Does the LDS church teach that men can evolve into a God?

Status
Not open for further replies.

brotherofJared

Well-known member
You are desperately stretching and assuming.
Nope. You are desperately diminishing the obvious and grasping at loose straw.
I don't care what you have or may have deleted from your posts.
I know. Just like you don't care what has or may have been deleted from the scriptures. You're happy with the errors contained within them. In fact, I'm guessing that you're so happy that if an original did surface and it disagreed with what you're happy with now, you'll reject the original and keep the errors claiming that God intended it to be that way, the originals are wrong and God fixed it.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Nope. You are desperately diminishing the obvious and grasping at loose straw.

I know. Just like you don't care what has or may have been deleted from the scriptures. You're happy with the errors contained within them. In fact, I'm guessing that you're so happy that if an original did surface and it disagreed with what you're happy with now, you'll reject the original and keep the errors claiming that God intended it to be that way, the originals are wrong and God fixed it.
You have not proven any real errors in the Bible. All we have is your assertion, with no proof. The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for your assertion.

Unfortunately, most in the LDS church seem complacently content to be in a church founded by a lying false prophet, who taught contrary to scripture, whose teachings changed drastically over the years, who taught the WoW, while hypocritically not keeping it himself...who took the Great and almighty and eternal God of the Bible and debased him to nothing more than an exalted man, who had to learn how to become a god...even worse, if possible, he debased our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, to an exalted creature, the literal brother of Satan (!) in the supposed pre-mortal existence. Shameful.
 
Last edited:

organgrinder

Super Member
Nope. You are desperately diminishing the obvious and grasping at loose straw.

I know. Just like you don't care what has or may have been deleted from the scriptures. You're happy with the errors contained within them. In fact, I'm guessing that you're so happy that if an original did surface and it disagreed with what you're happy with now, you'll reject the original and keep the errors claiming that God intended it to be that way, the originals are wrong and God fixed it.
Nothing has been deleted from the scriptures. No proof on your part, just assumptions based on what a false prophet has said. You do not believe what the Bible-- the only written word of God-- says on matters. You don't even believe your own church at times despite citations we have shown from LDS web sites. So... what is the point trying to reason with you? None that I can see. I and other Christians will hold fast to what God's revealed word says. That is THE standard of truth. You? Only God knows.
 
Last edited:

Bonnie

Super Member
Nothing has been deleted from the scriptures. No proof on your part, just assumptions based on what a false prophet has said. You do not believe what the Bible-- the only written word of God-- says on matters. You don't even believe your own church at times despite citations we have shown from LDS web sites. So... what is the point trying to reason with you? None that I can see. I and other Christians will hold fast to what God's revealed word says. That is THE standard of truth. You? Only God knows.
None of the ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscript copies of the Bible--thousand of copies--have Smith's "corrections" in them. No manuscript evidence whatsoever. Especially the prediction about himself in Deuteronomy that he arrogantly added. The man had no shame. These copies were written by hundereds of different scribes over several hundreds of years--how did ALL of these thousands of copies of the OT and GNT get stuff taken out of them, without showing any evidence?
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Nothing has been deleted from the scriptures.
You can believe that if you want to but you can't prove it. And you know why you can't prove it? Because you don't have the original manuscripts.

I know that deletions from the scriptures can't be proved without having the originals. My statement was to your comment that you didn't care what I deleted. my statements have always been along the lines of changes being made to the scriptures. And we have proof that they're having changes made to the scriptures.

just assumptions based on what a false prophet has said.
No. You know that's not where my assumption comes from. I've stated where it comes from. And like I said I'm not talking about the deletions. That was in reference to your statement. My my argument is based on fact

You do not believe what the Bible
Again, false we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is correctly translated. We at least acknowledge that there are errors in the Bible. You all also acknowledge that there are errors in the Bible because you all have made changes based on evidence that supports that there have been changes and errors written into the Bible by the copiest. That's the basis for my claim that if we have a few errors, there could be many more errors. We have been copying errors because all we had to copy from were copies that had errors in them.

This is simple logic. It's not that hard to grasp. And I'm sure that you understand what I'm saying you just choose to ignore it.
You don't even believe your own church at times despite citations we have shown from LDS web sites.
LOL. the error Is yours, not mine.

