PDA

View Full Version : Debate: Is Mormonism/LDS a Christian denomination?


Pages : [1] 2

Play The Man
07-17-2009, 09:18 PM
This is a new thread starter for a discussion that has been ongoing in other threads. I posted this thread so that the other threads can go on with their initial topics.

Suggested questions/topics for debate/discussion:

Is the LDS church a Christian church?

Was Joseph Smith a true prophet of God?

Is the "Book of Mormon" scripture?


Please refrain from ad hominem appeals against your forum opponents. As Joseph Smith claimed to be a prophet of God, his actions and claims are open to discussion.

eric84
07-17-2009, 09:29 PM
This is a new thread starter for a discussion that has been ongoing in other threads. I posted this thread so that the other threads can go on with their initial topics.

Suggested questions/topics for debate/discussion:

Is the LDS church a Christian church?

Was Joseph Smith a true prophet of God?

Is the "Book of Mormon" scripture?


Please refrain from ad hominem appeals against your forum opponents. As Joseph Smith claimed to be a prophet of God, his actions and claims are open to discussion.

1 -Yes

2 - Yes

3 - Yes

Ready for the debate now. :Whistle:

Neezar
07-17-2009, 09:30 PM
http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/THEDecepticon/GIFS/1947_eating_popcorn_and_drinking_be.gif

Neezar
07-17-2009, 09:31 PM
How do you know that is correct in the first place? It goes back to that I don't believe the Bible is 100%. The original speakers were 100%, but the bible was we have today isn't.

Interesting.

I haven't read the rest of this thread so forgive me if this has already been answered? Which parts of the bible do you believe? And how did you decide?

Rev
07-17-2009, 09:40 PM
How do you know that the Bible isnt 100%?

Mark 13:5-8

5. And Jesus began to say to them, “See to it that no one misleads you.
6. “Many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am He!’ and will mislead many.
7. “When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be frightened; those things must take place; but that is not yet the end. 8. “For nation will rise up against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there will also be famines. These things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.

Jeremiah 17:9

“The heart is more deceitful than all else
And is desperately sick;
Who can understand it?

I am not trying to start a fight I am just doing my job.

eric84
07-17-2009, 09:44 PM
Interesting.

I haven't read the rest of this thread so forgive me if this has already been answered? Which parts of the bible do you believe? And how did you decide?

This is based off of 2 things, and before you automatically call me a heretic :), just think about it.
- If the Bible is not 100%
- If there is a Prophet alive today who God communicates with and you believe that Prophet is a true Prophet.

Now lets say those were true(which I believe), and the Prophet said certain parts were changed in translation or just overtime the meanings were changed, and God instructed him what the original teachings were, or what he meant by it. If you truly believed he was a Prophet, wouldn't you follow his counsel? Of course you need to know for sure that the man is a true Prophet. Is it a bold claim to be a Prophet, of course, and there are many false Prophets, but if there is a true Prophet, it's best to listen to his counsel.

rockdawg21
07-17-2009, 09:49 PM
This is a new thread starter for a discussion that has been ongoing in other threads. I posted this thread so that the other threads can go on with their initial topics.

Suggested questions/topics for debate/discussion:

Is the LDS church a Christian church?

Was Joseph Smith a true prophet of God?

Is the "Book of Mormon" scripture?


Please refrain from ad hominem appeals against your forum opponents. As Joseph Smith claimed to be a prophet of God, his actions and claims are open to discussion.

1. Yes, somewhat. At least they believe in Jesus Christ and that he was our savior.

2. No, he was a teenager who was tarred and feathered for his talks. He was also kicked out of New York, Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri. The original book of Mormon was lost, then he couldn't retranslate it again saying that God was angry with him for losing the original scripture and could no longer translate from the plate of Nehi, but now had to use the plate of Nephi. How f'ing dumb is that?

3. Absolutely not! If you're going to make claims and say that Adam and Eve were expelled from the original garden of Eden to Adam-ondi-Ahman in Daviess County Missouri (just 20 miles south of here on Highway 13 - I'm in Bethany, Missouri right now) and that Native Americans were originally white, then you'd better be able to back it up. Joseph Smith wrote a book with a bunch of made up stories and when the original was lost, he couldn't come up with the same stories again. They also believe Adam-ondi-Ahman is where Jesus Christ will make his second coming. I really don't believe he wants to come to this area, it really sucks here.

Neezar
07-17-2009, 09:50 PM
This is based off of 2 things, and before you automatically call me a heretic :), just think about it.
- If the Bible is not 100%
- If there is a Prophet alive today who God communicates with and you believe that Prophet is a true Prophet.

Now lets say those were true(which I believe), and the Prophet said certain parts were changed in translation or just overtime the meanings were changed, and God instructed him what the original teachings were, or what he meant by it. If you truly believed he was a Prophet, wouldn't you follow his counsel? Of course you need to know for sure that the man is a true Prophet. Is it a bold claim to be a Prophet, of course, and there are many false Prophets, but if there is a true Prophet, it's best to listen to his counsel.

So, this prophet tells you which parts of the bible is correct?

Okay, fair enough. :)

Rev
07-17-2009, 09:55 PM
Kind of nice to be able to pick whatever parts of scripture you are gonna listen to.

I say we get rid of the whole sin thing so we can all do what we want. Just Picking.

eric84
07-17-2009, 09:56 PM
1. Yes, somewhat. At least they believe in Jesus Christ and that he was our savior.

2. No, he was a teenager who was tarred and feathered for his talks. He was also kicked out of New York, Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri. The original book of Mormon was lost, then he couldn't retranslate it again saying that God was angry with him for losing the original scripture and could no longer translate from the plate of Nehi, but now had to use the plate of Nephi. How f'ing dumb is that?

3. Absolutely not! If you're going to make claims and say that Adam and Eve were expelled from the original garden of Eden to Adam-ondi-Ahman in Daviess County Missouri (just 20 miles south of here on Highway 13 - I'm in Bethany, Missouri right now) and that Native Americans were originally white, then you'd better be able to back it up. Joseph Smith wrote a book with a bunch of made up stories and when the original was lost, he couldn't come up with the same stories again. They also believe Adam-ondi-Ahman is where Jesus Christ will make his second coming. I really don't believe he wants to come to this area, it really sucks here.

I'm still laughing at your last comment....haha. But anyways, down to business.

2 - I don't think being tarred and feathered, or being kicked out discredits him at all. Was not Jesus Crucified? Was not many of the Prophets stoned? Many things were made up about them to the people, yet they were still true. Certain manuscripts were stolen because Joseph disobeyed God and let someone take them to show to other people. God informed Joseph that the men would use it to their advantage by changing the script, and when he published the new one, they would say he made it all up because they would be different. Makes sense to me.

3 - How do we know that isn't the place adam and eve went? The white should be taken in context with the color of the skin. I might say I'm white compared to a very dark skinned person, yet I could also say someone else is white compared to me. Jesus Christ will show himself at the second coming over in Jerusalem, but do you honestly think that is the ONLY place he will go? Even if it sucks as bad as you say, I'm sure Jesus won't mind :)

eric84
07-17-2009, 09:59 PM
Kind of nice to be able to pick whatever parts of scripture you are gonna listen to.

I say we get rid of the whole sin thing so we can all do what we want. Just Picking.

It's obvious you didn't think much about what I said. It comes down to if you believe there is a Prophet alive today, and if the Bible is 100%(which you don't on both accounts). I can respect that belief, although I don't believe the same way. If the Bible was 100%, then of course I wouldn't need anything else. But I would hope you could at least see where I'm coming from, try thinking about it a little more, thanks.

Rev
07-17-2009, 10:14 PM
I DO believe the bible 10000000000000% thanks.

The reason I believe the Bible is because it has proven itself time and time again. What has Joseph said or done that has proven himself right?

Gen. 2: 10-14
10. Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers. 11. The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12. The gold of that land is good; the bdellium and the onyx stone are there. 13. The name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole land of Cush. 14. The name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

Now I'm not a geography major, but i dont think Jackson County, has a Tigris or Euphrates.

But I guess none of this matters if you only believe the parts of the Bible that make you right.(Joseph, not you eric84)

eric84
07-17-2009, 10:22 PM
I DO believe the bible 10000000000000% thanks.

The reason I believe the Bible is because it has proven itself time and time again. What has Joseph said or done that has proven himself right?

Gen. 2: 10-14
10. Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers. 11. The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12. The gold of that land is good; the bdellium and the onyx stone are there. 13. The name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole land of Cush. 14. The name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

Now I'm not a geography major, but i dont think Jackson County, has a Tigris or Euphrates.

But I guess none of this matters if you only believe the parts of the Bible that make you right.(Joseph, not you eric84)


What your describing is the Garden of Eden, whereas Joseph Smith said Jackson county was where Adam/Eve went AFTER the garden of Eden. We don't know how far they traveled, and this was before the flood. Plus just because they have those names doesn't make it the same river. It could be, but if so, refer back to my first sentence.

Rev
07-17-2009, 10:34 PM
Thats alot of walking. lol
My question is, what has this man done to be accepted as a prophet of God in the way that you speak? What is different from what JS says and what Muhammad said? I know they said different things but they both started a religion that suited them. What has he done? I know why I believe the Bible. Why do you believe Joseph Smith?

eric84
07-17-2009, 11:20 PM
Thats alot of walking. lol
My question is, what has this man done to be accepted as a prophet of God in the way that you speak? What is different from what JS says and what Muhammad said? I know they said different things but they both started a religion that suited them. What has he done? I know why I believe the Bible. Why do you believe Joseph Smith?

What interested me in even finding out if he was true, is obviousely the church and what it stands for. I have met people of many faiths, and I haven't seen any that stand by their beliefs the way the LDS church does. Not saying people don't, but that is what first impressed me. Second, I read the Book of Mormon, and it hit me just like the Bible hits me, the feelings I get of peace and love, and understanding. So I prayed about it, and God told me he was a Prophet, and that the Book of Mormon is also his word, and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is Gods church. You can choose not to believe that, but I know it to be true for myself, so any accusations against it has no bearing for me. I wouldn't deny to God something he gave me.

That is why I believe Joseph Smith. I'll try to answer the question of what has he done with the knowledge that I have. I don't believe he could have done any of these things had he not had the divine guidance from God.
- Translated(Not wrote), The Book of Mormon(Have you read it entirely? Just think, he did it back in the early 1800's as a farm boy.
- Organized the church, which today has become a world wide church. Although still relatively small(13 million), the growth has been pretty fast given the amount of time. Nearly 200 years sounds like a LONG time, but to grow from 1 person to 13 million it isn't as long as it seems. The church is extremely orderly, and runs debt free. Not many churches do this.
- Died for his beliefs. He could of refused to go to prison, but he went so his people wouldn't bear the brunt of it. He went knowing that he probably wouldn't return. That takes a lot of courage, and faith.

One big thing that captures me also is the need for Authority. In the United States, almost anyone at any time can become an "Ordained Minister". Joseph Smith taught that God has order, and he gives authority to certain people to do things in his name, such as Luke 9:1. On that same note, I believe only those with that authority(The lds church calls it Priesthood), can do such things as Baptize, and Administer the Sacrament(bread and wine, although we use water).

Chris F
07-18-2009, 12:02 AM
This is a new thread starter for a discussion that has been ongoing in other threads. I posted this thread so that the other threads can go on with their initial topics.

Suggested questions/topics for debate/discussion:

Is the LDS church a Christian church? No. They believe Jesus is merely God's son and not God incarnate. This violates basic essential Chrsitina doctrine. If Jesus is not God then we worship Him in vain. Mormons claim Jesus was married and even had kids as well. Also they believ God i snothing more then an exhalted man and he is flesh and bones (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22) Theres more but this proves they ARE NOT Chrisitans

Was Joseph Smith a true prophet of God? Any man who makes the claim his words are the equivelent of scripture is not man of God. Joesph Smith taught his words and those he were chose to follow him were to be the same as scripture. (Doctrine and Covenants 21:4-5) So this is a resounding no)

Is the "Book of Mormon" scripture? Not a channce. the bible explicity warns about those who add or take away. Rev 22:18-Deut 4:2 also teh NT says scripture can come only from contempories of Jesus and the apostles 2 Tim 3:15,17 and 2 Pet 1:19,21


Please refrain from ad hominem appeals against your forum opponents. As Joseph Smith claimed to be a prophet of God, his actions and claims are open to discussion.

My responses are in red above.

Chris F
07-18-2009, 12:05 AM
This is based off of 2 things, and before you automatically call me a heretic :), just think about it.
- If the Bible is not 100%
- If there is a Prophet alive today who God communicates with and you believe that Prophet is a true Prophet.

Now lets say those were true(which I believe), and the Prophet said certain parts were changed in translation or just overtime the meanings were changed, and God instructed him what the original teachings were, or what he meant by it. If you truly believed he was a Prophet, wouldn't you follow his counsel? Of course you need to know for sure that the man is a true Prophet. Is it a bold claim to be a Prophet, of course, and there are many false Prophets, but if there is a true Prophet, it's best to listen to his counsel.

if the bible is not 100% then our faith is a lie

prophets of God are his spokeman not in it to be self exhalted.

Chuck
07-18-2009, 12:42 AM
This is a new thread starter for a discussion that has been ongoing in other threads. I posted this thread so that the other threads can go on with their initial topics.

Suggested questions/topics for debate/discussion:

Is the LDS church a Christian church?

Was Joseph Smith a true prophet of God?

Is the "Book of Mormon" scripture?


Please refrain from ad hominem appeals against your forum opponents. As Joseph Smith claimed to be a prophet of God, his actions and claims are open to discussion.

1. No
2. No
3. No

Chuck
07-18-2009, 12:51 AM
I have met people of many faiths, and I haven't seen any that stand by their beliefs the way the LDS church does.
Admirable perhaps, but not enough to base eternal life on IMO.

I read the Book of Mormon, and it hit me just like the Bible hits me, the feelings I get of peace and love, and understanding.
Are you really going to base your salvation on "feelings"?? Sounds dangerous to me....

So I prayed about it, and God told me he was a Prophet, and that the Book of Mormon is also his word, and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is Gods church.
How? When God tells you something how do you validate that? As a Christian when I feel God is speaking to me I take it back to God's Word. If it contradicts the Bible then it can't be from God. When the book of Mormon and the teachings of the LDS church contradict scripture which one do you believe???


That is why I believe Joseph Smith. I'll try to answer the question of what has he done with the knowledge that I have. I don't believe he could have done any of these things had he not had the divine guidance from God.
- Translated(Not wrote), The Book of Mormon(Have you read it entirely? Just think, he did it back in the early 1800's as a farm boy.
L. Ron Hubbard wrote a book and out of thatthe Scientology movement was formed... Do you believe in that as well?

- Organized the church, which today has become a world wide church. Although still relatively small(13 million), the growth has been pretty fast given the amount of time. Nearly 200 years sounds like a LONG time, but to grow from 1 person to 13 million it isn't as long as it seems. The church is extremely orderly, and runs debt free. Not many churches do this.
- Died for his beliefs. He could of refused to go to prison, but he went so his people wouldn't bear the brunt of it. He went knowing that he probably wouldn't return. That takes a lot of courage, and faith.
Certainly to die for one's beliefs is admirable but that shouldn't be enough to convince anyone of his Kingdom Authority

How long have you been part of the LDS?

