Evidence for God from Science

bizzt wrote:Tanyan Seriously here is quote from http://www.bibleman.net/joseph_the_firs ... israel.htm
This site says it takes prophecy out of Context Yadi Yadi. Honestly the Bolded Part below is not taking Prophecy out of context in your Mind. I am sorry Tanyan that is pure Heresy!!!!!

I am pointing this out because as lds we know that in these last days through the house of Ephraim will come the blessings of the Gospel to the House of Israel and consequently to all mankind.

In 1955, the Macmillan Company of New York published the English translation of a book by Dr. Joseph Klausner, professor of Hebrew literature and Jewish history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. The book came out under the title of the Messianic idea in Israel. In this volume Dr. Klausner devoted one full chapter (part 3, chapter 9) to the coming of a future "Joseph". Dr. Klausner pointed out that one of the most ancient and respected traditions among the Jewish scholars is the prophecy that a "Joseph" should be raised up in the latter days for the specific purpose of preparing the way for the coming of the Messiah. He cited sources to show that this future Joseph is not only mentioned in the Talmud and other Jewish classics, but Christian scholars have also taken note of this tradition.

According to the Jewish scholars, this future Joseph was to be killed, some said in battle, but Judah Ibn Shmuel said he would be attacked by "Armilus, who is the Antichrist" Klausner p. 496). According to tradition, this Joseph of the latter day saints would be a descendant of Joseph who was sold into Egypt and would come trough the line of Ephraim (Joseph's heir). It also said that his mission would commence about the time Elija made his appearance to fulfill the promise made in Malachi 4:5-6 (Klausner p. 498)

But the thing which puzzled Dr. Klausner most was why this tradition of a latter day Joseph should be so thoroughly among the Jewish scholars when there was no reference to it in the Hebrew scriptures. The Talmud, the Midrash, and the Targum all refer to it, but these, of course, are merely commentaries rather than the scripture itself. Furthermore, the Jews are not the only ones wh have this tradition. Dr. Klausner states that the Samaritans are even more zealous than the Jews in keeping alive the tradition of the latter day Joseph. Some of them claim to be of the tribe of Joseph and therefore this prophecy is extremely important to them.

It will be recalled that the ancestors of the Samaritans were the tiny remnant which was successful in escaping the siege of the Assyrians in 721 B.C., and therefore they were not carried off to Mesopotamia with the rest of Israel. Their tradition concerning the latter day Joseph goes back to a period which was long before the Talmud. According to Dr> Klausner the Samaritans had this to say about the future Joseph.

Tanyan wrote:Did you send your above post to the webmaster of the site in question concerning your observation ?. Peace.

Tanyan wrote:Would need to research/examine the topic more before a definate opinion could I give. Thank you .

Tanyan wrote:Would need to research/examine the topic more before a definate opinion could I give. Thank you .

Bible

Legend:
MM-Mormonism teaches
OC-Orthodox Christian Belief's (Catholic, Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches)
RD-Reason Dictates
LMC-Logical conclusion drawn from Mormon Beliefs
LOCC-Logical Conclusion drawn from Orthodox Christian beliefs


Mormon Beliefs and Conclusions
1. MM-The bible, correctly translated (King James Version), is the literal word of God
2. MM-The church went into apostasy after the apostolic age (after the last apostle died)
3. MM-The Mormon Church has the authority to interpret the bible.
4. Fact-The New Testament Canon was established during the 4th century AD. The church excluded from the Canon of scripture other books not accepted as inspired.
5. Fact-The Old Testament Canon was changed by the early Protestants from what was accepted as the Canon of the OT during the time the NT Canon was defined (the books removed by the Protestants were recently found to be included in the OT scrolls on the Dead Sea Scrolls, lending authority to their inclusion in the OT Canon by the Orthodox Christian faiths)
6. LMC-The Mormon Church relies upon the authority of the Christian Church that existed during the 4th Century AD, and also on the Authority of the Protestants for their OT Canon.
7. LMC-Mormonism basis it's beliefs on the Authority of those that preceded it.
8. LMC-Mormonism is either correct about a total apostasy of the Church, and therefore cannot accept the Bible as authoritative, or it must accept the authority of the church of the 4th century (the Catholic Church) when it accepts the authority of the Bible.


