Adding to the Bible?

[_jo1952]

I can say with confidence, that you are imagining things.

I can say with confidence that I got this information directly from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Blessings,

jo

[_jo1952]

Not at all. I acknowledge that many religions including LDS think it is fine to seek spiritual signs but not physical. MY point above was just the bring to light that for many like me, we were not seeking physical signs, but we did come across signs that showed our beliefs(LDS) incorrect. The point being it was not a lack of physical signs that caused a change in beliefs, but signs that showed the beliefs wrong.

That's why we call them spiritual, but don't go to far with it.

You went to far. The physical can have it's own evidence that shows certain claimed truths as false, even though many may believe them true through their spiritual experiences. The fact people can have conflicting beliefs shows just how unreliable they are.

Not really, but I just don't ignore the physical when it doesn't support what I want to believe.

Our physical senses can be fooled. Additionally, we can misinterpret data for different reasons; preconception, insufficient or incomplete data, agendas, etc. Science is an excellent example of different people interpreting the same data and coming up with differing conclusions. Politics, history, etc., are prone to the same differing interpretations. In fact, everything in our physical world follows this pattern; including the discussions on these forums.

Blessings,

jo

[Guest]

I can say with confidence, that you are imagining things.

I posted this before but maybe you did not read them.

I will now show a few examples of scriptural interpretation from the Roman Catholic Church. To start with I will quote some material from the Catholic Encyclopedia Volume 1 pages 597 and another on page 599. This section deals with the book of Revelation known as Apocalypse to the Catholics.

"…..From this cursory perusal of the book, it is evident that the seer was influenced by the prophecies of Daniel more than by any other book. Daniel was written with the object of comforting the Jews under the cruel persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes. The seer in the Apocalypse had a similar purpose. The Christians were fiercely persecuted in the reign of Domitian. The danger of apostasy was great. False prophets went about, trying to seduce the people to conform to the heathen practices and to take part in the Caesar-worship. The seer urges his Christians to remain true to their faith and to bear their troubles with fortitude. He encourages them with the promise of an ample and speedy reward. He assures them that Christ’s triumphant coming is at hand. Both in the beginning and at the end of the book the seer is most emphatic in telling his people that the hour of victory is nigh. He begins saying: “Blessed is he that…….keepeth those things which are written in it; for the time is at hand.” He closes his vision with the pathetic words: “He that giveth testimony of these things saith, surely I come quickly: Amen. Come Lord Jesus.” ………It would appear, and is so held by many, that the Christians of the Apostolic age expected that Christ would return during their own lifetime or generation. This seems to be the more obvious meaning of several passages both in Epistles and Gospels. The Christians of Asia Minor, and the seer with them, appear to have shared this fallacious expectation. Their mistaken hope, however, did not effect the soundness of their belief in the essential part of the dogma. Their views of a millennial period of corporal happiness were equally erroneous. The Church has wholly cast aside the doctrine of a millennium previous to the resurretion. St. Augustine has perhaps more than any one else helped to free the Church from all crude Fancies as regards its pleasures. He explained the millennium allegorically and applied it to the Church of Christ on earth. With the foundation of the Church the millennium began. The first resurrection is the spiritual resurrection of the soul from sin. Thus the number 1000 is to be taken indefinitely."

I want to point out a few things. First of all they say that John wrote about the coming of Christ as very near (in time) and in this they declare him “fallacious”. They also declare “The church has wholly cast aside the doctrine of a millennium previous to the resurrection.” So they have redefined the millennium as meaning something completely different than John was told in his vision. In this they completely ignore the warning at the end of the book.

Rev 22
18 For 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:
19 And 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.

And on page 599 of the Catholic encyclopedia we find this:

"…….To this objection, however, it may be answered that it was the custom of apocalyptic writers, e.g. of Daniel, Enoch, and the Sibylline books, to cast their visions into the form of prophecies of an earlier date. No literary fraud was thereby intended, it was merely a peculiar style of writing adopted as suiting their subject. The seer of the Apocalypse follows this practice."

http://oce.catholic.com/oce/browse-page ... ffb01d&o=g

and then search on apocalypse

Here they are saying that Daniel was written by someone else around 160 BC at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and it was not prophecy but a history of events that had already taken place. Daniel lived around 600 BC and wrote his book around 550 BC. But the big problem comes from scripture.

