Romans 4:5 and the JST

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

Judas Priest, are you serious? Joseph Smith's divine restoration of that passage has been proven incorrect by the personal opinion of one James White, and thereafter sustained by all of the slackers who hope for an easier pathway to eternity?

Shocking.

James White materials that I have read or listened to:

Letters to a Mormon Elder
Is the Mormon my Brother?
Various articles from CRJ
His debate about temples in 2004
Assorted pamphlets and whatnot from Alpha and Omega ministries

From my reading and listening, his breadth and depth of knowledge on his subjects is underwhelming, to say the least.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by bluegoose

I think you mean pig latin, no?

pig latin falls under latin. in other words, pig latin is derived from latin (and a bit of german).

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

James White materials that I have read or listened to:

Letters to a Mormon Elder
Is the Mormon my Brother?
Various articles from CRJ
His debate about temples in 2004
Assorted pamphlets and whatnot from Alpha and Omega ministries

From my reading and listening, his breadth and depth of knowledge on his subjects is underwhelming, to say the least.

Maybe we should have quality control in terms of authorities cited. We could use SEIQ as our manager over authorities quality control. I am quite "offended" by the use of a pseudo-authority such as "Mr." White.

We should have an approved list of scholars? Eh?

[aaronshaf]

δικαιοῦντα - to justify (regard as righteous, godly, just, and innocent). Verb. Present Active Participle Accusative Singular Masculine

τὸν - article (the). Accusative Singular Masculine.

ἀσεβῆ - irreverent, impious, ungodly, or wicked. Adjective. Accusative Singular Masculine

Put together:

δικαιοῦντα (justifies) τὸν (the) ἀσεβῆ (ungodly)

If it was "justifies NOT the ungodly", the phrase would have included an important word:

μὴ - not. Adverb.

More here.

Not only does the Greek speak against the JST, but all reputable Greek scholars (secular and religious) and all major English translations and the very context in Romans surrounding 4:5.

So basically you're giving Smith authority to turn the meaning of a passage of God's authoritative word upside down, into something that doesn't fit the wider context of the surrounding text.

The only thing you have going for you is the euphoria of an emotional epiphany concerning a money-digger's 19th century restorationist movement.

Grace and peace in Christ, who justifies the ungodly like me by faith apart from works (Romans 4:1-8),

Aaron

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

So basically you're giving Smith authority to turn the meaning of a passage upside down, into something that doesn't fit the wider context of the surrounding text.

Yes, you have lit upon the crux of Mormonism, which is, that the true gospel has been restored to the earth by the prophet Joseph Smith. And that you may gain faith and knowledge of this through the power of the Holy Spirit.

That's why your arguments have no impact. Because they don't address the fundamental process by which Mormons believe one gains knowledge.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

δικαιοῦντα - to justify (regard as righteous, godly, just, and innocent). Verb. Present Active Participle Accusative Singular Masculine

τὸν - article (the). Accusative Singular Masculine.

ἀσεβῆ - irreverent, impious, ungodly, or wicked. Adjective. Accusative Singular Masculine

Put together:

δικαιοῦντα (justifies) τὸν (the) ἀσεβῆ (ungodly)

If it was "justifies NOT the ungodly", it would have included an important word:

μὴ - not. Adverb.

More here.

Not only does the Greek speak against the JST, but all reputable Greek scholars (secular and religious) and all major English translations and the very context in Romans surrounding 4:5.

So basically you're giving Smith authority to turn the meaning of a passage upside down, into something that doesn't fit the wider context of the surrounding text.

The only thing you have going for you is the euphoria of an emotional epiphany concerning a money-digger's 19th century restorationist movement.

Grace and peace in Christ, who justifies the ungodly like me by faith apart from works (Romans 4:1-8),

Aaron

I'm not educated in greek or knowledgeable about this particular passage. But it would not surprise me if Mormon scholars conceded your point and agreed that Joseph significantly altered the text in his JST. It wouldn't be the only time he did this. Mormon scholars also might even say that the text as we have it is exactly what Paul wrote and exactly what Paul meant and further that is is sound doctrinally in its original context. The JST clarified doctrine and misinterpretation, it wasn't an attempt at a more accurate translation of the Greek text. But you know all this. You're just trying to prey on uninformed Mormons who may not know it.