TheDotComKid
07-18-2009, 02:42 AM
So I prayed about it, and God told me he was a Prophet, and that the Book of Mormon is also his word, and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is Gods church.

Church founder Joseph Smith had at least 33 wives. One was 14. Five others were 17 or under. He married five pairs of sisters. Two of which were his own adopted daughters. After his death, another 335 women were sealed to him, many of whom he did not know.I ask you,do these sound like the actions of a Christ like or God like man or the actions of a man abusing his power? and David Koresh also died for his beliefs do you belive he was a prophet? God speaks to me through my heart and my heart tells me that joesph smith was a false prophet who peverted the word of god to suit himself.

Vizion
07-18-2009, 04:13 AM
Church founder Joseph Smith had at least 33 wives. One was 14. Five others were 17 or under. He married five pairs of sisters. Two of which were his own adopted daughters. After his death, another 335 women were sealed to him, many of whom he did not know.I ask you,do these sound like the actions of a Christ like or God like man or the actions of a man abusing his power? and David Koresh also died for his beliefs do you belive he was a prophet? God speaks to me through my heart and my heart tells me that joesph smith was a false prophet who peverted the word of god to suit himself.
great points, all.

warriorlion
07-18-2009, 05:59 PM
ooooh another debate, that I didnt start this time. nice

So LDS are they christian - well since christian means christ like or little christ and since they dont believe that Christ was God in flesh, then No would be the simple answer to that question. The basis of that is simply this.

In the old testament God spoke to moses through the burning bush, at this time Moe asked who to say sent him and God said YHWH or yahweh, which means I AM. see Exodus 3:14.

Now in the book of John you see Jesus going before the high priest before being put to death and asked are you the son of God, to which Jesus replys Ego eimi. to which the high priest tears his clothes crying out blashphemy.

The thing to note here is that Jesus words are written in greek for the new testament, and he could have used any for of reply, however it was a specific reply. As you will know the old testament iswritten in hebrew however there is a translation in greek called the septuagent (speeling might be off there - Nate I am sure will correct me)

Looking at the scripture in Exodus previously stated in the greek text when Moses asked God who to say sent him, Gods word in greek were Ego Eimi.

The very same words that Jesus used. And surprisingly enough this was exactly why Jesus used them, this is exactly why the high priest responded in the way that he did.

Jesus said taht he was God. blasphemy in the eyes of the jews, but truth in the eyes of God. For Gd is not a man that he should lie.

SO if Jesus hijmself stated that He was God then you must follow that for him to lie, then all of the religions that hold him in any form of reguard fall by the way side - therefore Christianity it false, Islam who see Jesus as second only to Mohammed as a prophet is flawed, Buddism who see Jesus as a friend of Budda is also flawed.

So that only stands that Jesus must be telling the truth, which means he must be God and therefore not just a highly exhulded man.

2nd question is Joseph Smith a prophet of God.
It follows the first part really, if he doesnt believe the fundermental teaching of God's word, then how can he be a prophet for that God???
a prime example is this:-
Instead of affirming that there was an eternal God who had created matter, Smith taught that matter was eternal and that it was God who had developed through time and space.
Kind of contradicts the whole of Genesis 1 really, and therefore speaks against the word of god
also this:-
Smith published the Book of Abraham, his translation of what later turned out to be an ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead that he had purchased from a traveling exhibitor in 1835. The Book of Abraham, canonized by the LDS Church after Smith's death, also emphasized the plurality of gods, pre-mortal existence, and the concept that the earth had been organized out of preexisting matter
flies in the face of you shall have no others gods but me, one of the commandments
The whole book of mormon goes against the adding to scripture. Not to mention the fact that Jesus while on the cross claimed 'IT IS FINISHED' yet still felt the need to visit the americas after his resurrection. In a country that was not founded for another 1400 years.
that added to the fact that Most adherents of the LDS movement consider the Book of Mormon to be a historically accurate account.[citation needed] Critics of the historical and scientific claims of the Book of Mormon tend to focus on four main areas:

The lack of correlation between locations described in the Book of Mormon and American archaeological sites.[93]
References to animals, plants, metals and technologies in the Book of Mormon that archaeological or scientific studies have found no evidence of in post-Pleistocene, pre-Columbian America, frequently referred to as anachronisms.[94] Items typically listed include cattle[95], horses,[96][97] asses,[96][98], oxen,[96] sheep, swine, goats[99], elephants,[100][101] wheat, steel,[102] brass, chains, iron, scimitars, and chariots.[103]
The lack of linguistic connection between any Native American languages and Near Eastern languages.[104]
The lack of DNA evidence linking any Native American group to the ancient Near East.[105]

(some pointa taken from other sources)

Chris F
07-18-2009, 06:24 PM
Here is a part of a short article I read when Mit Romney was running and this debate was ragging big time. It may be a help to some.

Is This Christian Doctrine?

The LDS church claims that it is Christian. Whether this claim is accurate or not is easily determined. All readers need to do is answer the following questions:

Does Christianity teach that at some point it may be said of faithful Christians, "Then shall they be gods" (Doctrine & Covenants 132:20)?

Does Christianity teach that all churches are "wrong," all creeds are "an abomination," and all church members are "corrupt" (Pearl of Great Price JS-H 1:19)?

Does Christianity teach that "Three separate personages -- Father, Son, and Holy Ghost -- comprise the Godhead. As each of these persons is a God, it is evident, from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of Gods exists" (Mormon Doctrine, pg 576)?

Does Christianity teach that "bread and the water [represent] the body and blood of the Savior" (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol 1, ALTAR)?

Does Christianity teach this: "The prophet and the presidency -- the living prophet and the First Presidency -- follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer" (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pg 334)?

Does the Christian religion teach that church or denominational leaders cannot lead their organizations astray (Doctrine & Covenants, excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto)?

Does Christianity teach that Lucifer is "this spirit-brother of Jesus" (The Gospel Through the Ages, pg 15)?

Does Christianity teach that "the present exalted position of our Heavenly Father was gradually built up" and that "if He should ever do anything to violate the confidence or 'sense of justice' of these intelligences, they would promptly withdraw their support, and the 'power' of God would disintegrate" (The First 2000 Years, pg 355)?

The answer to all these questions is a resounding No. Christianity does not teach these things. Each and every one of them is repugnant to the Scripture, the creeds, the confessions of faith, the convictions of Christian churches and denominations and people. Not one of these ideas is part of the Christian faith. But all of them are part of Mormonism. And this means that Mormonism teaches doctrines which are not part of Christianity; in other words, it teaches un-Christian doctrines. And since all these doctrines contradict established Christian teaching, they are more than un-Christian -- they are anti-Christian. And this means that though Mormonism claims it's a Christian church, exactly the opposite is true. Instead of being Christian, Mormonism is flatly anti-Christian. -- Robert McKay

Rev
07-18-2009, 08:33 PM
Sadly, I bet alot of the people who are following this cultish religion feel that they are doing right but wont see the truth because they have been taught that "others" are out to get them. I also believe that alot of the hard to swallow issues are danced around so that members wont be as quick to question or rock the boat. It sucks that people ae so easily led astray to follow a "different gospel" as in Galatians 1:6-10. Paying for them. Still got love for them and I am waiting for erics response to the post before mine.

Eric, I dont want you to think that I am attacking you. I dont even know you but I love you and want nothing but good and blessings for you. But I feel that you have been led astray and just hope that you will be willing to listen to both sides of the argument. I have, that is how I know that the Bible IS the word of God. If we choose not to agree on this, I hope we can still be cool. Again, I am not attacking you.

cubsfan47
07-18-2009, 10:36 PM
Sadly, I bet alot of the people who are following this cultish religion feel that they are doing right but wont see the truth because they have been taught that "others" are out to get them. I also believe that alot of the hard to swallow issues are danced around so that members wont be as quick to question or rock the boat. It sucks that people ae so easily led astray to follow a "different gospel" as in Galatians 1:6-10. Paying for them. Still got love for them and I am waiting for erics response to the post before mine.

Eric, I dont want you to think that I am attacking you. I dont even know you but I love you and want nothing but good and blessings for you. But I feel that you have been led astray and just hope that you will be willing to listen to both sides of the argument. I have, that is how I know that the Bible IS the word of God. If we choose not to agree on this, I hope we can still be cool. Again, I am not attacking you.

What he said. You are on my list Eric.

warriorlion
07-18-2009, 11:02 PM
Sadly, I bet alot of the people who are following this cultish religion feel that they are doing right but wont see the truth because they have been taught that "others" are out to get them. I also believe that alot of the hard to swallow issues are danced around so that members wont be as quick to question or rock the boat. It sucks that people ae so easily led astray to follow a "different gospel" as in Galatians 1:6-10. Paying for them. Still got love for them and I am waiting for erics response to the post before mine.

Eric, I dont want you to think that I am attacking you. I dont even know you but I love you and want nothing but good and blessings for you. But I feel that you have been led astray and just hope that you will be willing to listen to both sides of the argument. I have, that is how I know that the Bible IS the word of God. If we choose not to agree on this, I hope we can still be cool. Again, I am not attacking you.

were you refering to my post or Chris F's post.

Rev
07-19-2009, 01:02 AM
were you refering to my post or Chris F's post.
both

warriorlion
07-19-2009, 02:03 AM
both


did you think my post was an attack or disrespectful then??

Chris F
07-19-2009, 05:07 PM
did you think my post was an attack or disrespectful then??

I thought your post was in the realms of civil discourse. You were not nasty and nor was I. The fact is we answered the question with fact and not personal opinion. SO not sure why anyone would see that as an attack.

Rev
07-19-2009, 10:23 PM
No, I thought it was great! I just want Eric to know that we arent out to get him. keep the info flowing.

NateR
07-20-2009, 02:06 AM
1. Is the LDS church a Christian church?

2. Was Joseph Smith a true prophet of God?

3. Is the "Book of Mormon" scripture?

1. No, it's an apostate church. It's not guilty of subtracting from the Gospel, it's guilty of adding to the Gospel.

2. No, I've read his story and he just sounds like a guy who fell for a demonic deception. I'm sure he really believed that he was a prophet in the style of Isaiah or Jeremiah, but he was most likely deceived.

A very similar situation to what we see with Muhammed. He originally believed that he was a prophet and that his Koran was a new testament of the Bible. It was only after he was cast out of the Jewish and Christian Churches that he reworked his message for the scattered Arab tribes and added in all the hatred of Christians and Jews. However, Muhammed was illiterate, so the Koran wasn't written down until long after his death.

3. No, because it fails all of the most basic tests of historical accuracy. First off, the text must be written within the lifespans of the living eyewitnesses to the events for the manuscript to be considered reliable.

The latest estimations for the book of Revelation in the New Testament is 105 AD. Jesus was crucified around 29 AD, so that's a gap of only 76 years between the events of Jesus' life and the closing of the New Testament canon. I must stress that 105 AD is the latest estimation, most scholars will date Revelation at around 95 AD. The Gospels and the writings of Paul are dated as early as 50 AD to as late as 100 AD. That's very much within a normal human lifespan, so when the Gospels were written you could actually track down the people mentioned and confirm their stories.

Is that the case with the Book of Mormon? How many people have actually translated these manuscripts? If it was just John Smith, then that can't be considered historically reliable. If his work can't be checked against the work of other translators then there is no way to verify it.

And I do agree with Chuck, in that it's extremely dangerous to base your theology on feelings that you get when you read a text. That's the quick road to heresy.

Tyburn
07-20-2009, 11:31 AM
Jeremy Horn is a Mormon isnt he :huh:

So I've heard anyway, He's also based in Utah isnt he :huh:

That seems to be the central Hub of Mormonism, in the same way that Canterbury is the Centre for Anglicanism, and Rome is the centre for Catholicism, and Constantinople was the centre for the Orthodox (Its now Antioch I believe but I could be wrong)

Utah, I think Salt Lake City infact, is the Centre for Mormonism.

I've known several Mormons. One infact who worked at ASDA has recently left to go on a two year mission trip to London :blink: The other I knew from University, she was German.

Regardless of its spread, which I believe entitles it to the ranks of Sect rather then Cult (generally a Sect is considered an international Cult of large size) It still cant be Christian.

Multiple Additional Books that it claims are Scripture
The claim that the Christian Cannon is still open
The claim that the Trinity doesnt exist, thus at worst Christ is not GOD, at best, we have polytheism!
The claim that the Bible is not GODs Word but simply inspired teaching
The claim that Old Style Major Prophets still exist and still dish out new teaching
The rejection of Church tradition, History, Doctrines, and Cannons of Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant wings of the Church.

Its not Christian.

eric84
07-20-2009, 03:19 PM
I don't feel attacked at all, you all are giving your point of view, and I'm giving mine, so no harm done there. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we can't all be friends :laugh:

1 - It seems most of the people posting on here are saying I shouldn't follow my feelings, and that the Bible is true. So your taking a worldly view of the Bible? I mean research is good and all, but you can never be 100% sure about that stuff. Just remember, a lot of the world thought earth was flat for a long time... And yet if I was to accept the Bible just by studying/research, then my feelings would be true anyways(see Galatians 5 again). Many times in the Bible it talks about asking and you shall receive, knock and it shall be opened unto you. I've done that, and it has, I'm definitely not going to deny God's answer to me. I'm pretty amazed that Christians are saying not to follow what the Spirit is saying to me, when the scriptures plainly show, that it's from God's Spirit.

2 - I think we need to remember that history isn't always correct, and LOTS of people hated Joseph Smith and "the mormons". I'm not saying everything written about him is false, but of course people that dislike him are going to say bad things about him, whether they are true or not. I refer back to praying about this, I trust God's answer over the worlds answer.

3 - "Multiple Additional Books that it claims are Scripture
- Scripture was constantly added throughout all Old and New Testament times, so I don't feel this can rule out new scripture by itself.

The claim that the Christian Cannon is still open
- Already talked about it, but the places in the Bible talking about not adding to or taken away, taken IN CONTEXT, and for the time it was written, was meant for individual books, not the Bible as a whole. There were MANY books that weren't added that were considered scripture at the time, who is to say some weren't "Taken away" at that point?

The claim that the Trinity doesn't exist, thus at worst Christ is not GOD, at best, we have polytheism!
- We worship God the Father through his Son Jesus Christ.
Philippians 2:6-11

The claim that the Bible is not GODs Word but simply inspired teaching
- One of the beliefs of the true is the Bible is the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly. How hard is it to understand that over a few thousand years with no computers, many translations, lost of original manuscripts and so on, that its POSSIBLE it didn't come through exactly the way it started? Many people on here believe its 100 %, and that's fine you believe that. I refer back to #1.

The claim that Old Style Major Prophets still exist and still dish out new teaching
- People throughout all time have tried to use the thought that no Prophets were needed anymore to get out of listening to the Prophet.

The rejection of Church tradition, History, Doctrines, and Cannons of Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant wings of the Church."
- I totally agree with this! We definitely don't base our beliefs off the traditions, history, doctrines and cannons of MEN, belonging to churches we don't feel were led by God.



It seems there is just alot of back and forth, so I'm only going to respond to new ideas brought up. I just don't want to continue to repeat the same things, thanks for all the comments!