So... what is the point trying to reason with you?
When have any of u "reasoned" with us. There is no discussion in this sub-forum. We either accept your doctrines and your views about what we believe or we are not accepting reason.

Typical reasoning would be u tell me what u think it says and I tell u what I think it says and then we provide reasons why we think we're right. That doesn't happen here.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
None of the ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscript copies of the Bible--thousand of copies--have Smith's "corrections" in them.
Bonnie, u don't have the originals, but, once again, u r wrong.

Joseph Smith dropped the phrase, "without a cause" long before mainstream theology accepted that that phrase did not belong there. There are manuscripts that have that correction in them.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
None of the ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscript copies of the Bible--thousand of copies--have Smith's "corrections" in them.
On another note, Joseph Smith was not trying to restore.the original content, but instead to clarify the intended meaning of the passage. He is not the first to do so and there is evidence that he relied on other sources for some of that work. I don't expect that when we get the originals that he will have produced a word for word copy of the original manuscript. I expect that the principles he taught will align with the principles.they taught.

Further, I the believe that any manuscripts that would diverge from the accepted errors will never materialize. We wouldn't want to upset the status quo. No, the business of religion must not be upset or you all might lose membership. 😉
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Especially the prediction about himself in Deuteronomy that he arrogantly added.
That isn't part of the inspired version of the Bible. That, I expect, if we ever received the originals, that would be there. But that isn't the New Testament. That was beaten pretty badly in just the 2000 years before we received it. Add another 2000 years to the damage done to the Old Testament. For example, we are positive that Moses did write any of the books attributed to him. In fact, there is no supporting evidence that Moses even existed, much less write those books. Genesis, we have determined through critical.textual analysis has 5 writers, none of which were Moses who also disagreed with each other on certain aspects.

I believe that during the millennium, which isn't here yet, when Christ reigns personally upon the earth, that we will have the complete and correct copy of the scriptures, old and new Testament.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
You have not proven any real errors in the Bible.
No, I haven't. I don't need to. It's already been done for me. Those corrections have been incorporated into most modern versions.of the Bible. I find it hilarious that u keep insist that there aren't any when there are. I believe you know there are, u just prefer to ignore them.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Unfortunately, most in the LDS church seem complacently content to be in a church founded by a lying false prophet, who taught contrary to scripture, whose teachings changed drastically over the years, who taught the WoW, while hypocritically not keeping it himself...who took the Great and almighty and eternal God of the Bible and debased him to nothing more than an exalted man, who had to learn how to become a god...even worse, if possible, he debased our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, to an exalted creature, the literal brother of Satan (!) in the supposed pre-mortal existence. Shameful.
See, OG. There is no reasoning done here. Just opinion without one shred of reasoning and then the final patronizing write-off. Reasoning in this sub-forum is a farce.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
See, OG. There is no reasoning done here. Just opinion without one shred of reasoning and then the final patronizing write-off. Reasoning in this sub-forum is a farce.
But what I wrote is the truth--that IS what your church has done to our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ! Your church has an abysmally low Christology--rendering the great and uncreated Word of God as an exalted creature, the actual brother of Satan (!) in the supposed pre-mortal existence. Shameful.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
No, I haven't. I don't need to. It's already been done for me. Those corrections have been incorporated into most modern versions.of the Bible. I find it hilarious that u keep insist that there aren't any when there are. I believe you know there are, u just prefer to ignore them.
No, it has not been done for you. Making corrections in translating the Bible from ancient manuscript copies into good English (or another language) is NOT the same thing as deliberately leaving out important things that were supposedly in the manuscripts in the first place. You know, the "plain and precious" stuff Smith claimed had been taken out. Including a prophesy about himself, in Deuteronomy, I think it is....

First you wrote things have been added or deleted from modern Bibles (paraphrasing)...NOW you are saying "those corrections have been incorporated into most modern versions of the Bible." Soooooo....that must mean you think that those Bible versions are accurate. Which means that you must think that Acts 5 belongs in the Bible, as well. Right? Since all modern versions of the Bible contain it. So, why don't you believe what it plainly and clearly says in some places?
 

Bonnie

Super Member
On another note, Joseph Smith was not trying to restore.the original content, but instead to clarify the intended meaning of the passage. He is not the first to do so and there is evidence that he relied on other sources for some of that work. I don't expect that when we get the originals that he will have produced a word for word copy of the original manuscript. I expect that the principles he taught will align with the principles.they taught.

