authority away from the Bible. I believe it was given help clarify the doctrines that were revealed within the Bible. What do mean when you say "adding on with new content?" I mean not simply serving to illuminate what is already in the bible, adding on with new content would be adding by saying that we can all become Gods for example. The bible says there is only one God so that would be new content plus a complete contradiction. Where does the Bible teach contrary to the idea of deification? Yes I know of the ten commandments and the verses out of Isaiah, but those verses are talking about idol worship, i.e. the idols made out of wood, silver, stone, etc. The man made gods. EDIT: Modern revelation doesn't talk about deification. That doctrine from the Bible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 9:38 pm
Shadows-shine Semiremis Shadows-shine Semiremis Shadows-shine Semiremis There is no Deuteronomy 13:32. Deuteronomy 4:2 is being addressed to the Israelites who would fall away and start worshipping false Gods, they're being told that the statutes of the one and only God are what need to be followed, nothing more and nothing less. If you believe the bible is the inspired word of God then the fact that the very last book of the bible says that: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. Should at least bring a word of caution. So you think that the message being given is that we shouldn't pick up the book of revelation and add to it more revelation? Forgive me it was a typo. I will find the proper verse that I meant to quote, then post it in here when I get the chance. Besides, did you even take into account that the Book of Revelation wasn't added to the Bible until several hundred years later? And that the Book of John and the Epistles of John were not written until after the Book of Revelation? So that's where I make my point, if that verse truly meant that no more revelation was to be given and that you shouldn't put books into the Bible after Revelation was written, then that rule was broken long ago. About the modern revelation being taken as the inspired word of God, it very well could be truly inspired of God. He never said revelation would cease just because the original apostles died. I want to know why believing in modern revelation is such a bad thing? Why it's seen as being sacreligious(sp?) eh, the Catholic Church accepts the possibility of private revelation although she rarely acknowledges it definitively, its more of as long as nothing in it contradicts the word of God then it is up to the individual Catholic to search their soul and decide for themselves what they think. It's not the idea of modern revelations that troubles me, its when they so clearly contradict the bible and try to make themselves a greater authority then the bible that I really get concerned. So for me the problem lies in the type of revelation. Is it adding on through a clarification in meaning, or is it adding on with new content? I'm not completely sure what was meant in the Book of Revelation on this topic. It's something to think about though. The modern revelation that I believe doesn't contradict nor does it take authority away from the Bible. I believe it was given help clarify the doctrines that were revealed within the Bible. What do mean when you say "adding on with new content?" I mean not simply serving to illuminate what is already in the bible, adding on with new content would be adding by saying that we can all become Gods for example. The bible says there is only one God so that would be new content plus a complete contradiction. Where does the Bible teach contrary to the idea of deification? Yes I know of the ten commandments and the verses out of Isaiah, but those verses are talking about idol worship, i.e. the idols made out of wood, silver, stone, etc. The man made gods. EDIT: Modern revelation doesn't talk about deification. That doctrine from the Bible. Ugh, I just typed out a response and it got erased gonk God's oneness and the fact that he is the alpha and omega, the only God that ever was and ever will be is littered throughout the bible, it's stated plainly is Isaiah and regardless of whether or not it was a response to idol worship the message is still clear, he says: 5 I am the Lord, and there is none else: there is no God besides me:How much more clear can it be? The entire bible backs this up, you can't explain away what is true and clearly laid out. James 2:19 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well: the devils also believe and tremble.