Crisco
07-20-2009, 04:02 PM
I don't feel attacked at all, you all are giving your point of view, and I'm giving mine, so no harm done there. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we can't all be friends :laugh:

1 - It seems most of the people posting on here are saying I shouldn't follow my feelings, and that the Bible is true. So your taking a worldly view of the Bible? I mean research is good and all, but you can never be 100% sure about that stuff. Just remember, a lot of the world thought earth was flat for a long time... And yet if I was to accept the Bible just by studying/research, then my feelings would be true anyways(see Galatians 5 again). Many times in the Bible it talks about asking and you shall receive, knock and it shall be opened unto you. I've done that, and it has, I'm definitely not going to deny God's answer to me. I'm pretty amazed that Christians are saying not to follow what the Spirit is saying to me, when the scriptures plainly show, that it's from God's Spirit.

2 - I think we need to remember that history isn't always correct, and LOTS of people hated Joseph Smith and "the mormons". I'm not saying everything written about him is false, but of course people that dislike him are going to say bad things about him, whether they are true or not. I refer back to praying about this, I trust God's answer over the worlds answer.

3 - "Multiple Additional Books that it claims are Scripture
- Scripture was constantly added throughout all Old and New Testament times, so I don't feel this can rule out new scripture by itself.

The claim that the Christian Cannon is still open
- Already talked about it, but the places in the Bible talking about not adding to or taken away, taken IN CONTEXT, and for the time it was written, was meant for individual books, not the Bible as a whole. There were MANY books that weren't added that were considered scripture at the time, who is to say some weren't "Taken away" at that point?

The claim that the Trinity doesn't exist, thus at worst Christ is not GOD, at best, we have polytheism!
- We worship God the Father through his Son Jesus Christ.
Philippians 2:6-11

The claim that the Bible is not GODs Word but simply inspired teaching
- One of the beliefs of the true is the Bible is the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly. How hard is it to understand that over a few thousand years with no computers, many translations, lost of original manuscripts and so on, that its POSSIBLE it didn't come through exactly the way it started? Many people on here believe its 100 %, and that's fine you believe that. I refer back to #1.

The claim that Old Style Major Prophets still exist and still dish out new teaching
- People throughout all time have tried to use the thought that no Prophets were needed anymore to get out of listening to the Prophet.

The rejection of Church tradition, History, Doctrines, and Cannons of Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant wings of the Church."
- I totally agree with this! We definitely don't base our beliefs off the traditions, history, doctrines and cannons of MEN, belonging to churches we don't feel were led by God.



It seems there is just alot of back and forth, so I'm only going to respond to new ideas brought up. I just don't want to continue to repeat the same things, thanks for all the comments!


I pray for you Eric. Your on a dangerous path right now and I don't think your ready to change course yet.

We have given you as many facts as we can and they don't seem to phase you away from your belief in Joseph Smith.

Good luck brother.

Tyburn
07-20-2009, 05:08 PM
1) I don't feel attacked at all, you all are giving your point of view, and I'm giving mine, so no harm done there. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we can't all be friends :laugh:

2) - It seems most of the people posting on here are saying I shouldn't follow my feelings, and that the Bible is true. So your taking a worldly view of the Bible? I mean research is good and all, but you can never be 100% sure about that stuff. Just remember, a lot of the world thought earth was flat for a long time... And yet if I was to accept the Bible just by studying/research, then my feelings would be true anyways(see Galatians 5 again). Many times in the Bible it talks about asking and you shall receive, knock and it shall be opened unto you. I've done that, and it has, I'm definitely not going to deny God's answer to me. I'm pretty amazed that Christians are saying not to follow what the Spirit is saying to me, when the scriptures plainly show, that it's from God's Spirit.

3) - I think we need to remember that history isn't always correct, and LOTS of people hated Joseph Smith and "the mormons". I'm not saying everything written about him is false, but of course people that dislike him are going to say bad things about him, whether they are true or not. I refer back to praying about this, I trust God's answer over the worlds answer.

4) - "Multiple Additional Books that it claims are Scripture
- Scripture was constantly added throughout all Old and New Testament times, so I don't feel this can rule out new scripture by itself.

5) The claim that the Christian Cannon is still open
- Already talked about it, but the places in the Bible talking about not adding to or taken away, taken IN CONTEXT, and for the time it was written, was meant for individual books, not the Bible as a whole. There were MANY books that weren't added that were considered scripture at the time, who is to say some weren't "Taken away" at that point?

6) The claim that the Trinity doesn't exist, thus at worst Christ is not GOD, at best, we have polytheism!
- We worship God the Father through his Son Jesus Christ.
Philippians 2:6-11

7) The claim that the Bible is not GODs Word but simply inspired teaching
- One of the beliefs of the true is the Bible is the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly. How hard is it to understand that over a few thousand years with no computers, many translations, lost of original manuscripts and so on, that its POSSIBLE it didn't come through exactly the way it started? Many people on here believe its 100 %, and that's fine you believe that. I refer back to #1.

8) The claim that Old Style Major Prophets still exist and still dish out new teaching
- People throughout all time have tried to use the thought that no Prophets were needed anymore to get out of listening to the Prophet.

9) The rejection of Church tradition, History, Doctrines, and Cannons of Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant wings of the Church."
- I totally agree with this! We definitely don't base our beliefs off the traditions, history, doctrines and cannons of MEN, belonging to churches we don't feel were led by God.



It seems there is just alot of back and forth, so I'm only going to respond to new ideas brought up. I just don't want to continue to repeat the same things, thanks for all the comments!

1) I dont mind being your Friend, even if you are Mormon, I just believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, is not a valid Denomination of Christianity, and only is Valid as a Christian Sect because of its sheer volume. Otherwise it would simply be the Cult of Joseph Smith.

2) The Bible isnt a Worldly Book. Scripture is not just devinely inspired. There are many thousands of texts that are truthful and that are divinely inspired. That is not enough to be Scripture. Scripture is Holy. Its actually the Word of GOD. If it were possible to bottle up the Trinity in a Document...all the power, all the meaning, all of GOD...then that would be the Scripture. There isnt any differentiating between the Christian use of the Word "Logos" which means "Word" It can be applied to Jesus Christ OR To the Bible. The Bible is a LIVING Book. Its Spiritually Alive, In it is contained the very thoughts of GOD relating to the History of His Peoples, His Love for Restoration, His Gift of Salvation as a sheer act of Grace, His Holiness and the Spiritual War against Evil, His Judgement, Commandments, Promises....and The Future of His Reign.

If the Bible is wrong, on ANY single Level...it is completely and utterly divoid of ALL meaning. Its Either 100percent the Word of GOD...or it is nothing. You actually make it Nothing, because you demote it to the level of simply inspired...along with countless...and I mean, Billions of true and inspired writings, the writing of every Saint, Every Christian Soldier, every Apokraphal Book...Heck...probably half the religious texts of other Religions altogether.

The Bible is not Theologia (Doctrines, Traditions, Theological Writings) The Bible is not Apokrapha (Historical Accounts, Myths, Legends, morality tales, Angelology) The Bible is not Kaballah (Numerology, Symbology, Codes, mysticism, Alchemaic practise) The Bible is Not Inspired (Truth, Testimonials, Blessings)

The Bible uses ALL of the Above in various parts. But it doesnt belong to anyone stream of Thought, any One Human Compositer, any one Council of construction, any one single denomination. Its not simply History, Symbolism, Mythological. Its not simply a law based consitution, a method of Salvation, and act of Prophetic Foresight.

It is a Handbook, a Law book, A love Letter, Your Battle Orders...and most importantly of all. Its a Communication Device!

Its Actually possessed by The Spirit of GOD. It has the power to do things NO other Physical Object on this Planet can...because it is the pureist of Ikons. All Ikons are physical Tokens that point to something...but the Bible is like a Two Way Mirror...you look into it, and sometimes only see Worldly Reflections...Behind that text HE looks directly back at You.

3) I dont know much about the guy. I read his book once...I didnt think much of it. Possibly a Truth...but not really important. Who cares where Christ went that isnt listed in The Bible? Who actually cares if he Got into a relationship with anyone? I've heard the Children thing before, its rife from other myths and legends in central Europe...They also say Jesus visited India...and I'm sure eventually someone will say that he went to China...Who cares? What difference does it make? does it change salvation or the Gospel at all? No.

Frankly...if its not in the Bible...then its not worth worrying about. Maybe its true, maybe it isnt...but its nothing but a fascinating grounds for discussion.

4) Not Exactly True. Off the top of my head I think the Jewish Canon was Opened and Closed Thrice. The Second time to add books that were ontop of the first Five Books (is it Torrah...or pentatouch...or something) That was because the First Five books were consecrated by the Patriarchs...the Second set by the Jewish Council...and the Third was when the Jewish threw out some books...which is still a bone of contention for BOTH faiths that raises EXACTLY the points you made.

As for the New Testament...that was pretty much compiled all at once by a council. The only reason there even is a second Canon is to remind us of how we are Messianic Jews and not Orthodox Jews. It was only a major opporation because it became State Religion...and thus...they needed to make sure that there was some mention of what had been answered by Christ.

The New Testament is mostly Mirrors of the Old. You can gain Christ in the Old through enough Revelation, thats how it happened. The Most important bits of the Bible are The First Five books of the Old, and the First Four books of the New...plus Revelation.

The rest is just skin on the bones :laugh:

5) Thats a matter of Trust. You Trust your Heart...I Trust GOD. Your Problem isnt a problem to me.

6) "The Lord Our GOD is ONE" I can quote too. :laugh: They dont contradict each other if you understand them as a whole. There are three distinct personalities...but only ONE GOD.

7) Do you think GOD would let manuscripts be lost?? Is GOD not capable of keeping his Book in one piece??? Do you think he might drop the ball in less then two thousand years??? Is he Really that incompetant. Is he ALL-Knowing, and All-Seeing, and completely incontrol...or is he poor and defensless at the hands of a few scribal Translators :huh:

My GOD would not allow His Word to be botched up by Human interference. He's slightly above all that :)

My GOD is more powerful. He is not at the mercy of Time, or Human incompetance. There is NO chance anything of absolute Worth has been lost...only a few layers of symbology...which...whilst fantastic...are utterly lost on the readers anyway. :unsure-1: :laugh:

8) No they havent. People have recognised a Prophet...and then ignored him simply because he says what they dont want to hear. In Ancient times...they excepted Major Prophets...and still ignored them. The thought that we dont need Major Prophets anymore didnt really come til We received The Revelation.

The next time you see a Real Major Prophet...will be during the Tribulation. Aye...they'll be back in full force then...in Jerusalem...I think their are two of them...I think they get killed by the Anti-Christ...but I cant remember :unsure-1:

9) Its Ironic that considering how much your church has made up, you go and say Rome has made stuff up like Doctrines. At least Rome doesnt pretend its Doctrines are Scriptures... :rolleyes:

Crisco
07-20-2009, 05:34 PM
Well said David.

NateR
07-20-2009, 05:40 PM
I don't feel attacked at all, you all are giving your point of view, and I'm giving mine, so no harm done there. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we can't all be friends :laugh:

1 - It seems most of the people posting on here are saying I shouldn't follow my feelings, and that the Bible is true. So your taking a worldly view of the Bible? I mean research is good and all, but you can never be 100% sure about that stuff. Just remember, a lot of the world thought earth was flat for a long time... And yet if I was to accept the Bible just by studying/research, then my feelings would be true anyways(see Galatians 5 again). Many times in the Bible it talks about asking and you shall receive, knock and it shall be opened unto you. I've done that, and it has, I'm definitely not going to deny God's answer to me. I'm pretty amazed that Christians are saying not to follow what the Spirit is saying to me, when the scriptures plainly show, that it's from God's Spirit.

2 - I think we need to remember that history isn't always correct, and LOTS of people hated Joseph Smith and "the mormons". I'm not saying everything written about him is false, but of course people that dislike him are going to say bad things about him, whether they are true or not. I refer back to praying about this, I trust God's answer over the worlds answer.

3 - "Multiple Additional Books that it claims are Scripture
- Scripture was constantly added throughout all Old and New Testament times, so I don't feel this can rule out new scripture by itself.

The claim that the Christian Cannon is still open
- Already talked about it, but the places in the Bible talking about not adding to or taken away, taken IN CONTEXT, and for the time it was written, was meant for individual books, not the Bible as a whole. There were MANY books that weren't added that were considered scripture at the time, who is to say some weren't "Taken away" at that point?

The claim that the Trinity doesn't exist, thus at worst Christ is not GOD, at best, we have polytheism!
- We worship God the Father through his Son Jesus Christ.
Philippians 2:6-11

The claim that the Bible is not GODs Word but simply inspired teaching
- One of the beliefs of the true is the Bible is the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly. How hard is it to understand that over a few thousand years with no computers, many translations, lost of original manuscripts and so on, that its POSSIBLE it didn't come through exactly the way it started? Many people on here believe its 100 %, and that's fine you believe that. I refer back to #1.

The claim that Old Style Major Prophets still exist and still dish out new teaching
- People throughout all time have tried to use the thought that no Prophets were needed anymore to get out of listening to the Prophet.

The rejection of Church tradition, History, Doctrines, and Cannons of Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant wings of the Church."
- I totally agree with this! We definitely don't base our beliefs off the traditions, history, doctrines and cannons of MEN, belonging to churches we don't feel were led by God.



It seems there is just alot of back and forth, so I'm only going to respond to new ideas brought up. I just don't want to continue to repeat the same things, thanks for all the comments!

Did you know that the teachings of Mohammed were originally intended to be a third testament to the Christian Bible? However, they were rejected by the established Christian and Jewish leaders of the day for many of the same reasons that Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon was rejected.

So, have you read the Koran and, if it inspired the same feelings in you as you claim the Book of Mormon does, then would you be willing to consider it a part of the Biblical canon?

If you haven't read the Koran, then why not? Exactly what qualifies Joseph Smith as a prophet that doesn't also qualify Mohammed?

eric84
07-20-2009, 05:48 PM
Did you know that the teachings of Mohammed were originally intended to be a third testament to the Christian Bible? However, they were rejected by the established Christian and Jewish leaders of the day for many of the same reasons that Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon was rejected.

So, have you read the Koran and, if it inspired the same feelings in you as you claim the Book of Mormon does, then would you be willing to consider it a part of the Biblical canon?

If you haven't read the Koran, then why not? Exactly what qualifies Joseph Smith as a prophet that doesn't also qualify Mohammed?

I've read part of the Koran and didn't feel the same way I felt when reading the Book of Mormon or Bible, THUS, I don't consider it Scripture.

Crisco
07-20-2009, 06:06 PM
I've read part of the Koran and didn't feel the same way I felt when reading the Book of Mormon or Bible, THUS, I don't consider it Scripture.

So your saying that based on how you feel when you read something the entire Christian world should adhere to what you view at scripture base on your feelings?

eric84
07-20-2009, 06:09 PM
1) I dont mind being your Friend, even if you are Mormon, I just believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, is not a valid Denomination of Christianity, and only is Valid as a Christian Sect because of its sheer volume. Otherwise it would simply be the Cult of Joseph Smith.