Further, I the believe that any manuscripts that would diverge from the accepted errors will never materialize. We wouldn't want to upset the status quo. No, the business of religion must not be upset or you all might lose membership. 😉
Oh, so putting himself in a prophesy in Deuteronomy was "clarifying" the intended meaning of a passage? Drastically changing the meaning of a passage, making it say the opposite of what was actually in the manuscript copies is simply "clarifying"?

Like this passage of his from Romans 4:

5 But to him that seeketh not to be justified by the law of works, but believeth on him who justifieth NOT the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
The KJV, and every other version I know of, does not have the "not."

Compare to the real KJV:

5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.


Smith's version is a contradictory mish-mash. You call this clarity?

The godly need no justification, the UNgodly DO, for we are all sinners in need of salvation and justification.

16 Therefore ye are justified of faith and works, through grace, to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to them only who are of the law, but to them also who are of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all..

There is no "AND WORKS' in this passage in the correct translations. Smith arrogantly added it. These additions completely change the intended meaning and have no manuscript evidence to support these changes.

but look what Smith wrote HERE in his so-called "inspired" version of the Bible, as articulated on mrm.org:

Such comments seem to overlook one very important “correction” Joseph Smith made to the Bible in 1833. In his Inspired Version (A.K.A. Joseph Smith Translation) of the Bible, Smith altered Romans 3:28. The King James Version (the official Bible of the LDS Church) reads: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” However, Joseph Smith included one simple word to his rendition of this beloved passage. In his “translation” Smith added the word alone. Today it reads: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith alone without the deeds of the law.”

Smith’s insertion parallel’s that of Martin Luther’s 1528 translation of the Bible. Though no Greek manuscript supports the inclusion of the word “alone” in this particular passage, Luther insisted that it should remain in his text. Still, Smith’s correction is not consistent with other changes he made. For instance, in Romans 4:16 the JST states, “ye are justified of faith and works.


Also from this link:

Adding to the confusion is Smith’s rendition of Romans 4:5. In the King James Version it reads, “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” For some unknown reason Smith added the word not into the passage. In the JST Romans 4:5 reads, “But to him that seeketh not to be justified by the law of works, but believeth on him who justifieth not the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”

Smith’s three-letter addition–which, once again, has no support from any Greek manuscript–completely changes the meaning of the passage. How can a sinner’s faith be counted for righteousness if Christ does not justify the ungodly? If this is a correct translation of Romans 4:5, then it would seem that all of mankind is lost, for as Romans 3:10 clearly states, “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.” By the way, Smith left Romans 3:10 intact.

Sooo....Smith contradicted himself. And actually agreed with Luther's translation!

But to head you off at the pass..."deeds of the Law" are NOT just the ceremonial rituals that Jews had to do before Jesus died for us. The deeds of the Law would also include loving one's neighbor as oneself, and Jesus pointed out that this is the second greatest commandment. And it is in the LoM.

I will say this for Smith--he was consistently INconsistent!

So don't try to tell me that Smith's version was just to "clarify" passages. In some cases, he made things more complicated and contradictory and actually changed the meaning.
 
Last edited:

dberrie2020

Well-known member
Correction... . They were (officially) "recognized" as canon by that time.
They were always canon, however, and were quoted frequently by the Apostolic Fathers, and ECF's.

And before they try to twist your words, they were never "voted" upon.

ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445) | EWTN


Second, on February 4, 1442, Session 11 at the Council of Florence, the Council proclaimed:

*Most firmly it believes, professes and preaches that the one true God, Father, Son and holy Spirit, is the creator of all things that are, visible and invisible, who, when he willed it, made from his own goodness all creatures, both spiritual and corporeal, good indeed because they are made by the supreme good, but mutable because they are made from nothing, and it asserts that there is no nature of evil because every nature, in so far as it is a nature, is good. It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.

Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John. *

Third, two separate votes at the Council of Trent were taken regarding the canon of the entire bible. The first vote was whether that Council (of Trent) should officially confirm the books listed at the council of Florence (see above). The vote was 100% yea. The second vote was whether or not an anathema should be added to this decree of the canon. That vote went 24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain. Remember - the Catholic Church in the West, as evidenced by Pope Damasus I and later, the Council of Florence, had “settled” on 73 books comprising the OT and NT. But no official decree had ever been issued.

