Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What happens if the message you "hear" from God contradicts that of the Bible?
GOD > BIBLE. Period. What God says is always more important than a collection of 2000+ year old texts containing between 200,00 - 800,000 textual variants in the New Testament alone. A similar number in the Old Testament. Textual variants do not invalidate the Bible as many non-believers wish it would. But it underscores the fact that the Bible is an imperfect source. Add to that the fact that human language is incapable of perfection. Add to that the list of missing books specifically referenced in the Bible: Gad, Nathan, Jasher, Ahijah, Iddo, Shemaiah, Jehu and Enoch. Add to that the completely unknowable number of missing texts we don't know about.
I love and respect the Bible, but it is foolishness to treat it as something bigger than it really is. It is a compilation of the surviving prophetic and apostolic works over the ages. The Bible never claims to be complete. The Bible never claims to be infallible. The Bible never claims to be sufficient. The word "Bible" never actually appears in the Bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA
Hi,
If God spoke to Bob and what Bob reported was what was in scripture/in agreement with it, why speak to Bob in the 1st place???? Now of it agrees that does not make it scripture, just in agreement with it. After all how do we know God spoke to Bob, that Bob didn't make that up and use what he saw in scripture that allowed him to claim a revelation?
While I agree knowing God and His Son is an absolute, it is not the only requirement nor the only one we should pursue. We are told, as an example, to accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior. Most focus on Savior, and ignore what accepting him as Lord means. Lord is Master and it means we will obey him in all things. As an example Matt 28:19,20 requires every Christian, male and female, to preach and teach throughout their entire life. Scripture indicates this should not just be a part of their life but such a part that others recognize that their "work" is filling the neighborhood-city-State-Nation-World. If that reputation does not exist they are not obeying Jesus, who really just repeated his Father's words.
Actually we always hear from God,we just need to read from the Bible. Jesus' parable of the Wheat and Tares, shows the field "Church" would become weed filled and weed controlled until the harvest. Then no new Canon is spoken of, just the angels and man harvesting before the end. The next new "scrolls" open in the millennium after the harvest, so no new ones now nor since the end of the 1st century..
The Bible leaves us a TON of unanswered questions. There are over 45,000 Christian denominations who are all saying the same thing: "You're reading it wrong and we're reading it right." I know that Vizio hates that statistic so for his benefit let me say this. Even if there are only 1,000 Christian denominations, that is 999 too many. The Bible has not succeeded in unifying Christendom. Its massive list of unanswered questions has unfortunately done the exact opposite.
I'd say we agree on the weeds/tares taking over. Obviously, they did. We probably disagree on the repercussions though. I'd say that revelation and scripture ceased because of the weeds taking over, not because God willed such things to end.
As far as "not mentioning new canon," there are actually many passages that seem indicate that before the Second Coming of Christ, that there would be new scripture and most certainly new revelation. But since interpretations will vary, I won't dive into that too much. Let's just assume that you're right and no new canon was explicitly predicted. Where does the Bible ever specifically and explicitly predicted that there would be "new canon". The very concept of "canon" would have been a pretty foreign concept to every writer of every Biblical text.
But the bigger issue is this. Why are we looking to the Bible to tell us whether or not God will speak to us again? This turns the Bible into an idol. A god that we are putting before God.
I think it is incredibly arrogant of Christianity to try to cram God into a tiny box we call the Bible, put the Bible on higher standing than God and claim that God can't or won't reveal any new scripture or revelation to humankind. More humans are alive today than ever before. We face problems that didn't exist anciently. We need God more now than ever. Why wouldn't he speak today?
Ugh, I think we need a new thread if we're going to continue with this. I have no interest in hijacking somebody else's thread.
Last edited by godofthunder9010; 05-04-2016 at 09:44 AM..
"As he was passing along, he saw a man who had been blind from birth. And his disciples asked him: “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, so that he was born blind?” Jesus answered: “Neither this man sinned nor his parents, but it was so that the works of God might be made manifest in his case. We must do the works of the One who sent me while it is day; the night is coming when no man can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the world’s light.” After he said these things, he spat on the ground and made a paste with the saliva, and he smeared the paste on the man’s eyes and said to him: “Go wash in the pool of Si·loʹam” (which is translated “Sent Forth”). And he went and washed, and came back seeing." John 9:1-8
After reading the above scripture does it really matter which gender has sin in them? Do you think that sin is greater than any person with a perfect body? Can corrupted DNA over write perfect DNA?