2) The Bible isnt a Worldly Book. Scripture is not just devinely inspired. There are many thousands of texts that are truthful and that are divinely inspired. That is not enough to be Scripture. Scripture is Holy. Its actually the Word of GOD. If it were possible to bottle up the Trinity in a Document...all the power, all the meaning, all of GOD...then that would be the Scripture. There isnt any differentiating between the Christian use of the Word "Logos" which means "Word" It can be applied to Jesus Christ OR To the Bible. The Bible is a LIVING Book. Its Spiritually Alive, In it is contained the very thoughts of GOD relating to the History of His Peoples, His Love for Restoration, His Gift of Salvation as a sheer act of Grace, His Holiness and the Spiritual War against Evil, His Judgement, Commandments, Promises....and The Future of His Reign.

If the Bible is wrong, on ANY single Level...it is completely and utterly divoid of ALL meaning. Its Either 100percent the Word of GOD...or it is nothing. You actually make it Nothing, because you demote it to the level of simply inspired...along with countless...and I mean, Billions of true and inspired writings, the writing of every Saint, Every Christian Soldier, every Apokraphal Book...Heck...probably half the religious texts of other Religions altogether.

The Bible is not Theologia (Doctrines, Traditions, Theological Writings) The Bible is not Apokrapha (Historical Accounts, Myths, Legends, morality tales, Angelology) The Bible is not Kaballah (Numerology, Symbology, Codes, mysticism, Alchemaic practise) The Bible is Not Inspired (Truth, Testimonials, Blessings)

The Bible uses ALL of the Above in various parts. But it doesnt belong to anyone stream of Thought, any One Human Compositer, any one Council of construction, any one single denomination. Its not simply History, Symbolism, Mythological. Its not simply a law based consitution, a method of Salvation, and act of Prophetic Foresight.

It is a Handbook, a Law book, A love Letter, Your Battle Orders...and most importantly of all. Its a Communication Device!

Its Actually possessed by The Spirit of GOD. It has the power to do things NO other Physical Object on this Planet can...because it is the pureist of Ikons. All Ikons are physical Tokens that point to something...but the Bible is like a Two Way Mirror...you look into it, and sometimes only see Worldly Reflections...Behind that text HE looks directly back at You.

3) I dont know much about the guy. I read his book once...I didnt think much of it. Possibly a Truth...but not really important. Who cares where Christ went that isnt listed in The Bible? Who actually cares if he Got into a relationship with anyone? I've heard the Children thing before, its rife from other myths and legends in central Europe...They also say Jesus visited India...and I'm sure eventually someone will say that he went to China...Who cares? What difference does it make? does it change salvation or the Gospel at all? No.

Frankly...if its not in the Bible...then its not worth worrying about. Maybe its true, maybe it isnt...but its nothing but a fascinating grounds for discussion.

4) Not Exactly True. Off the top of my head I think the Jewish Canon was Opened and Closed Thrice. The Second time to add books that were ontop of the first Five Books (is it Torrah...or pentatouch...or something) That was because the First Five books were consecrated by the Patriarchs...the Second set by the Jewish Council...and the Third was when the Jewish threw out some books...which is still a bone of contention for BOTH faiths that raises EXACTLY the points you made.

As for the New Testament...that was pretty much compiled all at once by a council. The only reason there even is a second Canon is to remind us of how we are Messianic Jews and not Orthodox Jews. It was only a major opporation because it became State Religion...and thus...they needed to make sure that there was some mention of what had been answered by Christ.

The New Testament is mostly Mirrors of the Old. You can gain Christ in the Old through enough Revelation, thats how it happened. The Most important bits of the Bible are The First Five books of the Old, and the First Four books of the New...plus Revelation.

The rest is just skin on the bones :laugh:

5) Thats a matter of Trust. You Trust your Heart...I Trust GOD. Your Problem isnt a problem to me.

6) "The Lord Our GOD is ONE" I can quote too. :laugh: They dont contradict each other if you understand them as a whole. There are three distinct personalities...but only ONE GOD.

7) Do you think GOD would let manuscripts be lost?? Is GOD not capable of keeping his Book in one piece??? Do you think he might drop the ball in less then two thousand years??? Is he Really that incompetant. Is he ALL-Knowing, and All-Seeing, and completely incontrol...or is he poor and defensless at the hands of a few scribal Translators :huh:

My GOD would not allow His Word to be botched up by Human interference. He's slightly above all that :)

My GOD is more powerful. He is not at the mercy of Time, or Human incompetance. There is NO chance anything of absolute Worth has been lost...only a few layers of symbology...which...whilst fantastic...are utterly lost on the readers anyway. :unsure-1: :laugh:

8) No they havent. People have recognised a Prophet...and then ignored him simply because he says what they dont want to hear. In Ancient times...they excepted Major Prophets...and still ignored them. The thought that we dont need Major Prophets anymore didnt really come til We received The Revelation.

The next time you see a Real Major Prophet...will be during the Tribulation. Aye...they'll be back in full force then...in Jerusalem...I think their are two of them...I think they get killed by the Anti-Christ...but I cant remember :unsure-1:

9) Its Ironic that considering how much your church has made up, you go and say Rome has made stuff up like Doctrines. At least Rome doesnt pretend its Doctrines are Scriptures... :rolleyes:

2 - All of what you said, how do you know that to be true? No amount of WORLDLY knowledge can tell you that, so where did you learn such a thing? Also the Bible itself teaches no such thing. Once again, your placing the Bible on the same(or higher) pedestal than God, and you claim I'm on dangerous ground.....right. You said if any of it's wrong, its completely devoid of all meaning. I guess if we have even the smallest of sins we are utterly evil then too?

3 - So if God didn't "put" it in the Bible, it doesn't mean anything? To think God is confined to a Book would be funny if it wasn't so blasphemous. How can you possible think that God can be confined in a book, no matter how long? I hope I misunderstood what you meant.

4 - If certain parts weren't as important, why would God give it to us then?

5 - You keep twisting my words. I didn't say I trust "my heart", I trust the feelings I get that I can't describe, but that speaks to me that God loves me, and what I am doing is what he wants me to do. You "trust God", yet it all comes from a Book, where is the relationship with God? According to what your saying is your ONLY relationship with God is through a Book(holy yes, but a book), so who is to say the book wasn't forged? I base my trust off a spiritual confirmation, you base yours off a Book. Can you get the spirit from reading the Bible, of course, but you build that trust off the Spirit, not off the Book. The Bible was written to point to God, not the other way around.

6 - John 17:11,21-23
Romans 15:6

I don't think Jesus was praying that his disciples would somehow merge into one being. He shows that he is praying for them to be ONE, as God and him are ONE. So if he doesn't want them to all be one being, the ones of God and himself must be something other than them being one being. Which would also explain the COUNTLESS scriptures of Jesus referring to God as a separate person, because in fact he is. Once again, the trinity is a man made creed that mainstream Christianity has held to because of tradition, when in fact it is not supported by the Bible.

7 - God allows bad things to happen all the time, why doesn't he stop that? God allows us to be in an imperfect world where men sin or make mistakes. Of course God is all powerful, that doesn't change the fact that he allows us to live in an imperfect world.

8 - Yes, in the book of Revelations it talks about 2 prophets who will be raised up by the Jews and they would be killed, lying in the street for 3 days till they are raised up. No where does it say that God will never have any other prophets besides those.

9 - Ironic indeed. It comes down to a spiritual witness from God, many claim to be the "true church", but which one is it, how do you know what is right and what is wrong. I'll leave you to deciding off a Book, while I'll continue to pray to God and get answers from him.

Tyburn
07-20-2009, 06:26 PM
Well said David.
:laugh: thanks :ashamed:

Crisco
07-20-2009, 06:35 PM
So your saying that based on how you feel when you read something the entire Christian world should adhere to what you view at scripture base on your feelings?

Tyburn
07-20-2009, 06:50 PM
Did you know that the teachings of Mohammed were originally intended to be a third testament to the Christian Bible? However, they were rejected by the established Christian and Jewish leaders of the day for many of the same reasons that Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon was rejected.

So, have you read the Koran and, if it inspired the same feelings in you as you claim the Book of Mormon does, then would you be willing to consider it a part of the Biblical canon?

If you haven't read the Koran, then why not? Exactly what qualifies Joseph Smith as a prophet that doesn't also qualify Mohammed?
I've read the Qu'ran. I've actually got a copy on my bookshelf, Tiz good for a reference book.

I think the truth is, somehow adding to scripture is not seen by some people as the crime that reducing it is. Islam obviously reduces the Gospel, in very obvious ways...thats seen as outrageous to anyone. But the addition of a few things that dont change the Gospel message...but possibly change some theology...well somehow that is acceptable.

Thr truth is, they are both as bad as each other...but its obvious with Mohammed (PBUH) where as its not so obvious with Joseph Smith.

On the bounce back, The reason that Islam can become a fully fledged religion I reckon is because the story is more believable. Accordingly, All Mohammed (PBUH) did was write down what GOD, possibly angels, told him.

Now with Smith you have an angel, several tablets, a few magic crystals...and after the translation, all the crystals and tablets conviniently dissapeared...thats just not convincing...its not as believable, as man in cave who writes down what is told to him. You cant proove either, factually...but one sounds plausable...the other sounds irrationally far fetched.

Also...Islam at least has other muscles. Islam has other parables, other prophets, a god that acts slightly differently. Its by no means, and doesnt try to be, an explaination on the New Testament (perhaps a partial on Christ, but not on the Early Church) It fundementally changes Christianity to something completely different.

The problem with Mormonism is its stuck in limbo, it hasnt made large enough changes to establish itself as different, but its nowhere near Christian enough to be accepted. The extra muscles are nothing but the interpretations of a few men on Christian Morality. Its nothing but Church Dogmatism if you would accept it. Also...it goes off on this wild tangent which is only relevent if you kinda live in the US and are American...then you feel special because Christ thought the United States so fantastic he had to visit it. In this day and age, thats a very desparate way of trying to claim a visitation. To try and fit in with the rest of the world, to try and force yourself to be a centre of something religiously important. Its also seen by some Europeans as entirely fitting with US Culture. OF COURSE Jesus went to the United States. They are a Super-power and Guardian of Israel. It helps boost the notion that America hasnt been left out of Religious Creation. That she has something purely American and purely new to offer Christianity that isnt based on her hereditary roots. Christ then Values The US, and independant Country, worthy of something big in his plans for History. The American Canon.

Now it might have sounded better is Joseph had simply had a vision, or simply heard a voice from the sky...but magic crystals...Tablets...its completely apokraphal....and the other books are actually not even as closely related to Christ as that.

Islam also has one claim which Mormonism doesnt. Smith just seemingly appeared from nowhere. Muhammed (PBUH) actually claimed to be part of a lineage that leads to Abraham...a lineage that we know exists, one that the Jew specifically spell out as being the wrong track.

You never hear of "The GOD of Abraham" in the Bible...its ALWAYS "The GOD of Abraham, Issiac and Jacob" thats because GOD has abandoned several other offshoots of the Family. Ishmail is one of them :ninja:

NateR
07-20-2009, 06:52 PM
I've read part of the Koran and didn't feel the same way I felt when reading the Book of Mormon or Bible, THUS, I don't consider it Scripture.

I don't think that you're trying to say that you are the sole authority of what is scripture and what isn't, but what if a book that makes you feel good makes me feel bad? How do we know which one of our feelings is the right one?

Or do you believe that religion is a purely subjective matter and truth is different for each person?

Do you approach history the same way? If accounts of something in our nation's past upset you, do you deny that they ever happened in the first place? If not, then why not?

eric84
07-20-2009, 07:35 PM
I don't think that you're trying to say that you are the sole authority of what is scripture and what isn't, but what if a book that makes you feel good makes me feel bad? How do we know which one of our feelings is the right one?

Or do you believe that religion is a purely subjective matter and truth is different for each person?

Do you approach history the same way? If accounts of something in our nation's past upset you, do you deny that they ever happened in the first place? If not, then why not?

I am not going to listen to ANYONE else when I feel God has told me himself. Now who is right? That has been the ongoing battle for thousands of years. I respect your all's beliefs, but this thread is for if mormonism is christian or not, and I am letting you know why I feel it is. I believe there is ONE truth, not different for each person, and that there shouldn't be thousands of churchs based off the Bible, there should be one, Gods Church, where doctrines are not conflicting and there is one true interpretation of the Bible.

There is a huge difference in approaching history than approaching spiritual truth. Religion is based off Faith in God, whereas history is based off faith in men, and what they wrote(faith that they wrote the truth). I can go to God for the source, and if God tells me something, I'm going to stick by it, whether I like it or not. Being as History was written by man, there are LOTS of things that are wrong with it, but where do I go for the answer?

eric84
07-20-2009, 07:42 PM
I've read the Qu'ran. I've actually got a copy on my bookshelf, Tiz good for a reference book.

I think the truth is, somehow adding to scripture is not seen by some people as the crime that reducing it is. Islam obviously reduces the Gospel, in very obvious ways...thats seen as outrageous to anyone. But the addition of a few things that dont change the Gospel message...but possibly change some theology...well somehow that is acceptable.

Thr truth is, they are both as bad as each other...but its obvious with Mohammed (PBUH) where as its not so obvious with Joseph Smith.

On the bounce back, The reason that Islam can become a fully fledged religion I reckon is because the story is more believable. Accordingly, All Mohammed (PBUH) did was write down what GOD, possibly angels, told him.

Now with Smith you have an angel, several tablets, a few magic crystals...and after the translation, all the crystals and tablets conviniently dissapeared...thats just not convincing...its not as believable, as man in cave who writes down what is told to him. You cant proove either, factually...but one sounds plausable...the other sounds irrationally far fetched.

Also...Islam at least has other muscles. Islam has other parables, other prophets, a god that acts slightly differently. Its by no means, and doesnt try to be, an explaination on the New Testament (perhaps a partial on Christ, but not on the Early Church) It fundementally changes Christianity to something completely different.

The problem with Mormonism is its stuck in limbo, it hasnt made large enough changes to establish itself as different, but its nowhere near Christian enough to be accepted. The extra muscles are nothing but the interpretations of a few men on Christian Morality. Its nothing but Church Dogmatism if you would accept it. Also...it goes off on this wild tangent which is only relevent if you kinda live in the US and are American...then you feel special because Christ thought the United States so fantastic he had to visit it. In this day and age, thats a very desparate way of trying to claim a visitation. To try and fit in with the rest of the world, to try and force yourself to be a centre of something religiously important. Its also seen by some Europeans as entirely fitting with US Culture. OF COURSE Jesus went to the United States. They are a Super-power and Guardian of Israel. It helps boost the notion that America hasnt been left out of Religious Creation. That she has something purely American and purely new to offer Christianity that isnt based on her hereditary roots. Christ then Values The US, and independant Country, worthy of something big in his plans for History. The American Canon.

Now it might have sounded better is Joseph had simply had a vision, or simply heard a voice from the sky...but magic crystals...Tablets...its completely apokraphal....and the other books are actually not even as closely related to Christ as that.

Islam also has one claim which Mormonism doesnt. Smith just seemingly appeared from nowhere. Muhammed (PBUH) actually claimed to be part of a lineage that leads to Abraham...a lineage that we know exists, one that the Jew specifically spell out as being the wrong track.