[aaronshaf]

I'm not educated in greek or knowledgeable about this particular passage. But it would not surprise me if Mormon scholars conceded your point and agreed that Joseph significantly altered the text in his JST. It wouldn't be the only time he did this. Mormon scholars also might even say that the text as we have it is exactly what Paul wrote and exactly what Paul meant and further that is is sound doctrinally in its original context. The JST clarified doctrine and misinterpretation, it wasn't an attempt at a more accurate translation of the Greek text. But you know all this. You're just trying to prey on uninformed Mormons who may not know it.

Clarification = turning a passage upside down on its head to mean the exact opposite of what it originally meant?

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

Clarification = turning a passage upside down on its head to mean the exact opposite of what it originally meant?

Clarification meaning fixing a passage that could easily be misinterpreted in a way that could be seriously damaging to the reader. It's not Paul's fault that we don't always get what he's saying, but JS had his back.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

Clarification = turning a passage upside down on its head to mean the exact opposite of what it originally meant?

I think you will admit that the doctrine JS taught was quite revolutionary.

We would never dare suggest that what you believe is the same as what we believe.

You can't call on the Bible as the ultimate source of truth because, frankly, we do not believe it to be the ultimate source of truth.

If you don't operate in our framework, you can't convince us.

That's why when we Mormons spread the gospel, we teach non-believers about our framework.

And that is why we win, and you fail.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

δικαιοῦντα - to justify (regard as righteous, godly, just, and innocent). Verb. Present Active Participle Accusative Singular Masculine

τὸν - article (the). Accusative Singular Masculine.

ἀσεβῆ - irreverent, impious, ungodly, or wicked. Adjective. Accusative Singular Masculine

Put together:

δικαιοῦντα (justifies) τὸν (the) ἀσεβῆ (ungodly)

If it was "justifies NOT the ungodly", the phrase would have included an important word:

μὴ - not. Adverb.

More here.

Not only does the Greek speak against the JST, but all reputable Greek scholars (secular and religious) and all major English translations and the very context in Romans surrounding 4:5.

So basically you're giving Smith authority to turn the meaning of a passage of God's authoritative word upside down, into something that doesn't fit the wider context of the surrounding text.

The only thing you have going for you is the euphoria of an emotional epiphany concerning a money-digger's 19th century restorationist movement.

Grace and peace in Christ, who justifies the ungodly like me by faith apart from works (Romans 4:1-8),

Aaron

Good for you! You have graduated to level 2-- using the primary sources instead of somebody else's reinterpretation. Even if all you did was cut and paste somebody else's argument, but that will do for now.

Now, show me how we can count on every word of the New Testament being exactly what the original author wrote. Be sure to deal with variations in manuscripts that are being discovered on a nearly daily basis. That will be level 3.

Then, show me that what Paul wrote was exactly what he meant-- in other words, that he always correctly and exactly conveyed the thought that he had in mind when he wrote everything that you just proved that he wrote. Given the fact that he used a human language, this may prove somewhat difficult, but if you can pull it off, you will have not only won quite a bit of academic prestige, but you will have progressed to level 4.

Next, show me that what Paul had in mind is exactly correspondant to the truth. Show me that Paul was never wrong and that his own ideas are laced with infallability. That bit of mind reading over 2000 years ex post facto will get you to level 5.

Finally, show me how the truth is identical to your interpretation of the text. In doing so, not only will you have solved the answer to the sectarian question that has plagued the world since day one, you will have FINALLY arrived at the point wherein you will gain some sort of credibility on this particular issue, and you will have demonstrated that there really is no need for a prophet to clarify and/or correct biblical passages.

You are way too far behind on this game, mon frere. I'd suggest you pick a different argument. Why not start on Joseph Smith and his claim to prophetic authority that justifies his rewrite of Romans in the first place? In fact, go even deeper and take on the Book of Mormon. I dare you. Much greater minds have tried and failed-- it will be entertaining to see your attempt.