Why Do LDS Dismiss the Greater Part of the New Testament?

[_Albion]

The brotherhood of the insult.

[_Albion]

gdemetz, your scattergun approach has little meaning. Merely quoting the use of words is not substance. "Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it," Jesus said. I'll take his words over your interpretations.

[_Franktalk]

gdemetz, your scattergun approach has little meaning. Merely quoting the use of words is not substance. "Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it," Jesus said. I'll take his words over your interpretations.

Let us say that Peter represents the church. Then:

Mat 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offense unto me: for thou savorest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

So within a short period of time Peter (the church in your opinion) turned to Satan and accepted the things of man. In this Peter does represent the church. But the foundation of the church in truth is the spiritual communication that Peter received from the Father. That is solid and will not break like Peter did. Did you not read what Jesus said? He said the gates of hell will not prevail against it. So how can Peter then turn to Satan? And the whole of the RCC is based on this weak analysis of scripture. Yet the communication of the Father has never submitted to the gates of hell. Can't you see this or are you blind?

[_Albion]

I am not quite sure exactly what you are driving at here but I do read your post as a reaffirmation of the Mormon position on these verses. Firstly, I do not see Peter as being singled out as "the church". For that matter I do not see Christ's church as an defined institutional entity the way Mormons do, preferring the original interpretation of the word which is "the body of believers" or "called out ones". Jesus' words in verses 17 through 19 follow on from Peter's declaration in response to Jesus' question about who Peter believed him to be. Peter clearly responds, "You are the Christ (the Messiah) the Son of the Living God." Jesus acknowledges that Peter knows this only from a spiritual source and not from any earthly source. Jesus then proceeds with a statement that has various interpretations: "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades (hell) will not will not overcome it." I am quoting from the NIV, perhaps the most scholarly modern translation of the Bible. I personally prefer the KJV use of the word prevail since gates are a defensive element rather than an attacking element and the original intent of the verse, I believe, is that the gates of hell will not be victorious in holding off the assault of Christ's church WHICH WILL prevail against everything.

In the original Greek from which Matthew was translated there are two word used for rock. When referring to Peter (whose name we know means rock) the Greek word Petros is used. However, when referring to the rock on which the church will be built, the Greek word used is Petra...different words with slightly different meanings. Catholicism mainly believes that Peter is the rock on which the church is built. I do not accept this and there is certainly no inference in word usage the excludes the other disciples. Others interpret Peter's confession of Christ as the rock...the firm attestation that Jesus is the Son of the Living God....as the foundational belief of Christ's church. Not the way he received this information....but the firm confession of belief that is the heart of Christian theology...Jesus is the Son of God, second person of the Trinity, and God incarnate.

I have a great deal of empathy for that interpretation though I believe without debate that Jesus is the rock on which his church is built. Unfortunately words do not convey everything about a conversation...they do not show the body language as it were. I prefer the interpretation that Jesus, perhaps pointing to himself, said in essence: "You are Peter, ( Petros, a little rock) and on this big rock (Petra...me) I will build my church." I reject completely, as does Christianity, that the process of revelation has greater importance than the declaration and substance of Peter's declaration. Emphatically, Jesus is the rock on which his church is built.

These verse are followed by those you used in your post. Here Peter, still a very human disciple with faith that hit highs and lows with great frequency, rebukes Jesus for even suggesting that death at the hands of the religious establishment is in his future. "Never, Lord! This shall never happen to you!" Jesus sharp words in response reflect a very strong emotion...similar words and emotion as Jesus used again Satan who tried to tempt him away from his mission. One Christian writer puts it: "In this suggestion that he might obtain the crown without the cross...Christ saw the recurrence of the temptation which had offered Him the glory of those kingdoms on condition of His drawing back from the path which the Father had appointed for him"

Unless you are assuming that I take the RC position of Peter as the rock I see no reason why you are connection these verses. Verse 21`suggests a time interval of undetermined length between the two incidents. One didn't happen right after the other.

[_Franktalk]

Albion,

A good post by the way. I like the idea that you think that Jesus is referring to the declaration that He is the Christ as the rock of the church. That is obviously the foundation. Not so sure about reference to revelation. Any revelation from God will never disagree with Christ as the rock. I too think that body language could tell a different story. I too have often thought that Christ pointed to Himself when He said this rock. I will add some more comments later.

But let me add that each of us that declares Christ the Son of God received that message from the Father. So by extension both the spiritual and the declaration are in view.