You never hear of "The GOD of Abraham" in the Bible...its ALWAYS "The GOD of Abraham, Issiac and Jacob" thats because GOD has abandoned several other offshoots of the Family. Ishmail is one of them :ninja:

I have a bit of a problem that you make it out that the Book of Mormon would have a greater chance of being true if the story was simpler or more believable. Can you explain the Miracles recorded throughout the Bible? A man translating Gold plates using certain stones is much more believable to me than a man somehow splitting the red sea. But I know both to be true, God doesn't have to work in more "believable" ways, he does things his ways, not our ways. Isaiah 55:8-9

NateR
07-20-2009, 07:45 PM
I am not going to listen to ANYONE else when I feel God has told me himself. Now who is right? That has been the ongoing battle for thousands of years. I respect your all's beliefs, but this thread is for if mormonism is christian or not, and I am letting you know why I feel it is. I believe there is ONE truth, not different for each person, and that there shouldn't be thousands of churchs based off the Bible, there should be one, Gods Church, where doctrines are not conflicting and there is one true interpretation of the Bible.

There is a huge difference in approaching history than approaching spiritual truth. Religion is based off Faith in God, whereas history is based off faith in men, and what they wrote(faith that they wrote the truth). I can go to God for the source, and if God tells me something, I'm going to stick by it, whether I like it or not. Being as History was written by man, there are LOTS of things that are wrong with it, but where do I go for the answer?

So, that leads to my next question: How can you be sure if it is GOD who is speaking to you? How do you know it's not Satan trying to deceive you by playing with your emotions? Doesn't the Bible tell us to test the spirits? So, how are you testing these spirits that tell you what to believe and what not to believe?

eric84
07-20-2009, 07:49 PM
So, that leads to my next question: How can you be sure if it is GOD who is speaking to you? How do you know it's not Satan trying to deceive you by playing with your emotions? Doesn't the Bible tell us to test the spirits? So, how are you testing these spirits that tell you what to believe and what not to believe?

Personally I don't feel like Satan could ever make me feel so happy and joyful. As far as testing, of course, I have lived the life that I've been asked to live to be in line with God's commandments, and I am much happier than I have ever been.

Matthew 7:16-20

Crisco
07-20-2009, 08:23 PM
Personally I don't feel like Satan could ever make me feel so happy and joyful. As far as testing, of course, I have lived the life that I've been asked to live to be in line with God's commandments, and I am much happier than I have ever been.

Matthew 7:16-20

Then you would be wrong my brother

eric84
07-20-2009, 08:40 PM
Then you would be wrong my brother


That's interesting, so Satan can make us feel good? And I don't say good in a "pleasure" way like the world thinks, but good as in God. Can you tell me why I would be wrong, and how Satan can make us feel happy? I just quoted the scriptures of Jesus teaching about this, Satan, being Evil, can't do good things. Now anyone can argue if that person is actually feeling "good" or not, but none of us can say for sure, it's between that person and God.

Crisco
07-20-2009, 09:04 PM
That's interesting, so Satan can make us feel good? And I don't say good in a "pleasure" way like the world thinks, but good as in God. Can you tell me why I would be wrong, and how Satan can make us feel happy? I just quoted the scriptures of Jesus teaching about this, Satan, being Evil, can't do good things. Now anyone can argue if that person is actually feeling "good" or not, but none of us can say for sure, it's between that person and God.

That's just it brother Satan isn't doing a good thing in making you feel good reading a false "scripture".

Good is a relative term. Satan can do whatever he wishes under the consent of God and often just to test our resolve God allows Satan to do his works.

Your heart is as evil and unpure as the next man. It's in our nature to be fallen. If you are reading a scripture written by a heretic because you like what he says you then get a good feeling in your belly that does not definately mean it is infact God speaking to you.

There are plenty of people here with a deep faith and have studied scripture far more then I and they have presented you with facts and evidence regarding the situation. I'm not questioning your faith but I am wondering if you truly consider yourself a Christian...

You don't take the bible seriously and I get that and that is probably my biggest issue with you. The more you talk about your beliefs it seems to me your more of a spiritualist then a Christian.. Something to think about for you..

Tyburn
07-20-2009, 09:10 PM
1) - All of what you said, how do you know that to be true? No amount of WORLDLY knowledge can tell you that, so where did you learn such a thing? Also the Bible itself teaches no such thing. Once again, your placing the Bible on the same(or higher) pedestal than God, and you claim I'm on dangerous ground.....right.

2) You said if any of it's wrong, its completely devoid of all meaning. I guess if we have even the smallest of sins we are utterly evil then too?

3 - So if God didn't "put" it in the Bible, it doesn't mean anything? To think God is confined to a Book would be funny if it wasn't so blasphemous. How can you possible think that God can be confined in a book, no matter how long? I hope I misunderstood what you meant.

4 - If certain parts weren't as important, why would God give it to us then?

5 - You keep twisting my words. I didn't say I trust "my heart", I trust the feelings I get that I can't describe, but that speaks to me that God loves me, and what I am doing is what he wants me to do. You "trust God", yet it all comes from a Book, where is the relationship with God? According to what your saying is your ONLY relationship with God is through a Book(holy yes, but a book), so who is to say the book wasn't forged? I base my trust off a spiritual confirmation, you base yours off a Book. Can you get the spirit from reading the Bible, of course, but you build that trust off the Spirit, not off the Book. The Bible was written to point to God, not the other way around.

6 - John 17:11,21-23
Romans 15:6

I don't think Jesus was praying that his disciples would somehow merge into one being. He shows that he is praying for them to be ONE, as God and him are ONE. So if he doesn't want them to all be one being, the ones of God and himself must be something other than them being one being. Which would also explain the COUNTLESS scriptures of Jesus referring to God as a separate person, because in fact he is. Once again, the trinity is a man made creed that mainstream Christianity has held to because of tradition, when in fact it is not supported by the Bible.

7 - God allows bad things to happen all the time, why doesn't he stop that? God allows us to be in an imperfect world where men sin or make mistakes. Of course God is all powerful, that doesn't change the fact that he allows us to live in an imperfect world.

8 - Yes, in the book of Revelations it talks about 2 prophets who will be raised up by the Jews and they would be killed, lying in the street for 3 days till they are raised up. No where does it say that God will never have any other prophets besides those.

9 - Ironic indeed. It comes down to a spiritual witness from God, many claim to be the "true church", but which one is it, how do you know what is right and what is wrong. I'll leave you to deciding off a Book, while I'll continue to pray to God and get answers from him.

1) Of Course the Bible Teaches What I've said. How do I know I'm right? Because GOD told me :ninja:

The Bible as a physical object is a token, but when its alive, its the Spirit of GOD that flows out of it. Its a doorway I guess.

2) Actually. You are right. GOD demands perfection. Produce one sin and you are evil and you deserve to go to Hell. The whole point of the Law was to show you that you CANT live up to it. Thankfully with Christ you dont have to be judged by it, simply aspire and with His help move ever closer. Thats why its only a matter of His Grace that you are permitted to enter Heaven as a believer....but you must do some of the most basic things. You MUST accept that he IS GOD...and you must understand that there is ONLY One GOD, even though there is three distinct personalities within the GODhead...Finally you must accept his Free gift of Eternal Life pledging yourself to His Service at whatever cost he demands of you.

We are innately bad, because we are spoiled by sin. Thats why the flesh is not the thing to base your life on...your feelings CAN lie to you!!! DO NOT trust them. Trust what you KNOW is True NOT what you FEEL is true.

3) I didnt say GOD was confined in a book. But I did say that a book Written by HIM is more important then any book written by anyone else. Includeing Joseph Smith!

4) Culture is slightly different. Language is slightly different. In ancient Hebrew there Language has multiple levels of meaning, much like a chinese character...a single letter can mean a great many things. English simply doesnt do that. But this is limited to the first few books of the Bible. Its mainly the Law...why would we need to know the depth of the Law if we are not to be tried by it? you dont need the depth of the Hebrew to know you wouldnt be able to live up to that. You dont need a mass of pages to know your imperfect...BUT incase your wondering the level of symbolism CAN probably show you just how Fallen you are if you can understand the original Hebrew.

5) thats true. I am growing my personal relationship...but there are stumbling blocks that I must overcome. I dont pretend to be perfect. :unsure-1:

6) No. He is talking about a litteral two becoming One. The Church is the Bride of Christ...a Bride and a Groom become ONE. They become part of each other. They come into Total Union. Its designed to represent the GODhead. Three Personalities in COMPLETE UNION AS ONE SINGULARITY

7) Thats because he wants us to Love Him...and in order to do that he must grant us free will. Yes he is willing to make a loss to gain some love. If you Love him you will do what He says...He calls himself I AM...so does GOD...He is calling himself GOD. He is not calling himself "like unto GOD" He is calling himself GOD...and yet he is saying there is Only ONE GOD....the only way for them both to be true is a Trinitarian Model.

8) nowhere does it say otherwise. :laugh:

9) I'll leave you to your Heratic Prophet Joseph Smith then :rolleyes: See...I can be mean aswell. Lets not be rude. You said you wanted my opinion. I'm giving it to you.

eric84
07-20-2009, 09:22 PM
That's just it brother Satan isn't doing a good thing in making you feel good reading a false "scripture".

Good is a relative term. Satan can do whatever he wishes under the consent of God and often just to test our resolve God allows Satan to do his works.

Your heart is as evil and unpure as the next man. It's in our nature to be fallen. If you are reading a scripture written by a heretic because you like what he says you then get a good feeling in your belly that does not definately mean it is infact God speaking to you.

There are plenty of people here with a deep faith and have studied scripture far more then I and they have presented you with facts and evidence regarding the situation. I'm not questioning your faith but I am wondering if you truly consider yourself a Christian...

You don't take the bible seriously and I get that and that is probably my biggest issue with you. The more you talk about your beliefs it seems to me your more of a spiritualist then a Christian.. Something to think about for you..

Yes people have brought up certain points, some good, and I have responded to all them that I have seen(including many Bible quotes). I think the Bible is amazing, I read from it quite a bit, but I don't worship it, and I don't feel like it's 100% perfect. So because I don't believe the exact why you do that means I don't take it seriously? This is the reoccurring theme here, that because mormons don't believe just like mainstream Christianity, that we are wrong. What makes mainstream Christianity so right? I consider myself a Christian in the fact that Jesus is my Savior and I try to live his commandments. Not in the sense that I follow other people views and beliefs based on tradition more than scripture.

Everyone's heart is impure, and I can see the argument your trying to make, but I don't agree with it. Good is good, regardless who it is and their viewpoint. God sets the standard, we don't.

Crisco
07-20-2009, 09:25 PM
Yes people have brought up certain points, some good, and I have responded to all them that I have seen(including many Bible quotes). I think the Bible is amazing, I read from it quite a bit, but I don't worship it, and I don't feel like it's 100% perfect. So because I don't believe the exact why you do that means I don't take it seriously? This is the reoccurring theme here, that because mormons don't believe just like mainstream Christianity, that we are wrong. What makes mainstream Christianity so right? I consider myself a Christian in the fact that Jesus is my Savior and I try to live his commandments. Not in the sense that I follow other people views and beliefs based on tradition more than scripture.

Everyone's heart is impure, and I can see the argument your trying to make, but I don't agree with it. Good is good, regardless who it is and their viewpoint. God sets the standard, we don't.

If you don't think the bible is true then how can you say you take it seriously?

Do you see what I'm trying to get at? Your kind of picking and choosing... It's like sort of saying Jesus was a great man but I don't believe he was the son of God. If you don't believe what he said then your saying that a madman and deceiver was indeed a great man.

You really can't have it both ways man... Christianity doesn't function with out the bible...

No bible equals no Christian...

Tyburn
07-20-2009, 09:26 PM
I have a bit of a problem that you make it out that the Book of Mormon would have a greater chance of being true if the story was simpler or more believable. Can you explain the Miracles recorded throughout the Bible? A man translating Gold plates using certain stones is much more believable to me than a man somehow splitting the red sea. But I know both to be true, God doesn't have to work in more "believable" ways, he does things his ways, not our ways. Isaiah 55:8-9
The Spliting of the Red sea can be explained in two different ways.

First if you look at the text, the Red Sea can also be translates as the REED Sea...there is also archeological evidence that suggests a certain part of the Sea might have been more like a vast swampy marsh full of Weeds...think the areas outside of Miami in Florida, or areas of Austrailia.

Now...dividing sea like that is FAR easier to imagine.

particularly if you are on foot...but you try crossing a marsh in a chariot? That is not so easy.

The Other way to explain it would be that the Hebrews timed the Crossing of the Red sea, as a large body of water, at the exact moment of a very wellknown Volcanic disastor in the Meditarainian...one of the worst ever recorded. It completely obliterated major parts of Med civilization and produced a LARGE...and I mean VERY BIG Sunken Calldera.

As the water flooded into the whole to fill it up...guess which bit of water would become like a Trickle for a very short period of time?

When the water had filled the basin, a tidle wave would have been produced radiating out from the calldera...and VERY suddenly, the whole Red Sea would be re-filled...we're talking SECONDS

I personally, believe the Latter...GODs well known for absolute IMPECCABLE Timing.

There is also another reason why this is likely. Just prior to the Exodus, GOD sent a set of plagues on Northern Egypt...one in particular...the last few...are signs of an impending severe volcanic Erruption...we know this...because it has happened before. It has happened that waters have run blood red, and it has happened that low lying gas has been produced that would kill something at ground level, but not raised (interesting when you consider that in Egyptian Culture it was the Eldest Male who alone, slept on the ground floor.....hence why the gas only killed a certain group of people...

So my money is on exceptional GODly timing...as the volcanic Erruption begins underground in the Med, the Nile Delta begins to show some signs which produce things which kill very specific people....a couple of days later as Moses raises his Staff to the Ocean, the volcano goes boom, the cladera begins to fill with water and the Red Sea empties into the Med....the Hebrews Cross...and the Egyptians begin...the Calldera fills to the brim and the water comes crashing back down.

Sucks to be an Egyptian. :laugh:

eric84
07-20-2009, 09:43 PM
1) Of Course the Bible Teaches What I've said. How do I know I'm right? Because GOD told me :ninja:

The Bible as a physical object is a token, but when its alive, its the Spirit of GOD that flows out of it. Its a doorway I guess.

2) Actually. You are right. GOD demands perfection. Produce one sin and you are evil and you deserve to go to Hell. The whole point of the Law was to show you that you CANT live up to it. Thankfully with Christ you dont have to be judged by it, simply aspire and with His help move ever closer. Thats why its only a matter of His Grace that you are permitted to enter Heaven as a believer....but you must do some of the most basic things. You MUST accept that he IS GOD...and you must understand that there is ONLY One GOD, even though there is three distinct personalities within the GODhead...Finally you must accept his Free gift of Eternal Life pledging yourself to His Service at whatever cost he demands of you.

We are innately bad, because we are spoiled by sin. Thats why the flesh is not the thing to base your life on...your feelings CAN lie to you!!! DO NOT trust them. Trust what you KNOW is True NOT what you FEEL is true.

3) I didnt say GOD was confined in a book. But I did say that a book Written by HIM is more important then any book written by anyone else. Includeing Joseph Smith!