Ephesians 4:4 4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
1 Chronicles 17:20 20 O Lord there is none like you: and here is no other God beside you, of all whom we have heard of with our ears(That isn't in response to idol worship) Deuteronomy 4:35-39 35 That you might know that the Lord he is God, and there is no other besides him. 36 From heaven he made you to hear his voice, that he might teach you. And upon earth he showed you his exceeding great fire, and you heard his words out of the midst of the fire, 37 because he loved your fathers, and chose their seed after them. And he brought you out of Egypt, going before you with his great power, 38 to destroy at your coming very great nations, and stronger than you are, and to bring you in, and give you their land for a possession, as you see at this present day. 39 Know therefore this day, and think in your heart that the Lord he is God in heaven above, and in the earth beneath, and there is no other.Your theology must have come from Joseph Smith, it's not in the bible and you say it's not in the book of Mormon: There is no ultimate disparity between the divine and human natures; Joseph Smith asserted that mankind is of the same species as God, having been made in God's image (theomorphism) and being eternal, with unlimited capacity (TPJS, pp. 345-46). One early LDS leader proclaimed, "As man now is, God once was. As God now is, man may be" (Lorenzo Snow). Latter-day Saints speak of man as a God in embryo and of Jesus Christ as mankind's elder brother. A favorite LDS children's hymn is titled "I Am a Child of God."http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/christ/christology.htmlNo where in the bible does it even hint that God once was as we are now, if the fact that he is the one and only God isn't clear enough then the fact that he always was as he is should be: Rev. 1:1 8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.There is not even the slightest intimation in the bible that God was like us at one point, again we run into another stark contradiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 7:25 am
Semiremis Shadows-shine Semiremis Shadows-shine Semiremis eh, the Catholic Church accepts the possibility of private revelation although she rarely acknowledges it definitively, its more of as long as nothing in it contradicts the word of God then it is up to the individual Catholic to search their soul and decide for themselves what they think. It's not the idea of modern revelations that troubles me, its when they so clearly contradict the bible and try to make themselves a greater authority then the bible that I really get concerned. So for me the problem lies in the type of revelation. Is it adding on through a clarification in meaning, or is it adding on with new content? I'm not completely sure what was meant in the Book of Revelation on this topic. It's something to think about though. The modern revelation that I believe doesn't contradict nor does it take authority away from the Bible. I believe it was given help clarify the doctrines that were revealed within the Bible. What do mean when you say "adding on with new content?" I mean not simply serving to illuminate what is already in the bible, adding on with new content would be adding by saying that we can all become Gods for example. The bible says there is only one God so that would be new content plus a complete contradiction. Where does the Bible teach contrary to the idea of deification? Yes I know of the ten commandments and the verses out of Isaiah, but those verses are talking about idol worship, i.e. the idols made out of wood, silver, stone, etc. The man made gods. EDIT: Modern revelation doesn't talk about deification. That doctrine from the Bible. Ugh, I just typed out a response and it got erased gonk God's oneness and the fact that he is the alpha and omega, the only God that ever was and ever will be is littered throughout the bible, it's stated plainly is Isaiah and regardless of whether or not it was a response to idol worship the message is still clear, he says: 5 I am the Lord, and there is none else: there is no God besides me:How much more clear can it be? The entire bible backs this up, you can't explain away what is true and clearly laid out. James 2:19 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well: the devils also believe and tremble.
