What an idiotic post.
Another real lulu of a post.
My contention that esteem for the NT is a unique, definitive aspect
of Christianity is not challenged by the fact that different translations
are used, and different interpretations are accepted.
So by your refusal to add any debate content and to just respond with a useless contrariety post I will assume your stance is undefended and thus proven invalid.
Or are you claiming his translation was word for word correct? which still ignores the differences between his version of the NT and the one you claim is perfect.
If this is your claim by your refusal to provide any evidence your claim is still refuted.
By what right do you claim that a Mormon does not have esteem for the NT? And now are you saying that you admit that the NT is not perfect?
I did not claim so. If esteem for the NT was the only criterion, then LDS would be Christian.
Besides their esteem Christians consider the NT to be the final scripture. LDS has aded I think
three subsequent books of scripture.
I myself do not believe in NT perfection. I think it is fair and correct to say that
Christians do believe it perfectly conveys God’s doctrine.
Now, all your posts show a lack of familiarity with what I have previously written
in this thread. You will not get any more replies to anything which does not display
understanding of what you are trying to address.
Nice handwave.
“final scripture” excludes Catholics with their Pope? or the Anglicans with their Book of Prayer. What was the watershed event after Peter that ment that there could be no more visions?
Remember he never met the man in person, his “visits” by Jesus were post Crucifixion and in his mind. I see no reason to make a differentiation between that and someone having visions in upstate New York or An Infallible pope.
You are just ducking reality because you know your argument is weak at best.
As I indicated some 60 posts ago, it isn’t actually fair or correct to assert any such thing.
I meant it when I mentioned that it…
And, regarding your response:
You can’t wave away debate on whether or not the NT absolves any Christian of observing the OT (Matthew 5:17-20) any more than you can dismiss “sectarian disagreement as to the revelation’s precise meaning” of the NT while simultaneously asserting that its meaning is universally considered “perfect” by mainstream Christians; it’s a pretty poor shot at perfect revelation if two people can read it and come away with two (apparently) equally valid interpretations, isn’t it?
Why not just drop this whole perfection angle and try something else?
What about Catholics and their Pope?
The Pope’s pronouncements on Doctrine do not constitute a form of scriputure,
if that is what you are getting at. Never having been RC I cannot guarentee
I am expressing it right, but I believe papally announced doctrine is considered
interpretation of scripture.
The Book of* Common* Prayer is just that- prayer, and not a form of scripture.
I don’t know. Tell us about it.
Who never met who?
Definition of Christianity does not rely upon the structure of a priesthood or upon
anyone’s claim to have visions, both of which may be permitted as long a they do
not usurp the final preminence of Christ’s ministry or of the NT. Smith usurped both;
no Pope, to my knowledge, has ever tried to usurp either.
Try again.
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet
You are hung up on the denotation, it functions the same.
[
](Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText)
[
](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PM.HTM)
Or are you going to hand wave away cites from the Vatican too?
Note: Catholics use Matthew 18:18 and Luke 10:16 to justify this…quite similar to the LDS churches concept of their living profit.
Seeing as all the stories were mostly oral for several generations this seems to fit in with the “founders” ideals too.
Methinks you meant prophet.
You have yet to make any case. Let’s see what follows…
Please explain how the definition of Christianity depends on this debate
*I *certainly do not think the NT is any kind of perfect revelation, but I certainly do
think different sects believe so, and sectarian differences in interpreation are irrelevant.
Luther and Calvin were concurrently in their prime ca. 1530-1549, coinciding with
the reigns of Popes Clement VII and Paul III. Do you suppose any of these four gentlemen
considered the NT to be anything less than perfect despite their differing interpreations?
Because the perfection angle is the correct angle, and I am not yet tired of the effort
of defending it.
Yes fun with dysgraphia..sorry ZCMI was for “profit” of the church back in the day but that was a long time ago (although I find the beehive state still funny with Romeny being a Republican and all)
Methinks you meant prophet.
[/QUOTE]
…talking about Catholics he could have very well meant “profit.”
Zing!
I keed, I keed!..
Wait…so which biblical canon is perfect? The Council of Trent, Thirty-Nine Articles, the Westminster Confession of Faith, or the Synod of Jerusalem?
Which one do you have to view as perfect to be a Christian?
Or is it just as long as you use myths older than the steel plow that you can choose any one you like? (most of those canons are really modern BTW)
I have no idea what you are responding to with these citations.
See post #136.
The “tradition” is functionally the same as the “scripture” calling them two names doesn’t change their function.
When the Pope speaks “Ex Cathedra Pronouncements” they believe that “Peter speaks through” the pope.
“Ex Cathedra Pronouncements” hold the same weight as scripture and thus your delineation between the two is meaningless.
You can be impossibly condescending at times, you know?
So you hold that those who rightly consider themselves “Christian” assert that the NT is perfect and final- revisions, disagreements, ambiguities, and interpretations notwithstanding- and that Mormons, feeling the need to extend Biblical mythology beyond the NT, are reasonably disqualified from claiming the label, yes?
So the obvious question:
If revisions, disagreements, ambiguities, and interpretations don’t matter… why can’t the Mormons legitimately claim to interpret the NT in such a way that requires further revelation?
Are you sure you’re not rolling the goalposts around for the sake of exclusion just a little?
Pardon me. I meant see post #132.