4) Culture is slightly different. Language is slightly different. In ancient Hebrew there Language has multiple levels of meaning, much like a chinese character...a single letter can mean a great many things. English simply doesnt do that. But this is limited to the first few books of the Bible. Its mainly the Law...why would we need to know the depth of the Law if we are not to be tried by it? you dont need the depth of the Hebrew to know you wouldnt be able to live up to that. You dont need a mass of pages to know your imperfect...BUT incase your wondering the level of symbolism CAN probably show you just how Fallen you are if you can understand the original Hebrew.

5) thats true. I am growing my personal relationship...but there are stumbling blocks that I must overcome. I dont pretend to be perfect. :unsure-1:

6) No. He is talking about a litteral two becoming One. The Church is the Bride of Christ...a Bride and a Groom become ONE. They become part of each other. They come into Total Union. Its designed to represent the GODhead. Three Personalities in COMPLETE UNION AS ONE SINGULARITY

7) Thats because he wants us to Love Him...and in order to do that he must grant us free will. Yes he is willing to make a loss to gain some love. If you Love him you will do what He says...He calls himself I AM...so does GOD...He is calling himself GOD. He is not calling himself "like unto GOD" He is calling himself GOD...and yet he is saying there is Only ONE GOD....the only way for them both to be true is a Trinitarian Model.

8) nowhere does it say otherwise. :laugh:

9) I'll leave you to your Heratic Prophet Joseph Smith then :rolleyes: See...I can be mean aswell. Lets not be rude. You said you wanted my opinion. I'm giving it to you.

1 - How do you know it's the Spirit of God that flows out of it? Anyone can write a book and claim it was written by God. I'm not saying the Spirit doesn't flow out of it, I feel it does(not really from the book, but from reading Gods scripture), but how do you know its the spirit and not Satan? Goes back to those "feelings".

2 - Maybe "feeling" was the wrong word. I KNOW that God has spoken to me by his Spirit, there is no doubt concerning that. Once again, how do you "KNOW" it's true, surely not be reading a physical book, there has to be more to it than that to get a knowledge about it.

3 - This goes back to the argument if God wrote the Bible himself, or if he inspired men to write it. If God personally wrote a book himself I would of course agree with you, but since I believe he inspired people, it isn't the same thing. Also Joseph Smith didn't write the Book of Mormon, he translated it. The book was written by Gods Prophets, inspired, just like the Bible was. What's the difference between someone saying BookA was written by God and given to us, so that's correct and the Bible isn't? Surely you don't base it only off what it says in it.

4 - I really wish I did know the original, I agree that I would be able to understand a lot more about it. I'm not sure exactly what the point you were trying to make with this one though...

5 - We are all trying to overcome those stumbling blocks, I don't want anyone to think that I don't recognize that in myself also. I am far from perfect and don't pretend to think otherwise.

6 - Your explanation is EXACTLY what I am talking about.....so I'm confused why you would say it, haha. A man and a wife can become ONE in complete union, but they are still 2 separate people. God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are ONE in complete union, but just like man and wife, they are separate beings.

7 - A king might say he is the ONLY king, not meaning that there aren't any Kings anywhere else, but to his people he is the only one that matters. I agree with Jesus being the same being as the God of the Old Testament(The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), but that he isn't the same as God the Father.

8 - So because it doesn't say it, then that automatically means that there won't be more prophets? So since the Bible didn't say there would be computers, computers can't possibly exist.....

9 - I didn't mean to be so offensive, I apologize you felt that way. I assure you I didn't mean it like that, its sometimes hard to type out exactly what I am thinking. But I do stand by the point I was trying to make, you are taking yours from the Book, while I'm taking mine off my prayers.

eric84
07-20-2009, 09:46 PM
If you don't think the bible is true then how can you say you take it seriously?

Do you see what I'm trying to get at? Your kind of picking and choosing... It's like sort of saying Jesus was a great man but I don't believe he was the son of God. If you don't believe what he said then your saying that a madman and deceiver was indeed a great man.

You really can't have it both ways man... Christianity doesn't function with out the bible...

No bible equals no Christian...

Where in the Bible does it say it's completely perfect? Something doesn't have to be perfect to still be worth something, and I believe the Bible to be worth a lot, thus I take it seriously. I'm not perfect, but I don't consider myself worthless :cool:

Crisco
07-20-2009, 09:48 PM
Where in the Bible does it say it's completely perfect? Something doesn't have to be perfect to still be worth something, and I believe the Bible to be worth a lot, thus I take it seriously. I'm not perfect, but I don't consider myself worthless :cool:

I'm just bringing it up because your responses don't seem logical to me.


The word of God has to be perfect. You cannot take it as a half truth.

You do realize that completely relying upon your prayers and personal feelings to form your belief structure is essentially making up your own religion right>?

eric84
07-20-2009, 09:59 PM
I'm just bringing it up because your responses don't seem logical to me.


The word of God has to be perfect. You cannot take it as a half truth.

You do realize that completely relying upon your prayers and personal feelings to form your belief structure is essentially making up your own religion right>?

Saying the Bible has to be perfect or it's null to me seems illogical. Once again, God is perfect, but men aren't. IF God inspired men, then it would seem LOGICAL that it may not be 100% perfect, but still of great value and importance.

Considering the answer to my prayers goes right along with the LDS church, I don't need to make my own religion :) .

Crisco
07-20-2009, 10:03 PM
Saying the Bible has to be perfect or it's null to me seems illogical. Once again, God is perfect, but men aren't. IF God inspired men, then it would seem LOGICAL that it may not be 100% perfect, but still of great value and importance.

Considering the answer to my prayers goes right along with the LDS church, I don't need to make my own religion :) .

Why would the book that God intended to guide the faithful have flaws in it?

That seems like the problem and not the solution brother. You found something you liked so you turned your back on the truth...

I would really like to be able to mold the faith to suit my needs but it just doesn't work like that man.

I don't know, your going to believe what you want I just hope you seriously consider you may be wrong and take a closer look at your own faith and start to ask the questions we asked you.

God bless.

eric84
07-20-2009, 10:09 PM
Why would the book that God intended to guide the faithful have flaws in it?

That seems like the problem and not the solution brother. You found something you liked so you turned your back on the truth...

I would really like to be able to mold the faith to suit my needs but it just doesn't work like that man.

I don't know, your going to believe what you want I just hope you seriously consider you may be wrong and take a closer look at your own faith and start to ask the questions we asked you.

God bless.

How am I molding the faith to suit my needs? Because I actually do what I'm supposed to by ASKING GOD, that's wrong? Seems to me its the other way around. I've already taken a good look, but once again, why should I deny what God has already told me?

Why would God allow us down here in this imperfect world to begin with? God gave us agency to act for ourselves, whether good or bad. Just because we have good intentions doesn't mean we always do the right thing.

Tyburn
07-20-2009, 10:12 PM
1 - How do you know it's the Spirit of God that flows out of it? Anyone can write a book and claim it was written by God. I'm not saying the Spirit doesn't flow out of it, I feel it does(not really from the book, but from reading Gods scripture), but how do you know its the spirit and not Satan? Goes back to those "feelings".

2 - Maybe "feeling" was the wrong word. I KNOW that God has spoken to me by his Spirit, there is no doubt concerning that. Once again, how do you "KNOW" it's true, surely not be reading a physical book, there has to be more to it than that to get a knowledge about it.

3 - This goes back to the argument if God wrote the Bible himself, or if he inspired men to write it. If God personally wrote a book himself I would of course agree with you, but since I believe he inspired people, it isn't the same thing. Also Joseph Smith didn't write the Book of Mormon, he translated it. The book was written by Gods Prophets, inspired, just like the Bible was. What's the difference between someone saying BookA was written by God and given to us, so that's correct and the Bible isn't? Surely you don't base it only off what it says in it.

4 - I really wish I did know the original, I agree that I would be able to understand a lot more about it. I'm not sure exactly what the point you were trying to make with this one though...

5 - We are all trying to overcome those stumbling blocks, I don't want anyone to think that I don't recognize that in myself also. I am far from perfect and don't pretend to think otherwise.

6 - Your explanation is EXACTLY what I am talking about.....so I'm confused why you would say it, haha. A man and a wife can become ONE in complete union, but they are still 2 separate people. God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are ONE in complete union, but just like man and wife, they are separate beings.

7 - A king might say he is the ONLY king, not meaning that there aren't any Kings anywhere else, but to his people he is the only one that matters. I agree with Jesus being the same being as the God of the Old Testament(The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), but that he isn't the same as God the Father.

8 - So because it doesn't say it, then that automatically means that there won't be more prophets? So since the Bible didn't say there would be computers, computers can't possibly exist.....

9 - I didn't mean to be so offensive, I apologize you felt that way. I assure you I didn't mean it like that, its sometimes hard to type out exactly what I am thinking. But I do stand by the point I was trying to make, you are taking yours from the Book, while I'm taking mine off my prayers.

1) I have Faith.

But your right....Anyone could write a book and say it came from GOD...like...Smith for example? How do you know what he wrote was True?

2) Faith, Hope and Love.

I have Faith that what is written is True. I have Hope that the Promises will ring True...and I Love Him, So I am doing what He says :)

3) Really? then do tell me which Prophets that Smith copied. What was the original Language...where is the original manuscript? Are you sure he didnt just invent the whole thing?

4) dont worry about it :laugh:

5) :)

6) The Human Marriage is just an anology. Its supposed to show you something of the Trinity, but its not the real thing.

7) :huh: have you read the Old Testament? The Personalities arent Identical...GOD the Father is far more like the persona of the Islamistic god, then Christ...that was part of the problem with the Jews not recognising Christ. Christ and the Old Testament Father...are distinct Personalities....but they are the same also. You cant tell where One personality Ends and Another Starts :unsure:

8) it doesnt mean there isnt...but niether does it mean there is.

Why would we need another Prophet?

9) are you sure you know what/who you are praying to? How can you be certain? If you answer this one...I'll also answer it from my perspective...but you go first :ninja:

Chuck
07-20-2009, 10:46 PM
How old are you Eric?

eric84
07-20-2009, 10:59 PM
How old are you Eric?

What does it matter? I'm 24 since you asked, but the question is irrelevant for this conversation.

Chris F
07-20-2009, 11:48 PM
Eric. how you feel is irrelevant to faith as well. Show me anywhere where the bible says you have faith based on how you feel. Satan has spent centuries posing as an angel of light. I think you are following the wrong person.

Without a 100% belief in the Holy Bible one cannot have faith. Because you are then left to compare and or base your beliefs on man's wisdom. Peter validates scripture and tells us what it is. He never mentions the Koran or the Book of Mormon. But as Crisco said the evidence both historical and biblical has been presented to you and you are without excuse. I am sure we all pray you find the truth soon.

Chuck
07-21-2009, 03:11 AM
What does it matter? I'm 24 since you asked, but the question is irrelevant for this conversation.

Just trying to get an understanding of you and your perspective Eric... No need to be defensive.. it's a sign of immaturity :wink:

Rev
07-21-2009, 06:57 PM
One of the first things we learned at seminary is that, when studying the Bible, and you find a principle, make sure that it is not contrary with the rest of scripture. This is also taught in Galatians 1:9. I think it would be hard for you to argue this because it make perfect sense. Alot of the things from your book of scriptures do contradict the rest of scripture. I understand that you dont fully believe the Bible, but a teaching so prevalent is hard to ignore.

Something else to think about, Satan told Adam and Eve that they would not die from eating the fruit, but would be like God. Gen 3:5
5“For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Doctrine and Covenant 132:20
"20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from aeverlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them."

Sounds pretty close to the same voice to me.

I understand that you listen to your feelings and I listen to mine as well, I have been praying for you in my quite time and the Lord has not released me from trying to lead you to the truth.

Crisco
07-21-2009, 07:17 PM
One of the first things we learned at seminary is that, when studying the Bible, and you find a principle, make sure that it is not contrary with the rest of scripture. This is also taught in Galatians 1:9. I think it would be hard for you to argue this because it make perfect sense. Alot of the things from your book of scriptures do contradict the rest of scripture. I understand that you dont fully believe the Bible, but a teaching so prevalent is hard to ignore.

Something else to think about, Satan told Adam and Eve that they would not die from eating the fruit, but would be like God. Gen 3:5
5“For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Doctrine and Covenant 132:20
"20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from aeverlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them."

Sounds pretty close to the same voice to me.

I understand that you listen to your feelings and I listen to mine as well, I have been praying for you in my quite time and the Lord has not released me from trying to lead you to the truth.

Very compelling example.

Play The Man
07-21-2009, 08:15 PM
Very compelling example.

I agree. It made my hair stand on end.

warriorlion
07-21-2009, 08:44 PM
Eric, I wanted to bring up a few things because although you have tried to answer everyone, you seem to have missed my first post about Jesus being God, by His own admission.

The first thing I wanted to bring up is that I think that you should ignore your feelings, but as has been pointed out a few times here, you can base your views solely on feelings, for a start eating double chocolate cake feels a lot better then eating salad and spinach, but that feeling doesnt make it better for me.
The point here is that, yes you feel that God has told you something and I think its comendable that you are sticking by that feeling, but are you willing to accept that as a fallen man, you may not be correct??? That you may not be hearing God as clearly as you believe. If you are not willing to accept that its a possiblity that you are wrong, then there is not really any point to this thread.

I will stand and say that I believe 100% in what I believe, but there are aspects of that over the years that have changed, I used to believe that Eve was the cause of the fall, that she was tempted by Satan and that she used her female advatages to cause Adam to fall, but I was wrong, the bible is clear that Adam was right there with her. I was wrong, but now I have been set right, and I am willing to accept that I dont have all the answers and somethings that I believe may be slightly wrong, or have the wrong assumption ivolved.

Are you willing to accept that???

If you are then I shall go on.

You said I believe that you see Jesus as your saviour, and that you dont believe that he was God, I think that I am right in what I read, been a lot of things going on since I read it.

If that is the case, how do you reconcile that belief with John 1:1
In the beginning was the word, the word was with God and the word was God

John 1:14
And the word was made flesh, and dwelt amoung us, (and we beheld his glory , the glory as of the only begotten of the father) full of grace and truth.

Now since was know taht Jesus is the subject of this and He is the Word, its pretty plain that Jesus was with God ad was God.

SO to reconcile the idea of the father and the son being ONE.

I am a man, I'm 28 years old and married, I have one child a daugther who is 6 months old. I am one person John. born in london to human parents, yet I am also 3 identities.

To my wife I am a husband
To my father I am a son
to my daugther I am a father.

3 very seperate things, yet I am still one. And in each of those things I have to be seperate, I can not be the same way with my daugther as I am to my father, or to my wife the way I am to either of the others, this does not make me have a personality disorder or make me different people they are all facets of the man that I am, seperate aspects of one man. when all those aspects work together in unity, you get John, me.

Its the same with God, he is father son and spirit, three seperate aspects of one being. The biggest difference is that God is outside of your thinking, His ways are higher than ours, and He was able to physicalise one aspect of his being, God then became fully human and yet fully God, Jesus.

The other aspect I wanted to bring up on this is that if you dont believe that Jesus was God incarnate then explain from your viewpoint how it is that despite being human, and since all humans are flawed, how first he was able to live a sin free live, allowing him to become the spotless lamb that could stand in the gap and cover our sins.

Also then, if Jesus is not God, and is instead a God, how does this it with God's commandment

exodus 20:23
Do not make any gods to be alongside me; do not make for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold.