Yes, it does. Go back and read the verses I posted above. In this case here, Jesus was saying that sickness is not based on a parent's sin. But the stain of original sin is passed down from father to son. Or, rather, we inherit it from Adam directly, as we were all "in" Adam when he sinned. Again--it's why Jesus was not corrupted by sin by being born of a woman--because he was not born from Adam.
Yes, it does. Go back and read the verses I posted above. In this case here, Jesus was saying that sickness is not based on a parent's sin. But the stain of original sin is passed down from father to son. Or, rather, we inherit it from Adam directly, as we were all "in" Adam when he sinned. Again--it's why Jesus was not corrupted by sin by being born of a woman--because he was not born from Adam.
I disagree. I don't think sin is greater than any thing good. Even a perfect woman is better than an imperfect man. Therefore if Adam had sinned but Eve didn't, then God could have used Eve to save all of mankind from sin. Jesus, who was a perfect man was not the man's biological father but he was able to heal that man. It was not because Jesus was a man that he was able to do this.
I asked these questions to see how much doctrine influences your discernment to questions that there are no clear answers. You said that sin is passed down from father to son. There is no scripture that says 'original sin is passed down from father to son'. When the reality is, oringinal sin is past down from both parents. In this case it seems in your view women are inferior to men even if the woman is just as sinless as Jesus Christ. It also goes against genetics, it appears you think that sin would be the dominate gene just because a person was a man. I see the doctrine of man are to dominate women too strong and sin is greater than good in your influence. So to your offer of Bible teaching, I respectfully decline. Thank you though.
Last edited by 2Timothy316; 05-04-2016 at 10:32 AM..
But the bigger issue is this. Why are we looking to the Bible to tell us whether or not God will speak to us again? This turns the Bible into an idol. A god that we are putting before God.
I think it is incredibly arrogant of Christianity to try to cram God into a tiny box we call the Bible, put the Bible on higher standing than God and claim that God can't or won't reveal any new scripture or revelation to humankind. More humans are alive today than ever before. We face problems that didn't exist anciently. We need God more now than ever. Why wouldn't he speak today?
I agree, at least in theory, to everything you've said, but how would you personally go about knowing whether it was God speaking or not -- particularly if it contradicted what the Bible said? I'm actually pretty sure God wouldn't say something that contradicted the Bible, but let's say God said addressed an issue that the Bible was basically silent or, or vague about, or that could be interpreted in various ways. I agree that it would be nice to be able to count on God to continue to speak to us (which, as a Mormon, I do), but how would you be able to know that was was said was really from God? Vizio is apparently saying that if it's not in the Bible, we can't rely on it to be truly from God. You appear to be saying that's not the case, but any Tom, Dick or Harry can claim that God told him something. There has to be a way of distinguishing truth from error.
Don't worry about hijacking this thread, by the way. It's my thread, and I already got the answer to my question, so I don't really care a whole lot where the thread goes from here, as long as it remains civil.
It's presented as the focus being on study and deepening understanding.
There used to be 5 hours of collective study each week.
Tuesday: one hour study of a WT book with the meeting held in someone's home. Read the book, conductor would ask questions at bottom of page, someone would answer directly out of the book.
Thursday: 2 hour meeting including (now replaced with I don't know what) Theocratic Ministry School. That is were they teach people the annoying habit of listening to people only with the intention of responding (overcoming objections they called it) People had to prepare small 5 minute talks useful for the ministry. Man and boys would address the congregation directly, women would do a skit with another sister about a situation that could take place and how a witness could respond.
Sunday: One hour talk given by some elder on random issue. Every once in a while someone would screw up and they would use that hour for "special needs". I was the topic of one once when I took an academic award in Econ. Big NONO in the JW culture.
2nd hour of Sunday meeting was devoted to studying a WT article. Same format as book study. Someone reads the article, conductor asks questions from bottom of page, someone answers.
I guess the "worship" comes in when the sing out of a song book to start the meeting, after the first hour, and to end the meeting. there is also a long, drawn out prayer at the end. Mostly it is just straight indoctrination the whole 5 hours. Little kids are expected to sit still the whole time and pay attention. Even giving a coloring book to a 2 year old is considered spiritually weak. You really don't want to know how they train toddlers to sit through hours of indoctrination without a peep.