Orthodox Christianities Beliefs and Conclusions
1. OC-The bible is the literal word of God
2. OC-The Church has the authority to both define the Canon of scripture, and to interpret it's meaning when needed
3. OC-The Total beliefs of the Christian Church are included in both the Scriptures as defined by the Church, and sacred Tradition
4. OC-Church authority is derived from apostolic succession (only the Catholic Church, the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Eastern Orthodox Churches have apostolic succession)
5. LOCC-The Church existed before Scripture, and Scriptures Canon is dependant upon the Orthodox Christian Faith that existed during the 4th century AD and still exists today.

A couple of quick comments -

First, this statement:

1. MM-The bible, correctly translated (King James Version), is the literal word of God

Is inaccurate. Mormon belief does not require scripture to be considered revelation or even inspired to be a part of the canon. In fact, several parts of the LDS canon do not claim to be either - and specific claims have been made about the Song of Songs, for example, to suggest that it was considered neither revelation nor inspired as a text, despite its inclusion in the canon.

Furthermore, the LDS faith, like most Protestant faiths, has not adopted the "Apocryphal" texts unlike the RCC and other varieties of Orthodoxy.

And personally, I don't like (nor do I have any use for) the phrase "the literal word of God" - since this presumes all sorts of things. The text was written by men, not spoken by God.

Then this comment:

4. Fact-The New Testament Canon was established during the 4th century AD. The church excluded from the Canon of scripture other books not accepted as inspired.

This is a problematic statement. Although the much of the canon was established in the 4th century, the debates over the canon continued for three more centuries. And, the early church had splintered long before this canonization process had finished, leaving several different canons in the resulting branches of the church. The church therefore cannot be viewed as a monlithic whole as this "fact" suggests.

The Gospels had certainly achieved canonicity long before the third century, as had many of the Pauline epistles.

Further, there were some texts which were widely recognized as inspired, but either added to the canon and then removed from the canon (as was the Shepherd), or never added to the canon (for the Western church anyways) but still recognized as inspired - like Enoch. The four gospels achieved authoritative status very early - but apart from them, and the Acts of the Apostles, the litmus test wasn't so much the notion of inspiration as it was the mark of apostolic authority. The church then developed three categories of texts. Those that were authentic and authoritative. Those which were inspired but not authoritative (although they could be read in church) and those which were heretical.

This this comment:

5. Fact-The Old Testament Canon was changed by the early Protestants from what was accepted as the Canon of the OT during the time the NT Canon was defined (the books removed by the Protestants were recently found to be included in the OT scrolls on the Dead Sea Scrolls, lending authority to their inclusion in the OT Canon by the Orthodox Christian faiths)

This simply isn't the case. The Old Testament canon (assuming we can call it such) was actually quite well developed during New Testament times. Like the Apocrypha, the Jewish canon had its own disputed texts (a major issue of that dispute was over original language). Using Qumran as an example of the Old Testament Canon as it should be believed or understood towards the New Testament is problematic. After all, if we use Qumran as a basis, Esther needs to be thrown out, and perhaps Ezra-Nehemiah (a text which is present only in a couple of verses). While Enoch (and this is not entirely the same Enoch as the later Christian redacted work which was included in the canon in Abyssinian Orthodoxy) shows up in more copies than all but six (IIRC) other texts - those texts being four of the Books of Moses, Psalms, and Isaiah. On the flip side of the coin, there were also several other texts which were widely used by the Community of the DSS which never made it into the Christian canon (although they were cited in the canonical texts, and used by the early fathers of the church) like Jubilees. Judaism, generally speaking, rejected a number of these texts - based on the calendrical issues. Christianity never adopted them.