Isaiah 43:10
You are My witnesses,” declares the Lord,
“And My servant whom I have chosen,
So that you may know and believe Me
And understand that I am He.
Before Me there was no God formed,
And there will be none after Me.

Isaiah 44:6
Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
‘I am the first and I am the last,
And there is no God besides Me.

Isaiah 44:8
Do not tremble and do not be afraid;
Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it?
And you are My witnesses.
Is there any God besides Me,
Or is there any other Rock?
I know of none.’

How can you call Jesus saviour and follow God commands when they clearly contradict each other if Jesus is a god and not THE God.

Also

Jesus' sacrifice was not able to cleanse us from all our sins, (murder and repeated adultery are exceptions), (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, 1856, p. 247).

How does this make him a saviour, if His sacrifice was not sufficient to save, that makes it not really a salvation

then:-
There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 188).

this goes against Jesus teaching of no one gets to the father except through me

then finally for now something I found taht interested me, was wondering what your view of it was:-


The Book of Mormon states

There is only one God
Mosiah 15:1,5; Alma 11:28; 2 Nephi 31:21.
The Trinity is one God
Alma 11:44; Mosiah 15:5; 2 Nephi 31:21
God is unchanging
Mormon 9:9,19; Moroni 8:18; Alma 41:8; 3 Nephi 24:6.
God is spirit
Alma 18:24,28; 22:9,11.
Eternal hell
Jacob 3:11; 6:10; 2 Nephi 19:16; 28:21-23
Polygamy condemned
Jacob 1:15; 2:23,24,27,31;3:5; Mosiah 11:2,4; Ether 10:5,7.

however Mormon theology teaches

Mormonism teaches there are many gods.
Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 5.
The Trinity is three separate gods.
James Talmage, Articles of Faith, 1985, p. 35
God is increasing in knowledge.
Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 120.
God has the form of a man.
Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 3.
Hell is not eternal.
James Talmage, Articles of Faith, p. 55
Polygamy was taught and practiced.
Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 266.

Essential Mormon Doctrines not Found in the Book of Mormon
Church organization
Plurality of Gods
Plurality of wives doctrine
Word of Wisdom
God is an exalted man
Celestial marriage
Men may become Gods
Three degrees of glory
Baptism for the dead
Eternal progression
The Aaronic Priesthood
Temple works of washings, anointing, endowments, sealing

there seems to be a lot of things taught as part of the religion that either contradict or have no place in the Book of mormon, not to mention several references from a book that claims to be more correct than the bible, that shows facts not true to known fact such as

1 Nephi
18:25 And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the ass and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men. And we did find all manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper.

well we know that horses did not exist in america until the 16th century

or even

Ether
2:3 And they did also carry with them deseret, which, by interpretation, is a honey bee; and thus they did carry with them swarms of bees, and all manner of that which was upon the face of the land, seeds of every kind.

honey bees were introduced to america by the spanish. since spain didnt find america until 1490's and the book of mormo is meant to be translated from tablets that give account of Jaredites in america between 600BC and 400 AD those facts cant be correct

and so the Book of mormon and facts as well as doctrine seem to contradict each other somewhat

How do you account for these??? Your feelings are important, but thats not enough to answer these questions

Rev
07-21-2009, 08:55 PM
:blink: holy cow! you guys sure do make some long posts. If you guys ever have something to say to me, just know that I have ADD so you should break it up into little stages.:wink: :laugh:

Well put warriorlion.

eric84
07-21-2009, 10:39 PM
Quoting: I wanted to insert my answers in between!


Eric, I wanted to bring up a few things because although you have tried to answer everyone, you seem to have missed my first post about Jesus being God, by His own admission.

- I probably have missed alot of things, it can kind of get overwhelming with so many long posts! :laugh:

****************
The first thing I wanted to bring up is that I think that you should ignore your feelings, but as has been pointed out a few times here, you can base your views solely on feelings, for a start eating double chocolate cake feels a lot better then eating salad and spinach, but that feeling doesnt make it better for me.
The point here is that, yes you feel that God has told you something and I think its comendable that you are sticking by that feeling, but are you willing to accept that as a fallen man, you may not be correct??? That you may not be hearing God as clearly as you believe. If you are not willing to accept that its a possiblity that you are wrong, then there is not really any point to this thread.

-Your analogy of eating is completely off from what I'm saying. There is a difference between spiritual feelings, and bodily feelings. Yes, chocolate can have a good feeling.. physically. I'm talking about spiritually. If you don't believe in Spiritually, then there is no point in even discussing this. As far as a possibility of being wrong, I can accept that, I have not literally seen God, and thus, my feelings are still based off faith. Thus ANYONE basing things off faith can be wrong(that includes everyone else posting on here). That being said, if this amazing feeling is wrong, then there really is no point in me having faith.

********************

I will stand and say that I believe 100% in what I believe, but there are aspects of that over the years that have changed, I used to believe that Eve was the cause of the fall, that she was tempted by Satan and that she used her female advatages to cause Adam to fall, but I was wrong, the bible is clear that Adam was right there with her. I was wrong, but now I have been set right, and I am willing to accept that I dont have all the answers and somethings that I believe may be slightly wrong, or have the wrong assumption ivolved.

Are you willing to accept that???
- Um sure.. I feel like there is a big difference between one point of doctrine and your entire faith... but for the sake of continuing I'll say yes.

**************************
If you are then I shall go on.

You said I believe that you see Jesus as your saviour, and that you dont believe that he was God, I think that I am right in what I read, been a lot of things going on since I read it.

If that is the case, how do you reconcile that belief with John 1:1
In the beginning was the word, the word was with God and the word was God

- Either you misunderstood, or I didn't write it out correctly. I don't believe Jesus is God the Father as described in the Trinity. I do believe he is the God of the Old Testament. Why would God constantly be talking to himself, or how can we pray to the Father in the name of Christ if they are the same being? Context can show us that sometimes we are only told what we can understand/comprehend at the time, but that doesn't mean there isn't a bigger picture.

*****************************
John 1:14
And the word was made flesh, and dwelt amoung us, (and we beheld his glory , the glory as of the only begotten of the father) full of grace and truth.

Now since was know taht Jesus is the subject of this and He is the Word, its pretty plain that Jesus was with God ad was God.


SO to reconcile the idea of the father and the son being ONE.

I am a man, I'm 28 years old and married, I have one child a daugther who is 6 months old. I am one person John. born in london to human parents, yet I am also 3 identities.

To my wife I am a husband
To my father I am a son
to my daugther I am a father.

3 very seperate things, yet I am still one. And in each of those things I have to be seperate, I can not be the same way with my daugther as I am to my father, or to my wife the way I am to either of the others, this does not make me have a personality disorder or make me different people they are all facets of the man that I am, seperate aspects of one man. when all those aspects work together in unity, you get John, me.

Its the same with God, he is father son and spirit, three seperate aspects of one being. The biggest difference is that God is outside of your thinking, His ways are higher than ours, and He was able to physicalise one aspect of his being, God then became fully human and yet fully God, Jesus.

- So would you say to yourself "thank you father, thank you son, thank you husband ", no.(unless your crazy). Why would God pray to himself? Yes, Gods ways are not our ways, I understand that, but I don't think he is trying to confuse us either. It goes back to my belief the Bible isn't 100%.

*************************

The other aspect I wanted to bring up on this is that if you dont believe that Jesus was God incarnate then explain from your viewpoint how it is that despite being human, and since all humans are flawed, how first he was able to live a sin free live, allowing him to become the spotless lamb that could stand in the gap and cover our sins.

- John 19:11, God the Father gave the power unto Jesus. ( I know this isn't saying God gave him the power, I'm using it to show that God the Father can give power from above)

******************************
Also then, if Jesus is not God, and is instead a God, how does this it with God's commandment

exodus 20:23
Do not make any gods to be alongside me; do not make for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold.

- As I stated in an earlier post, we believe Jesus is God of the Old Testament. Thus it wouldn't be making another God alongside himself. If I worked at a company, I may see my manager as my ONLY boss. But he still has a manager above him.

*********************************

Isaiah 43:10
You are My witnesses,” declares the Lord,
“And My servant whom I have chosen,
So that you may know and believe Me
And understand that I am He.
Before Me there was no God formed,
And there will be none after Me.

Isaiah 44:6
Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
‘I am the first and I am the last,
And there is no God besides Me.


Isaiah 44:8
Do not tremble and do not be afraid;
Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it?
And you are My witnesses.
Is there any God besides Me,
Or is there any other Rock?
I know of none.’

How can you call Jesus saviour and follow God commands when they clearly contradict each other if Jesus is a god and not THE God.

- Context. See employee analogy above.

Also
Jesus' sacrifice was not able to cleanse us from all our sins, (murder and repeated adultery are exceptions), (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, 1856, p. 247).
How does this make him a saviour, if His sacrifice was not sufficient to save, that makes it not really a salvation
then:-
There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 188).
this goes against Jesus teaching of no one gets to the father except through me


- The church does not hold those books you quoted as doctrine, nor are any of those things you quoted doctrine. All sins are forgivable except blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. I don't have the Doctrines of Salvation on me, I would have to look at the context it is in. It is NOT a doctrine of the church that Joseph Smith can save us, but it is a requirement to join the church to believe he was a Prophet, because if you don't, then you don't really believe in the church. If the Israelites didn't believe Moses was a prophet, I doubt they would find it necessary to follow the 10 commandments.


********
then finally for now something I found taht interested me, was wondering what your view of it was:-

The Book of Mormon states

There is only one God
Mosiah 15:1,5; Alma 11:28; 2 Nephi 31:21.
The Trinity is one God
Alma 11:44; Mosiah 15:5; 2 Nephi 31:21
God is unchanging
Mormon 9:9,19; Moroni 8:18; Alma 41:8; 3 Nephi 24:6.
God is spirit
Alma 18:24,28; 22:9,11.
Eternal hell
Jacob 3:11; 6:10; 2 Nephi 19:16; 28:21-23
Polygamy condemned
Jacob 1:15; 2:23,24,27,31;3:5; Mosiah 11:2,4; Ether 10:5,7.

- Read them in context, they make a lot more sense. For example Alma 18:24,28. He was talking to the King in a way the King would understand.


*********************
however Mormon theology teaches

Mormonism teaches there are many gods.
Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 5.
The Trinity is three separate gods.
James Talmage, Articles of Faith, 1985, p. 35
God is increasing in knowledge.
Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 120.
God has the form of a man.
Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 3.
Hell is not eternal.
James Talmage, Articles of Faith, p. 55
Polygamy was taught and practiced.
Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 266.

- None of these books are Mormon Doctrine.
*******************************


Essential Mormon Doctrines not Found in the Book of Mormon
Church organization
Plurality of Gods
Plurality of wives doctrine
Word of Wisdom
God is an exalted man
Celestial marriage
Men may become Gods
Three degrees of glory
Baptism for the dead
Eternal progression
The Aaronic Priesthood
Temple works of washings, anointing, endowments, sealing

- God continues to reveal the things necessary for his Church on earth. No where in our doctrine did we say the Book of Mormon and The Bible were enough for all time.
******************************

there seems to be a lot of things taught as part of the religion that either contradict or have no place in the Book of mormon, not to mention several references from a book that claims to be more correct than the bible, that shows facts not true to known fact such as

- We don't hide the fact we believe the Bible not to be 100%...nor the Book of Mormon. While the Bible underwent countless translations in the hands of scribes and such, the Book of Mormon was compiled by a Prophet, and translated by a Prophet.

*****************************
1 Nephi
18:25 And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the ass and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men. And we did find all manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper.

well we know that horses did not exist in america until the 16th century

- We know that?
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.2s2.com/chapmanresearch/user/images/chapr/hor00009.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.2s2.com/chapmanresearch/user/documents/horses.html&usg=__J9sV5JNZKJ98VNwZYa_7hA5KWic=&h=218&w=365&sz=4&hl=en&start=7&um=1&tbnid=EPsNiKAewG18AM:&tbnh=72&tbnw=121&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpicture%2Bof%2Bhorse%2Bancient%2Bamer ica%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DX%26um%3D1

**************************
or even

Ether
2:3 And they did also carry with them deseret, which, by interpretation, is a honey bee; and thus they did carry with them swarms of bees, and all manner of that which was upon the face of the land, seeds of every kind.

honey bees were introduced to america by the spanish. since spain didnt find america until 1490's and the book of mormo is meant to be translated from tablets that give account of Jaredites in america between 600BC and 400 AD those facts cant be correct

- It never said they had the Bee's after they got to the America's, thus this isn't contradicting itself at all. If you look at where they are, it shows they have not sailed to the americas yet. Please make sure you look at the context first :)
*******************

and so the Book of mormon and facts as well as doctrine seem to contradict each other somewhat

How do you account for these??? Your feelings are important, but thats not enough to answer these questions


- I think spirtual feelings are always more important than "facts". Are facts important? Of course, but do we have facts on HOW Jesus turned water into wine? Or how he possibly died for all of our sins? Or how Elijah called down fire from heaven? To one that doesn't have faith, these would seem to be impossible.


PHEW. Time to catch my breath, that was LONG.

Tyburn
07-21-2009, 11:18 PM
:blink: holy cow! you guys sure do make some long posts. If you guys ever have something to say to me, just know that I have ADD so you should break it up into little stages.:wink: :laugh:
.
Okay :)

:laugh:

Crisco
07-22-2009, 05:39 AM
As I stated in an earlier post, we believe Jesus is God of the Old Testament. Thus it wouldn't be making another God alongside himself. If I worked at a company, I may see my manager as my ONLY boss. But he still has a manager above him.

So wait now your saying that there is an old testament God and a New Testament God?

It doesn't make sense did you make a mistake or something?

You should consider
the God of Old Testament and New Testament the same God no?

Please explain for me?

warriorlion
07-22-2009, 05:41 PM
Mormonism teaches there are many gods.
Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 5.
The Trinity is three separate gods.
James Talmage, Articles of Faith, 1985, p. 35
God is increasing in knowledge.
Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 120.
God has the form of a man.
Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 3.
Hell is not eternal.
James Talmage, Articles of Faith, p. 55
Polygamy was taught and practiced.
Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 266.

- None of these books are Mormon Doctrine.

not doctrine???

one of them was written by the founder of your faith!!!! its what he believed, and he started your religion.

the other was president of the latter day saints when joseph smith own wife split from the original saying it was wrong. who also founded salt lake city.

how is it that these definitive founders of the latter day saint can write books that are about the faith and yet you say they are not doctrinial, yet joseph smith translated the egyptian book of the dead and called it the book of abraham which was cannonized after js' death.

Crisco
07-22-2009, 06:17 PM
Mormonism teaches there are many gods.
Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 5.
The Trinity is three separate gods.
James Talmage, Articles of Faith, 1985, p. 35
God is increasing in knowledge.
Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 120.
God has the form of a man.
Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 3.
Hell is not eternal.
James Talmage, Articles of Faith, p. 55
Polygamy was taught and practiced.
Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 266.

- None of these books are Mormon Doctrine.

not doctrine???

one of them was written by the founder of your faith!!!! its what he believed, and he started your religion.

the other was president of the latter day saints when joseph smith own wife split from the original saying it was wrong. who also founded salt lake city.

how is it that these definitive founders of the latter day saint can write books that are about the faith and yet you say they are not doctrinial, yet joseph smith translated the egyptian book of the dead and called it the book of abraham which was cannonized after js' death.