So, with a “slight of hand”, White uses factual statistics from the Council of Trent that evidences a vote regarding the canon of the entire bible, but he fails to explain that two votes occurred, and that his “40%” vote did not pertain to only canonicity - it pertained to adding an “anathema” to the canon that had long been accepted (albeit, unofficially).

One thing to keep in mind: St. Jerome himself had serious doubts about the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books, whereas St. Augustine did not. Nevertheless, St. Jerome performed his commission given to him by Pope Damasus I and compiled the deuteros in his Latin Vulgate.

In 1997, in his book “The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance”, Bruce M. Metzger, a noted Protestant biblical scholar, said, beginning on p. 246, “Finally on 8 April 1546, by a vote of 24 to 15, with 16 abstensions, the Council issued a decree (De Canonicis Scripturis) in which, for the first time in the history of the Church, the question of the contents of the Bible was made an absolute article of faith and confirmed by an anathema.”
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
Oh, so putting himself in a prophesy in Deuteronomy was "clarifying" the intended meaning of a passage? Drastically changing the meaning of a passage, making it say the opposite of what was actually in the manuscript copies is simply "clarifying"?

Like this passage of his from Romans 4:


The KJV, and every other version I know of, does not have the "not."

I wouldn't say there is that much difference between that--and Martin Luther adding "alone" to "faith" in Romans 3--which no other translation has, that I am aware of. And, which no ancient Biblical manuscript possesses.
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
But what I wrote is the truth--that IS what your church has done to our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ! Your church has an abysmally low Christology--rendering the great and uncreated Word of God as an exalted creature....

Are you referring to these passages?

Acts 2:33---King James Version
33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

Acts 5:30-31--King James Version
30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Philippians 2:9---King James Version
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
You have not proven any real errors in the Bible. All we have is your assertion, with no proof. The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for your assertion.

Bonnie--neither you, nor anyone else--has addressed the posted evidence:

https://journal.interpreterfoundati...l-in-the-hebrew-bible-and-the-book-of-mormon/

[Page 168]As it reads in the kjv, Moses sings here that God established national boundaries based on the number of the children of Israel (בני ישראל; bĕnê yiśĕrā’ēl) and retained the Israelites (“Jacob”) for himself. More recent translations of this passage, however, contained a significant variant reading.

Remember the days of old, consider the years long past; ask your father, and he will inform you; your elders, and they will tell you. When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods; the LORD’S own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share. (NRSV vv. 7–9, emphasis added)

Here the nations are not divided according to the number of the children of Israel but rather according to the number of the gods. Whence this new reading? The ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible known today as the Septuagint recorded that God divided the nations “according to the number of the angels of God” (κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ἀγγέλων θεοῦ; kata arithmon angelōn theou). This was long assumed to be an error, and so the Masoretic Text was preferred by the translators of the kjv. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the mid-twentieth century, however, scholars revisited this matter. Among the recovered fragments was a text (4QDeutj) giving a much earlier reading of v. 8 that significantly diverged from the Masoretic Text. Rather than dividing the nations according to the number of the children of Israel, God, in this textual witness, is said to have divided the nations according to the number of “the sons of God” (בני אלוהים; bĕnê ’ēlōhîm).Carmel McCarthy, writing in the authoritative Biblia Hebraica Quinta, could see no other reason for this variant than it arose through “deliberate emendation” by scribes with “theological motives.”

But the scribal alterations did not end with v. 8. At the conclusion of the song, Moses exults, “Rejoice, O ye nations [גוים; gōyîm], with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and [Page 169]to his people” (kjv v. 43). Again, consulting modern translations reveals a significant difference. “Praise, O heavens, his people, worship him, all you gods! For he will avenge the blood of his children, and take vengeance on his adversaries; he will repay those who hate him, and cleanse the land for his people” (NRSV v. 43, emphasis added). The reading provided by the NRSV (among other modern translations), draws from the textual witness of 4QDeutq. As preserved in this fragment, Moses adjures the members of the divine council, identified as “gods” (אלהים; ’ēlōhîm), to worship Yahweh. A poetic parallelism conceptually linking the “heavens” (שמים; šāmaîm) and the “gods” (אלהים; ’ēlōhîm) is also evident in the Qumran version, but lost in the Masoretic reworking, which changed “heavens” to “nations” and omitted reference to the gods worshipping Yahweh altogether. The reading in 4QDeutq aligns closely with the Septuagint, which represents Moses as commanding: “Rejoice, O heavens, with him [i.e. God], and bow down before him, all you sons of God” (εὐφράνθητε, οὐρανοί, ἅμα αὐτῷ, καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες υἱοὶ θεοῦ; euphanthēte ouranoi hama autō euphanthēte ouranoi hama autō kai proskynēsatōsan autō pantes uioi theou).