I agree, at least in theory, to everything you've said, but how would you personally go about knowing whether it was God speaking or not -- particularly if it contradicted what the Bible said? I'm actually pretty sure God wouldn't say something that contradicted the Bible, but let's say God said addressed an issue that the Bible was basically silent or, or vague about, or that could be interpreted in various ways. I agree that it would be nice to be able to count on God to continue to speak to us (which, as a Mormon, I do), but how would you be able to know that was was said was really from God? Vizio is apparently saying that if it's not in the Bible, we can't rely on it to be truly from God. You appear to be saying that's not the case, but any Tom, Dick or Harry can claim that God told him something. There has to be a way of distinguishing truth from error.
Don't worry about hijacking this thread, by the way. It's my thread, and I already got the answer to my question, so I don't really care a whole lot where the thread goes from here, as long as it remains civil.
I always wondered what Mormons "do" for their services. (Coming from a Presbyterian where you're in and out in an hour with a liturgical service of recited prayers, musical responses, a 15 min. sermon, communion, etc.)
I agree, at least in theory, to everything you've said, but how would you personally go about knowing whether it was God speaking or not -- particularly if it contradicted what the Bible said? I'm actually pretty sure God wouldn't say something that contradicted the Bible, but let's say God said addressed an issue that the Bible was basically silent or, or vague about, or that could be interpreted in various ways. I agree that it would be nice to be able to count on God to continue to speak to us (which, as a Mormon, I do), but how would you be able to know that was was said was really from God? Vizio is apparently saying that if it's not in the Bible, we can't rely on it to be truly from God. You appear to be saying that's not the case, but any Tom, Dick or Harry can claim that God told him something. There has to be a way of distinguishing truth from error.
Don't worry about hijacking this thread, by the way. It's my thread, and I already got the answer to my question, so I don't really care a whole lot where the thread goes from here, as long as it remains civil.
How did the ancients do exactly the same thing? They had no scriptural canon after all.
There are those things that the Bible is ridiculously clear on. Moses existed and led Israel out of Egypt. Jesus was a real person born to a virgin and was the Son of God. God exists. Jesus Christ's sacrifice is the way to God. But varying interpretations of the Bible cast doubts on even these things. So while the Bible is a great litmus test for new truth, you'd have to be awfully careful that you're not interposing your own personal interpretation of Biblical text and then saying "this new thing is contradicting the Bible." It might only be contradicting your own personal interpretation. For example (since this is a JW thread) many claim that denial of the Trinity as described in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds is a contradiction of the Bible and that the Jehovah's Witnesses are anti-Bible because of it. But it actually isn't. The formal doctrine of the Trinity is nowhere to be found in the Bible. It's just not there. But that won't stop supporters of the Trinity doctrine from claiming it. The lens through which they read the Bible tells them that they're 100% right.
The Jews made similar mistakes by pointing out that Jesus teachings and actions were in direct contradiction of God-given scripture and tradition. Well, clearly they were wrong. The Jews like Peter, James, John, Andrew, Paul, etc didn't come to know that Jesus was for real by double checking everything he said and did against the scriptures. How did they know for certain that Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God?
Quote:
Matthew 16:13-17
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He questioned His disciples: “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 “But what about you?” Jesus asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven.
How did they know who Jesus really was? God revealed it to each of them directly.
Then comes the oft-misused following verse:
Quote:
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.
So what is the rock upon which Christ would build his Church and Kingdom on Earth? The rock of direct divine revelation. Direct personal revelation from God was always intended to be at the core of God's Church and Kingdom on Earth.
That is the whole message of the New Testament. "We know that Jesus Christ is the real deal because we saw it all first hand. We saw him live, work unparalleled miracles, die and rise again from the dead." So while they certainly did point out why the reality and ministry of Christ was in harmony with scripture, the bigger message was "We know because we saw it and received personal revelation from God."
I always wondered what Mormons "do" for their services. (Coming from a Presbyterian where you're in and out in an hour with a liturgical service of recited prayers, musical responses, a 15 min. sermon, communion, etc.)
Well, we have a 3-hour block of church meetings every Sunday. ( Yeah, I know!) The first one, which is an hour and ten minutes long, is the one I would describe as a "worship service." The other two (one being 50 minutes long and the other being 40 minutes long) are classroom study. There is a ten minute break between each of the three.