[_moksha]

Moksha, my immediate response is...huh? What has any of that got to do with the shady character of Joseph Smith. To my knowledge, Trump hasn't been convicted in a court of law for "glass looking" and makes no claim to prophetic ability.

However Trump is an excellent promoter and salesman. The entity on his head would not permit disclosure of prophetic ability.

[_gdemetz]

Albion, as usual, your brain is having a hard time piecing everything together! Yes, there was an apostasy. It is very obvious that there was since it was mentioned in so many scriptures. Of course, the gates of hell will not prevail against it in the end! However, the scriptures clearly state that the beast made war with the saints and overcame them! That was for the 1260 year period. The saints lost the battle, not the war! You need your own Papa Joe version of the Bible because you obviously don't understand and except the KJ as well as nearly all of the other versions!

[_Franktalk]

gdemetz,

We have to consider that all of us are on a path. Six years ago I had not read the Bible. Since then I have made progress but each year brings new revelations. So next year I will have slightly modified views of scripture. My studies have brought me to the point I am at. But in all of this I know very little and will wait for the end for all of the detail that is sure to come. So I see all of us at different points on our personal path. And not all people will arrive at the same understanding. This is part of the mystery of God. The gift of scriptural discernment is not universal so we will struggle as a people this is part of what we must live through. It is hard to separate a persons attitude from error in scripture. But that is what we must do to be fair. A person who is on an early path may never reach where others go. Only God knows what we need and He will bring each of us to what we need. In this we must trust God. It is hard but I respect all opinions of scripture. What is most important is the desire to know God. What is not so important are the details. There is but one truth but no man knows it all or has an errorless doctrine. We are all men after all and what we do is always filled with error. So that good feeling we get when we feel we have achieved an understanding should never be used as a club. We should instead explain our views and let God do what God will do to others. I know for a fact that I can bring no one to God and will bring no one to understanding except that they accept God's revelation. But I know also that what they receive will not be my understanding. For they are on one path and I am on another. This I know is true and the evidence of this truth is all around us in this sea of conflicting doctrine. Some of us love God and some of us love scripture. Those who love scripture have missed the target. The target is a living God not words on a page. If I read a book about my brother I may know my brother. But when I talk with my brother I come to love him. The same is true with God. Scripture is but a stepping stone to the living God. Although I know this I fail to apply this understanding all of the time. It does suck to be in this weak vessel. It is very hard to see our own weaknesses but easy to see the weakness of others.

[_Albion]

If these last two posts weren't so condescending, they would be almost amusing. I think the emperor has no clothes.

[_Albion]

gdemetz, the Bible is full of apostasies of various kinds. The Israelites were constantly falling away from obedience to God. Paul wrote various letters in an effort to bring believers back to the fold. Despite all of this there were those who remained steadfast. To suggest that Almighty God is the author of a failure is ludicrous in the extreme to me and Christianity as a whole but if that is the kind of god in whom you place your trust I am not sure he is worthy of that trust in the first place....perhaps it's only his "once a man side" showing through. Recently, while talking to students at Utah State University, Marlin Jensen (a highly placed Mormon) talked about those leaving Mormonism. He said: We've never had a period of, I'll call it apostasy, like we're having now." Even I, in my wildest hope, would not argue that the Mormon Church is in imminent threat of total collapse. I only wish it were. Yet here the man uses the term "apostasy". Mormonism claims 14 million "members", a total that most probably includes countless numbers under the age of about 100 whose names are still kept as members of record even though huge numbers of them have not cast a shadow on a Mormon church in years. Perhaps the "active" number, even taking into account those who only attend on special family event days (blessings...baptisms and such) is at best maybe 5 million worldwide for an organization that has been going for a little under 200 years (if you count either 1820 or 1830 as the start date). Even in an average ward it is the smaller percentage that are "worthy" enough to have a temple recommend bringing the TBM percentage way down. And yet you claim that this organization is the answer to a claimed complete failure of Christ's church. Now I will admit that numbers are not necessarily an indicator of truth but clearly the Mormon Church is hardly a stranger to apostasy now is it, any more than the early church was?

I have been meaning to ask you, too, about the "man in the moon". More than once you have accused me of having no more intelligence than the "man in the moon".....is this the man in the moon that according to a Mormon "prophet" dresses like a Quaker? I am sorry to be flippant but I just couldn't resist.