Since the early church did not use the canon of Qumran, and since the later Masoretes did not either, claims such as this one are highly problematic for me personally. Apart from this, most of the Christian additions to the Old Testament came from the Septuagint. And most of these Greek texts are not represented at Qumran. A couple of notable exceptions though - the Greek Jeremiah is about 20 percent shorter than the Hebrew text. Although a Hebrew original for the Greek Jeremiah was discovered at Qumran, so was a Hebrew text for the longer version eventually adopted by the Masoretes. The early Christian faith, generally, used the LXX edition, while the Masoretic text was incorporated into the Textus Receptus from which the KJV was translated. So, the question then comes up, although we consider the text of Jeremiah to be canonical, which version specifically was canonized?

These views then alter the conclusions as follows:

6. LMC-The Mormon Church relies upon the authority of the Christian Church that existed during the 4th Century AD, and also on the Authority of the Protestants for their OT Canon.

This isn't the case. First, as noted above, there was "A Christian Chruch that existed during the 4th Century AD". It was early in the 4th century that the great schism occured. And there was no final canon yet derived - both East and West had different canons. Further, the LDS faith derived its Old Testament from essentially Protestant translations - but that Old Testament was based on the Masoretic text - a thoroughly Jewish canon completed sometime in the first several centuries C.E. So the authority of the protestants for their OT Canon, as you use it here, is something of a misnomer. Joseph Smith was also specifically critical of the Song of Songs, indicating that it was not an inspired text (although he did not remove it from the canon).

7. LMC-Mormonism basis it's beliefs on the Authority of those that preceded it.

No. I don't see this as a logical conclusion. In fact, with regards to the Apocrypha, there is a specific revelation provided in the Doctrine and Covenants which address its status. This is not a belief based on an earlier authority.

8. LMC-Mormonism is either correct about a total apostasy of the Church, and therefore cannot accept the Bible as authoritative, or it must accept the authority of the church of the 4th century (the Catholic Church) when it accepts the authority of the Bible.

And finally, the real conclusion that is way off. Even supposing this is the case, the challenge is that the majority of the New Testament was composed prior to the apostacy (even using the definition which you provide for us - one which is not universally accepted within the Mormon faith). The Gospels, for example, had achieved canonical status prior to the third century. There is no canon-related document which suggests that the four gospels as we know them were ever considered problematic (unlike 2 and 3 John, Revelation, etc.) Only in the cases where a specific text's authorship is disputed are Mormon's perhaps relying on an apostate church. And yet - within the D&C are several references to these writings (and a couple in the Book of Mormon) suggesting that we have a secondary appeal to authority. At the same time, the LDS church adopts the KJV - which was, in some ways, a rejection of the "Catholic" canon. It separated the apocryphal texts out. It was based on the MT and not the LXX. And so on.

Finally, a couple of comments on the other side:

2. OC-The Church has the authority to both define the Canon of scripture, and to interpret it's meaning when needed

This is limited to the Catholic church and does not represent what I would call protestantism (even though they claim the notion of orthodoxy). Most of modern christianity believes that that along with inerrancy, the text is self-interpreting. Which is to say that there is no need of any organization to interpret its meaning. This comes about quite clearly in the conflict between inerrancy types and anti-intentionalists or reader-response proponents (post-modernism).

3. OC-The Total beliefs of the Christian Church are included in both the Scriptures as defined by the Church, and sacred Tradition

This is not true of the RCC - which believes that the Pope when making an ex-Cathedra statement utters doctrine which is in ifallible - which does not need to be found either in sacred Tradition or in the Scripture.

And of course for this statement -

5. LOCC-The Church existed before Scripture, and Scriptures Canon is dependant upon the Orthodox Christian Faith that existed during the 4th century AD and still exists today.

See above.