In the worship service, which is called "Sacrament Meeting," there is an invocation/opening prayer, followed by a hymn. Then the bishop or one of his two counselors welcomes members and guests, and conducts any matters of business pertaining to the ward (i.e. the congregation). This generally takes less than 5 minutes. Immediately thereafter, we sing another hymn -- this one specifically geared to the Atonement of Jesus Christ. After the hymn, we receive "the Sacrament" (i.e. Communion, Eucharist, the Lord's Supper. This is considered the most important part of the service. Afterwards there are anywhere from two to four brief sermons (we call them "talks") given by the members themselves. An individual is generally asked a week or so in advance to prepare a talk on a short subject, using the scriptures and recorded addresses and writings of the Church's leadership. Generally speaking, all of the speakers on a given Sunday are asked to speak on the same topic. These talks are followed by a closing hymn and a benediction/closing prayer. That's kind of it in a nutshell.
Well, we have a 3-hour block of church meetings every Sunday. ( Yeah, I know!) The first one, which is an hour and ten minutes long, is the one I would describe as a "worship service." The other two (one being 50 minutes long and the other being 40 minutes long) are classroom study. There is a ten minute break between each of the three.
In the worship service, which is called "Sacrament Meeting," there is an invocation/opening prayer, followed by a hymn. Then the bishop or one of his two counselors welcomes members and guests, and conducts any matters of business pertaining to the ward (i.e. the congregation). This generally takes less than 5 minutes. Immediately thereafter, we sing another hymn -- this one specifically geared to the Atonement of Jesus Christ. After the hymn, we receive "the Sacrament" (i.e. Communion, Eucharist, the Lord's Supper. This is considered the most important part of the service. Afterwards there are anywhere from two to four brief sermons (we call them "talks") given by the members themselves. An individual is generally asked a week or so in advance to prepare a talk on a short subject, using the scriptures and recorded addresses and writings of the Church's leadership. Generally speaking, all of the speakers on a given Sunday are asked to speak on the same topic. These talks are followed by a closing hymn and a benediction/closing prayer. That's kind of it in a nutshell.
Whew that does sound like a lot to do every Sunday. Jehovah's Witnesses have International Conventions that are 4 days about 6 hours each day. But that only happens every 5 years. We have to travel to them. 2014 was the most recent International Convention. The last one I attended was in Arlington, TX at AT&T Stadium. But they happen all over the world. There was 5 I think in the US. I don't know how many worldwide. I'm sure there is a count somewhere. It was the best thing I had ever been to. I can't even describe what it is like to see and hear 50k lovers of Jehovah sing and learn together.
I disagree. I don't think sin is greater than any thing good. Even a perfect woman is better than an imperfect man. Therefore if Adam had sinned but Eve didn't, then God could have used Eve to save all of mankind from sin. Jesus, who was a perfect man was not the man's biological father but he was able to heal that man. It was not because Jesus was a man that he was able to do this.
God did save us through the man born of a woman--God incarnate, Jesus. So, yes--good does overcome evil, but no human being was good enough without also being God. All of mankind is stained with the sin of Adam. Eve did sin, but she is not the one that is said to have passed down sin.
Quote:
I asked these questions to see how much doctrine influences your discernment to questions that there are no clear answers. You said that sin is passed down from father to son. There is no scripture that says 'original sin is passed down from father to son'.
Actually, I've already quoted you the passage stating that we all sinned in Adam. That is a clear indication that yes--it is inherited. There are 2 views--one is that we get it from our Father, another is that we get it from Adam. I agree with the idea we get it from Adam--as we were "in Adam", according to Romans 5. Jesus was never "in Adam", as Jesus was not born of an earthly Father descended from Adam.
Adam and Eve were created sinless. When they sinned, they were stained with sin, and were incapable of having sinless children.
David wrote "in sin did my mother conceive me..." (Psalm 51:5).
Quote:
When the reality is, oringinal sin is past down from both parents.
Got a verse for that?
Quote:
In this case it seems in your view women are inferior to men even if the woman is just as sinless as Jesus Christ.
There is no such thing as a human being as sinless as Jesus Christ. And no--women are not inferior. I am only telling you what the Bible says.
Quote:
It also goes against genetics, it appears you think that sin would be the dominate gene just because a person was a man. I see the doctrine of man are to dominate women too strong and sin is greater than good in your influence. So to your offer of Bible teaching, I respectfully decline. Thank you though.
I'm teaching you what Scripture says -- that we are sinners because we inherit sin from Adam.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, I know!) The first one, which is an hour and ten minutes long, is the one I would describe as a "worship service." The other two (one being 50 minutes long and the other being 40 minutes long) are classroom study. There is a ten minute break between each of the three.