Ephesians 4:4 4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
1 Chronicles 17:20 20 O Lord there is none like you: and here is no other God beside you, of all whom we have heard of with our ears(That isn't in response to idol worship) Deuteronomy 4:35-39 35 That you might know that the Lord he is God, and there is no other besides him. 36 From heaven he made you to hear his voice, that he might teach you. And upon earth he showed you his exceeding great fire, and you heard his words out of the midst of the fire, 37 because he loved your fathers, and chose their seed after them. And he brought you out of Egypt, going before you with his great power, 38 to destroy at your coming very great nations, and stronger than you are, and to bring you in, and give you their land for a possession, as you see at this present day. 39 Know therefore this day, and think in your heart that the Lord he is God in heaven above, and in the earth beneath, and there is no other.Your theology must have come from Joseph Smith, it's not in the bible and you say it's not in the book of Mormon: There is no ultimate disparity between the divine and human natures; Joseph Smith asserted that mankind is of the same species as God, having been made in God's image (theomorphism) and being eternal, with unlimited capacity (TPJS, pp. 345-46). One early LDS leader proclaimed, "As man now is, God once was. As God now is, man may be" (Lorenzo Snow). Latter-day Saints speak of man as a God in embryo and of Jesus Christ as mankind's elder brother. A favorite LDS children's hymn is titled "I Am a Child of God."http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/christ/christology.htmlNo where in the bible does it even hint that God once was as we are now, if the fact that he is the one and only God isn't clear enough then the fact that he always was as he is should be: Rev. 1:1 8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.There is not even the slightest intimation in the bible that God was like us at one point, again we run into another stark contradiction. If you believe that the Bible is the true word of God, but you don't believe in deification and you believe the Bible doesn't contradict itself then how do you explain the fact that it's littered through out the bible that we can become deified? As for what Lorenzo Snow said no one can tell if he was speaking as a prophet or if it was his speculation about the verse in Genesis that says we were created in God's image and likeness. And also, I don't worry about the origins of Heavenly Father because it's not required for my salvation. If He wanted us to know where He came from and how He came about He would have revealed it. And that popular children's hymn has nothing to do with deification.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 8:01 pm
Shadows-shine Semiremis Shadows-shine Semiremis Shadows-shine Semiremis eh, the Catholic Church accepts the possibility of private revelation although she rarely acknowledges it definitively, its more of as long as nothing in it contradicts the word of God then it is up to the individual Catholic to search their soul and decide for themselves what they think. It's not the idea of modern revelations that troubles me, its when they so clearly contradict the bible and try to make themselves a greater authority then the bible that I really get concerned. So for me the problem lies in the type of revelation. Is it adding on through a clarification in meaning, or is it adding on with new content? I'm not completely sure what was meant in the Book of Revelation on this topic. It's something to think about though. The modern revelation that I believe doesn't contradict nor does it take authority away from the Bible. I believe it was given help clarify the doctrines that were revealed within the Bible. What do mean when you say "adding on with new content?" I mean not simply serving to illuminate what is already in the bible, adding on with new content would be adding by saying that we can all become Gods for example. The bible says there is only one God so that would be new content plus a complete contradiction. Where does the Bible teach contrary to the idea of deification? Yes I know of the ten commandments and the verses out of Isaiah, but those verses are talking about idol worship, i.e. the idols made out of wood, silver, stone, etc. The man made gods. EDIT: Modern revelation doesn't talk about deification. That doctrine from the Bible. Ugh, I just typed out a response and it got erased gonk God's oneness and the fact that he is the alpha and omega, the only God that ever was and ever will be is littered throughout the bible, it's stated plainly is Isaiah and regardless of whether or not it was a response to idol worship the message is still clear, he says: 5 I am the Lord, and there is none else: there is no God besides me:How much more clear can it be? The entire bible backs this up, you can't explain away what is true and clearly laid out. James 2:19 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well: the devils also believe and tremble.