The transmission of Deuteronomy 32 indicates that the divine council is (or was) so overtly present in the text that scribes wishing to downplay the apparent polytheism undertook alterations that would make it theologically suitable for emerging orthodox trends toward a “purer” monotheism. Bernard Levinson sees in this passage “mythological imagery of God presiding over the divine council” that “almost certainly” challenged the monotheism of the copyists handling the text, which in turn “triggered the attempts to purge the text of polytheistic elements.”Paul Sanders summarizes the current scholarly consensus on this matter nicely: “Both in v. 8b and 43a the fragments from Qumran contain references to gods beside YHWH whereas such references are not found in the [Masoretic Text] and the Samaritan Pentateuch. In the latter versions the absence of these references would seem to be due to deliberate elimination.”
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
But what I wrote is the truth--that IS what your church has done to our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ! Your church has an abysmally low Christology--rendering the great and uncreated Word of God as an exalted creature,....
Could you explain for us how testifying Jesus Christ is an exalted man--somehow is a "low Christology"?

IOW--the Biblical NT testimony--is a "low Christology"?

Acts 2:33---King James Version
33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

Acts 5:30-31--King James Version
30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Philippians 2:9---King James Version
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

1 Timothy 2:5---King James Version
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
 

Theo1689

Well-known member

ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445) | EWTN


Second, on February 4, 1442, Session 11 at the Council of Florence, the Council proclaimed:

*Most firmly it believes, professes and preaches that the one true God, Father, Son and holy Spirit, is the creator of all things that are, visible and invisible, who, when he willed it, made from his own goodness all creatures, both spiritual and corporeal, good indeed because they are made by the supreme good, but mutable because they are made from nothing, and it asserts that there is no nature of evil because every nature, in so far as it is a nature, is good. It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.

Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John. *

Third, two separate votes at the Council of Trent were taken regarding the canon of the entire bible. The first vote was whether that Council (of Trent) should officially confirm the books listed at the council of Florence (see above). The vote was 100% yea. The second vote was whether or not an anathema should be added to this decree of the canon. That vote went 24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain. Remember - the Catholic Church in the West, as evidenced by Pope Damasus I and later, the Council of Florence, had “settled” on 73 books comprising the OT and NT. But no official decree had ever been issued.

So, with a “slight of hand”, White uses factual statistics from the Council of Trent that evidences a vote regarding the canon of the entire bible, but he fails to explain that two votes occurred, and that his “40%” vote did not pertain to only canonicity - it pertained to adding an “anathema” to the canon that had long been accepted (albeit, unofficially).

One thing to keep in mind: St. Jerome himself had serious doubts about the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books, whereas St. Augustine did not. Nevertheless, St. Jerome performed his commission given to him by Pope Damasus I and compiled the deuteros in his Latin Vulgate.

In 1997, in his book “The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance”, Bruce M. Metzger, a noted Protestant biblical scholar, said, beginning on p. 246, “Finally on 8 April 1546, by a vote of 24 to 15, with 16 abstensions, the Council issued a decree (De Canonicis Scripturis) in which, for the first time in the history of the Church, the question of the contents of the Bible was made an absolute article of faith and confirmed by an anathema.”

Congratulations! You've found the councils of Florence and Trent.
You're finally BEGINNING to learn some church history.

1400 years after Christ, it doesn't seem to be relevant to much.

But I have a couple of questions for you:

1) Since you like to quote the ECF's so much, why do you think you can trust them to be accurate, when according to your own argument, they didn't even know what the Scriptures were?

2) When was the last time your LDS church preached from "Tobit" or "Judith", which you are now claiming from these councils are "Scripture"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top