Mar 13:14
But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judea flee to the mountains:

These are words spoken by Jesus. Here Jesus declares that Daniel wrote the book of Daniel and that Daniel was a prophet. I don’t see how the Catholic Church can reconcile this conflict that their interpretation causes. Also the Book of Daniel was in the Septuagint way before 160 BC. Ask your self why would the church want the Book not to be a prophecy?
They also say that John followed the practice of writing after events had taken place yet John says:

Rev 1:3
Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

I have a hard time believing that John wrote a book saying it is a prophecy when in fact it was not. I am a futurist so I believe the events described in the book of Revelation have yet to take place. In my view John is telling the truth.

So do you believe as the RCC believes that Daniel did not write the book of Daniel? Do you believe as the RCC believes that the Book of Daniel was written around 160 BC by some unknown person? Do you believe as the RCC believes that the first resurrection was for the spirit and we are now in an indefinite millennium? Do you believe that John the beloved of Jesus wrote about past events but declared them prophecy? Do you believe that John is a liar?

The reason I use the old version of the Catholic Encyclopedia is because the current version has some statements stripped out. If indeed you wish to have that solid unchanging church then seek directly to God. No institution of man will stay true.

[_Themis]

Our physical senses can be fooled. Additionally, we can misinterpret data for different reasons; preconception, insufficient or incomplete data, agendas, etc. Science is an excellent example of different people interpreting the same data and coming up with differing conclusions. Politics, history, etc., are prone to the same differing interpretations. In fact, everything in our physical world follows this pattern; including the discussions on these forums.

Blessings,

jo

You should read what I wrote. I already said our senses can be fooled, both the 5 sense and our internal ones as well. Certain senses though have better results and much more agreement then others. Internal ones are the least agreed upon as we can see with different truth claims being made about them and why we have so many different religions. All our senses have to go through our brains so they are all going to have the same problems. Wise to see which works the best and don't ignore it to go with what we want.

[_jo1952]

You should read what I wrote. I already said our senses can be fooled, both the 5 sense and our internal ones as well. Certain senses though have better results and much more agreement then others. Internal ones are the least agreed upon as we can see with different truth claims being made about them and why we have so many different religions. All our senses have to go through our brains so they are all going to have the same problems. Wise to see which works the best and don't ignore it to go with what we want.

Indeed I did read what you wrote. Your last sentence to me which prompted my comment to which you are now responding, was this:

Not really, but I just don't ignore the physical when it doesn't support what I want to believe.

Inasmuch as we both agree that our senses can be fooled, HOW do we determine what is the "correct" interpretation of physical data? How do we determine if we are looking at complete data? For instance, just because we haven't been able to find something we are specifically looking for, does NOT mean that it does not exist. In the Mid-East new finds of ancient cities and civilizations are still being discovered. Many of the discoveries were not previously known to have existed. How do you propose we use wisdom "to see which works the best and don't ignore it to go with what we want"? We have the knowledge ahead of time that not only can our senses be fooled, but data may be incomplete (pieces of the puzzle may be missing which we don't even know exist), and we already recognize that people arrive at different conclusions when viewing the very same physical evidence?

What all of this boils down to is that you are offering to me that your interpretation is more correct because I don't agree with you.

Blessings,

jo

[_Themis]

You should read what I wrote. I already said our senses can be fooled, both the 5 sense and our internal ones as well. Certain senses though have better results and much more agreement then others. Internal ones are the least agreed upon as we can see with different truth claims being made about them and why we have so many different religions. All our senses have to go through our brains so they are all going to have the same problems. Wise to see which works the best and don't ignore it to go with what we want.

Indeed I did read what you wrote. Your last sentence to me which prompted my comment to which you are now responding, was this:

Not really, but I just don't ignore the physical when it doesn't support what I want to believe.