Ephesians 4:4 4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
1 Chronicles 17:20 20 O Lord there is none like you: and here is no other God beside you, of all whom we have heard of with our ears(That isn't in response to idol worship) Deuteronomy 4:35-39 35 That you might know that the Lord he is God, and there is no other besides him. 36 From heaven he made you to hear his voice, that he might teach you. And upon earth he showed you his exceeding great fire, and you heard his words out of the midst of the fire, 37 because he loved your fathers, and chose their seed after them. And he brought you out of Egypt, going before you with his great power, 38 to destroy at your coming very great nations, and stronger than you are, and to bring you in, and give you their land for a possession, as you see at this present day. 39 Know therefore this day, and think in your heart that the Lord he is God in heaven above, and in the earth beneath, and there is no other.Your theology must have come from Joseph Smith, it's not in the bible and you say it's not in the book of Mormon: There is no ultimate disparity between the divine and human natures; Joseph Smith asserted that mankind is of the same species as God, having been made in God's image (theomorphism) and being eternal, with unlimited capacity (TPJS, pp. 345-46). One early LDS leader proclaimed, "As man now is, God once was. As God now is, man may be" (Lorenzo Snow). Latter-day Saints speak of man as a God in embryo and of Jesus Christ as mankind's elder brother. A favorite LDS children's hymn is titled "I Am a Child of God."http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/christ/christology.htmlNo where in the bible does it even hint that God once was as we are now, if the fact that he is the one and only God isn't clear enough then the fact that he always was as he is should be: Rev. 1:1 8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.There is not even the slightest intimation in the bible that God was like us at one point, again we run into another stark contradiction. If you believe that the Bible is the true word of God, but you don't believe in deification and you believe the Bible doesn't contradict itself then how do you explain the fact that it's littered through out the bible that we can become deified? It's no where in the bible... It's contradicted by the bible through God himself saying he is the one and only God and through him saying he always was and always will be... You can't get by those passages, they are very clear. All you have is one obscure passage that uses figurative language which you take literally and obviously since God himself says he is the one and only God, that there are no others besides him, it's not meant literally. You don't even have to go so far as the rest of the bible: Palm 82 6 I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; 7 nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.” [1] Are you a God? Were the men being told "you are gods" were they Gods? No. They were human beings, do you deny that? Is God a liar? No. Therefore the language use was figurative, it had to have been unless you think God is capable of lying. God doesn't say "you will be Gods, you will die like men but then you will become Gods in the future" If he did than you may have something but he doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 9:15 pm
What does it mean in the scriptures then, take Psalm 136:2, where it says, "Give thanks unto the God of gods?" Who are the other gods then?
What does it mean in 1 Corinthians 8:5? So then isn't Paul acknowledging that there are gods? If there be only God, then why does he acknowlege gods? Yes there is only one Heavenly Father, I know. And in vs. 6 of the same chapter, it says we are in Him, how can we have that status or glory if we aren't capable of being gods ourselves?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 11:19 pm
Shadows-shine What does it mean in the scriptures then, take Psalm 136:2, where it says, "Give thanks unto the God of gods?" Who are the other gods then? What does it mean in 1 Corinthians 8:5? So then isn't Paul acknowledging that there are gods? If there be only God, then why does he acknowlege gods? Yes there is only one Heavenly Father, I know. And in vs. 6 of the same chapter, it says we are in Him, how can we have that status or glory if we aren't capable of being gods ourselves? They are the ones in which others believed in at the time, the world they lived in was full of Gods, does that make them a reality? It most certainly does not but what it does do is establish the greatness of God. Paul mentions the "so-called Gods" He's addressing the Gods that others believe in, he goes on to affirm that there is only one God. Why does he call them "so-called Gods" if he believes there to actually be other Gods, and why would he immediately after affirm that they (others like him) only believe in one God?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 10:04 am
Semiremis Shadows-shine What does it mean in the scriptures then, take Psalm 136:2, where it says, "Give thanks unto the God of gods?" Who are the other gods then? What does it mean in 1 Corinthians 8:5? So then isn't Paul acknowledging that there are gods? If there be only God, then why does he acknowlege gods? Yes there is only one Heavenly Father, I know. And in vs. 6 of the same chapter, it says we are in Him, how can we have that status or glory if we aren't capable of being gods ourselves? They are the ones in which others believed in at the time, the world they lived in was full of Gods, does that make them a reality? It most certainly does not but what it does do is establish the greatness of God. Paul mentions the "so-called Gods" He's addressing the Gods that others believe in, he goes on to affirm that there is only one God. Why does he call them "so-called Gods" if he believes there to actually be other Gods, and why would he immediately after affirm that they (others like him) only believe in one God? I would like to add that the Judges/rulers of nations were known as "gods" sometimes. And many times, when the word "gods" is used by God, he is using it sarcastically/to make a point.
Kind of like when Elijah was mocking the pagans, saying "where are your Gods now," etc, etc.,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