Inasmuch as we both agree that our senses can be fooled, HOW do we determine what is the "correct" interpretation of physical data? How do we determine if we are looking at complete data? For instance, just because we haven't been able to find something we are specifically looking for, does NOT mean that it does not exist. In the Mid-East new finds of ancient cities and civilizations are still being discovered. Many of the discoveries were not previously known to have existed. How do you propose we use wisdom "to see which works the best and don't ignore it to go with what we want"? We have the knowledge ahead of time that not only can our senses be fooled, but data may be incomplete (pieces of the puzzle may be missing which we don't even know exist), and we already recognize that people arrive at different conclusions when viewing the very same physical evidence?

What all of this boils down to is that you are offering to me that your interpretation is more correct because I don't agree with you.

Blessings,

jo

You are describing the problems for all our senses, the ones you want to call physical or spiritual, which are all filtered through the brain. Now getting the right interpretation really is based on reliability or what works. I bring this up over and over again but it keeps being largely ignored. Why do most people trust their sight more often then there other senses?

[_jo1952]

You are describing the problems for all our senses, the ones you want to call physical or spiritual, which are all filtered through the brain. Now getting the right interpretation really is based on reliability or what works. I bring this up over and over again but it keeps being largely ignored. Why do most people trust their sight more often then there other senses?

I trust my spiritual senses more than my physical senses; for me this has been extremely reliable and it works. Why do most people trust their sight more often than there other senses? Because they have not fully awakened spiritually. Which, of course, brings us back to your dissatisfaction with my comments about the Holy Ghost teaching only those parts of Truth which we are ready to receive.

Blessings,

jo

[_subgenius]

You should read what I wrote. I already said our senses can be fooled, both the 5 sense and our internal ones as well. Certain senses though have better results and much more agreement then others. Internal ones are the least agreed upon as we can see with different truth claims being made about them and why we have so many different religions. All our senses have to go through our brains so they are all going to have the same problems. Wise to see which works the best and don't ignore it to go with what we want.

1. "5 sense and our internal ones..." what internal ones, and how are they senses?
2. "much more agreement" - with what?
3. The alleged difference in "truth claims" is not proven as resulting from any "unreliable senses"...if anything one could argue that the interference from your "reliable" senses causes varying interpretations to be rendered. (for example, trying to hear and read the lips of a speaker in a noisy environment while they are chewing gum, or the simple game of "chinese telephone" which involves whispering directly in the ear). Your premise on what may be the cause of different truth claims is flawed.
4. "go with what we want" - is a fundamentally naïve concept and will be difficult to argue with any reason, logic, or meaning.

You are describing the problems for all our senses, the ones you want to call physical or spiritual, which are all filtered through the brain. Now getting the right interpretation really is based on reliability or what works. I bring this up over and over again but it keeps being largely ignored. Why do most people trust their sight more often then there other senses?

1. if all is filtered through the brain then it is a given with all and thus can not be the source of any variance, for no one can know anything outside of that......and it assumes that there is a reality distinct and separate from the brain, at which case your argument fails to address how this objective reality can actually exist.
2. "...based on reliability or what works" = hedonism, a philosophy long since past on being supported by any reason or logic. Besides, what could possible you mean by "reliability"

perhaps one should consider if the concept of trial and error is contrary to faith in the scriptures.

[_Themis]

I trust my spiritual senses more than my physical senses; for me this has been extremely reliable and it works. Why do most people trust their sight more often than there other senses? Because they have not fully awakened spiritually. Which, of course, brings us back to your dissatisfaction with my comments about the Holy Ghost teaching only those parts of Truth which we are ready to receive.

Blessings,

jo

The spiritual senses and physical are all the same. They are all going through your brain. Do you really trust your internal senses more then your other sense like sight and sound. Nope. I doubt you use them everyday like you do the others, and why do your conclusion conflict with other so much? Maybe you could give us some examples. You state why some don't trust there internal senses more. Probably because you don't either. Do you use your sight and sound to get around or what you view as your spiritual. I know many who will give them more wight in making decisions, but when it goes against evidence from the other sense they usually don't do well. Investments may be a good example.

[_Themis]

Sub,

Everything we experience goes through the brain. Even what you want to call the spiritual. We go with what works best all the time. If your sight is bad you probably don't trust it as much as maybe touch and sound. We can argue there is nothing outside the brain, but this discussion is meaningless and doesn't get anywhere, and you don't really believe it anyways.

Reliability is what works more consistently. If something works more consistently then something else then it is considered more reliable.