How are your prophets words not doctrine?

eric84
07-22-2009, 07:00 PM
How are your prophets words not doctrine?

Do you really think EVERYTHING Moses said was considered doctrine? He has his own faults and weakness just like everyone else(or else he would of been perfect, which we know he was not). Many of the things in these books were things they thought were true, but did not count as doctrine. Just because they are Prophets doesn't mean they know everything.

Chuck
07-22-2009, 07:11 PM
Do you really think EVERYTHING Moses said was considered doctrine? He has his own faults and weakness just like everyone else(or else he would of been perfect, which we know he was not). Many of the things in these books were things they thought were true, but did not count as doctrine. Just because they are Prophets doesn't mean they know everything.

Exactly!!! So how do you decide what writings of your "prophet" to believe??

eric84
07-22-2009, 07:15 PM
Exactly!!! So how do you decide what writings of your "prophet" to believe??

Personally, or the Church as a whole?

The Church Leaders (Prophet and Apostles) decide what is doctrine for the church and what isn't based off inspiration. For a book like one of the ones you mentioned I personally would not count anything in there as doctrine unless so stated by the Leaders of the Church. But I have found alot of things that are probably true, but since its a gray area, I'm not going to count it as doctrine unless i'm sure of it.

Tyburn
07-22-2009, 10:32 PM
The Church Leaders (Prophet and Apostles) decide what is doctrine for the church and what isn't based off inspiration.
:laugh:

warriorlion
07-22-2009, 10:40 PM
so you disreguard everything that Joseph Smith wrote about his religion, and the writings of those that took his place after his assasination, despite the fact that when the book of mormon was destroyed by an angry mob and was then that it was revised in its doctrine.

How can something thats been written for by the time Smith got it and translated it through seer stones for at least 1400 years, be revised. Either it says something or it doesnt.

Second

you base your faith on how you feel.

Do you understand the definition of faith???

first its being sure of what you Hope for and certain of what you do not see.

Nothing there about feelings.

Dictionary definition then of faith is

confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.


again there is nothing here about feelings.

eric84
07-22-2009, 11:43 PM
so you disreguard everything that Joseph Smith wrote about his religion, and the writings of those that took his place after his assasination, despite the fact that when the book of mormon was destroyed by an angry mob and was then that it was revised in its doctrine.

How can something thats been written for by the time Smith got it and translated it through seer stones for at least 1400 years, be revised. Either it says something or it doesnt.

Second

you base your faith on how you feel.

Do you understand the definition of faith???

first its being sure of what you Hope for and certain of what you do not see.

Nothing there about feelings.

Dictionary definition then of faith is

confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.


again there is nothing here about feelings.

As I said in an earlier post, I haven't seen God, so it's faith that the feelings I get are from him. Makes sense to me. Plus I don't need to go off anyone's definition on what faith is, I know what God has spoken to me, that's enough. I don't disregard anything Joseph Smith wrote/said, but even he did not claim everything he said was doctrine. I have no clue where your getting the Book of Mormon destroyed by an angry mob, 5 thousand copies were printed and distributed, and the only changes that were made were grammatical. I can't read Hebrew but from what I understand there is no punctuation, and thus it had to be added by the original editor. Thus things like commas have been changed, but not the text.

rearnakedchoke
07-22-2009, 11:50 PM
anyone who doesn't consume caffeine can't be trusted ...

ok, so with all this great dialogue going on, i decided to add some stupidity ..

warriorlion
07-23-2009, 03:00 PM
There are a few things that have been posted before that I have missed out and want o go back to:-

the seperate Gd issue.

Alma 11:28-31: "Now Zeezrom said: ‘Is there more than one God?’ and [Amulek] answered, ‘No.’ And Zeezrom said unto him again, ‘How knowest thou these things?’ And he said: ‘An angel hath made them known unto me.’"


you own book states this.

now before you go off about context again, the context is that Amulek is talking to a man well versed in devil dealings, an expert in the devices of the devil, and Amulek states that he will say nothing contray to the spirit that lives in him. That of the true and living God.

you said that you dont believe the bible is correct 100% but as far as it is translated, do you believe that Joseph Smith who had to get a jew from new york to teach him hebrew, would have had more issues than that of scholars who learned it first hand as a native tounge??? Or do you believe that God had Morom, moroni's father, write his tablets in king james english??

And so the bible, since it is a large part of your doctrine, every website on LDS states that they believe the bible.

Galatians 1:6-9 says

"I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed."

since Joseph Smith must have clearly known the bible before getting this 'revelation' from an angel, why did he not test it against the scripture he knew, and see that the bible warned of that very thing, long before he ever got his revelation

eric84
07-23-2009, 03:10 PM
There are a few things that have been posted before that I have missed out and want o go back to:-

the seperate Gd issue.

Alma 11:28-31: "Now Zeezrom said: ‘Is there more than one God?’ and [Amulek] answered, ‘No.’ And Zeezrom said unto him again, ‘How knowest thou these things?’ And he said: ‘An angel hath made them known unto me.’"


you own book states this.

now before you go off about context again, the context is that Amulek is talking to a man well versed in devil dealings, an expert in the devices of the devil, and Amulek states that he will say nothing contray to the spirit that lives in him. That of the true and living God.

you said that you dont believe the bible is correct 100% but as far as it is translated, do you believe that Joseph Smith who had to get a jew from new york to teach him hebrew, would have had more issues than that of scholars who learned it first hand as a native tounge??? Or do you believe that God had Morom, moroni's father, write his tablets in king james english??

And so the bible, since it is a large part of your doctrine, every website on LDS states that they believe the bible.

Galatians 1:6-9 says

"I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed."


Since I believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet, and not just a scholar, I believe God gave him the inspiration he needed to translate. He learning Hebrew was after he translated the Book of Mormon and it's intent was to read the Bible in it's original language(he also was learning greek).

Your quoting from the Bible, but once again, if the Bible isn't 100% then quoting from it to prove the Book of Mormon wrong isn't very substantial. It could be the Bible is off and the Book of Mormon is right(which I believe). It goes back to the argument if the Bible is 100% correct or not.

What is "God". It can be referred to as someone who is all powerful, or someone that you worship. I can see why this verse would seem contradicting, and I can't say what the intent of it was, but I can also see how he is talking about there is only one being that we worship.

eric84
07-23-2009, 03:16 PM
anyone who doesn't consume caffeine can't be trusted ...

ok, so with all this great dialogue going on, i decided to add some stupidity ..

Not sure if you were joking about the caffeine consumption, or the Mormon belief about caffeine, so just wanted to clarify since alot of people have a misconception about this. Mormons do NOT have a rule against drinking caffeine specifically and many members drink it. I personally don't because everyone knows its unhealthy for ya, and I try to take care of that body God gave me :)

The things Mormons do not consume is Alcohol, Tobacco, Coffee(anything from the coffee bean), Tea(anything from the tea leaf) and any illegal drugs.

Chuck
07-23-2009, 03:53 PM
Since I believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet, and not just a scholar, I believe God gave him the inspiration he needed to translate. He learning Hebrew was after he translated the Book of Mormon and it's intent was to read the Bible in it's original language(he also was learning greek).

Your quoting from the Bible, but once again, if the Bible isn't 100% then quoting from it to prove the Book of Mormon wrong isn't very substantial. It could be the Bible is off and the Book of Mormon is right(which I believe). It goes back to the argument if the Bible is 100% correct or not.

What is "God". It can be referred to as someone who is all powerful, or someone that you worship. I can see why this verse would seem contradicting, and I can't say what the intent of it was, but I can also see how he is talking about there is only one being that we worship.

So then you believe the book of Mormon to be 100% correct?

eric84
07-23-2009, 04:19 PM
So then you believe the book of Mormon to be 100% correct?

Doctrinally yes, grammatically no.

Crisco
07-23-2009, 04:31 PM
Doctrinally yes, grammatically no.

Tough to argue with someone who believes the bible wrong and another book right..

No tool to use for him.

God bless Eric may he show you the right path.

Chuck
07-23-2009, 06:30 PM
Doctrinally yes, grammatically no.

So the Book of Mormon is without error and doctrinally correct and the Holy Bible is not?

You've confused me a little bit I'm just trying to get some clarification...

Chris F
07-23-2009, 06:43 PM
So the Book of Mormon is without error and doctrinally correct and the Holy Bible is not?

You've confused me a little bit I'm just trying to get some clarification...

Nah Chuck this is typical for false religions. They place their faith on things they can accept and ignore truth. The fact is faith placed anywhere other then the cross of Christ means hell. If you do not believe the bible is 100% true and that Chrsit is the only way unto salvation then that person will spend eternity in Hell with Satan and the others mislead souls.

warriorlion
07-24-2009, 07:16 PM
[QUOTE=eric84]Since I believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet, and not just a scholar, I believe God gave him the inspiration he needed to translate. He learning Hebrew was after he translated the Book of Mormon and it's intent was to read the Bible in it's original language(he also was learning greek).

Your quoting from the Bible, but once again, if the Bible isn't 100% then quoting from it to prove the Book of Mormon wrong isn't very substantial. It could be the Bible is off and the Book of Mormon is right(which I believe). It goes back to the argument if the Bible is 100% correct or not. [QUOTE]


out of interest then what language do you believe these plates were written in???

since they were written by a person meant to be from a hebrew tribe, I would guess that it was hebrew they are written in, and yet He translated it, God inspired or not, he still translated it.

What you need to understand is that the bible was passed down word for word from father to son, by people that even today do not get their stories confused, the beduoin people from the same regions as almost everyone of note in the bible have traditions of story telling that is so actuate that you can hear the same story on opposite side of the country within days of each story and it be word perfect each time.

this was how the bible was passed along until someone could write it down.

Your book was written down and not passed along at all, until one man found it and used seer stones to help him translate the writing, the same stones used to seek treasure.

Plus you keep saying that you dont believe the bible is 100% acurate, when the mormon view is that it is acurate as far as its been translated. So quoting the bible as its been translated, by experts, well for me proves how fallible your book is.
The bible was written long before smith found these so called plates and tells of angels giving false religions, thats not something thats been added in later, that what it said when Smith read the bible as a young person, its what it said when Smith joined a methodist inquriers class as it is believed he may have done. Its the same thing it said long before Smith was born, and the same thing it will say long after you and I have died.

Thats because it is the inspired word of God, to take away from it at all destroys your religion, if the words of Jesus are not protrayed acurately in the book that tells of his life, which says the same things in hebrew and in the greek despite translations, then any religion in which Jesus is pivitol falls apart.

That why the bible which is historically acurate unlike the book of mormon, is truth. And is proved to be true more and more as time goes on.

eric84
07-24-2009, 10:07 PM
[QUOTE=eric84]Since I believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet, and not just a scholar, I believe God gave him the inspiration he needed to translate. He learning Hebrew was after he translated the Book of Mormon and it's intent was to read the Bible in it's original language(he also was learning greek).

Your quoting from the Bible, but once again, if the Bible isn't 100% then quoting from it to prove the Book of Mormon wrong isn't very substantial. It could be the Bible is off and the Book of Mormon is right(which I believe). It goes back to the argument if the Bible is 100% correct or not. [QUOTE]


out of interest then what language do you believe these plates were written in???

since they were written by a person meant to be from a hebrew tribe, I would guess that it was hebrew they are written in, and yet He translated it, God inspired or not, he still translated it.

What you need to understand is that the bible was passed down word for word from father to son, by people that even today do not get their stories confused, the beduoin people from the same regions as almost everyone of note in the bible have traditions of story telling that is so actuate that you can hear the same story on opposite side of the country within days of each story and it be word perfect each time.

this was how the bible was passed along until someone could write it down.

Your book was written down and not passed along at all, until one man found it and used seer stones to help him translate the writing, the same stones used to seek treasure.

Plus you keep saying that you dont believe the bible is 100% acurate, when the mormon view is that it is acurate as far as its been translated. So quoting the bible as its been translated, by experts, well for me proves how fallible your book is.
The bible was written long before smith found these so called plates and tells of angels giving false religions, thats not something thats been added in later, that what it said when Smith read the bible as a young person, its what it said when Smith joined a methodist inquriers class as it is believed he may have done. Its the same thing it said long before Smith was born, and the same thing it will say long after you and I have died.

Thats because it is the inspired word of God, to take away from it at all destroys your religion, if the words of Jesus are not protrayed acurately in the book that tells of his life, which says the same things in hebrew and in the greek despite translations, then any religion in which Jesus is pivitol falls apart.

That why the bible which is historically acurate unlike the book of mormon, is truth. And is proved to be true more and more as time goes on.


1 - As stated in the Book of Mormon, it was "Reformed Egyptian". I don't know exactly what it was, but its possible that it was the Hebrew language written using Egyptian Heiroglyphics.

2 - You say it's been passed down by people that don't get their stories confused, which I definately don't agree with. All it takes is 1 word changed from each Generation, and over a few thousands years it can be a completely different story. But I'm not saying it's completely different, I'm saying there have been changes here and there. Also you have to take into consideration that we don't have any original manuscripts, today's translations/copies are done off other copies, which were done off other copies, and so on. And each of those copies were done by hand, by imperfect men. Nothing is impossible with God, so it comes down to if God divinely preserved it EXACTLY the way it was written, or if he inspired me to do the best they could do, but still have imperfections.

3 - Actually the Book of Mormon records were written down and preserved until a Prophet named Mormon(where the book of mormon gets its name from) abridged them into one book. I said I believe the doctrine to be perfect, but that doesn't mean the stories are word for word.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abridge

4 - Being an "expert" does not mean they will give you a perfect translation. Yep your right, I keep saying it's not 100%, and your right, the Mormon view is it's the word of God as long as it's translated correctly. Both are true in this sense, thus the mormon view is that the Bible we have today isn't a 100% correct translation, but we use the KJV because we feel that is as close as any Bible we have currently.

5 - First of all, worldly facts really don't stand up to spiritual facts. But since you keep insisting the Book of Mormon is so fallible, I'm open to anymore reasons why. I have yet to see a reason on here that couldn't be explained. People have bashed the book for a variety of reasons since it was published and no one has found a way to prove it wrong. Please prove me wrong in actually checking these sites out before continuing, since I honestly doubt anyone will.......but I have hope!

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=14&num=2&id=376
http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml
http://www.jefflindsay.com/bme-index.shtml

I'd like to point out a few key ones(all these can be found in the above links):
- Gold Plates, pretty ridiculous right.... especially since people laughed him to scorn. Even better that it was buried in a box in the side of a hill. Yet today archaeologists have shown writing on ore plates and burying them in a box was actually a common practice. Even better is the find of another set of Gold plates.

- Chiasmus, ever heard of it? Neither did Joseph Smith.
http://www.jefflindsay.com/chiasmus.shtml

- Grammar/Punctuation in the Book of Mormon.

- Cement. In the 1820's, people didn't think the natives of America even knew what cement was. It would seem ridiculous for someone to say they did when at the time it was so obviously wrong. And now today it isn't even a question of whether it's true or not, pre-colombus cement is all over central America.


None of this PROVES the Book of Mormon true, and I don't base my belief in the Book of Mormon off any of this. But it clearly shows that the claims made against it regarding its authenticity don't have a lot of ground to stand on.

That was longer than I intended... sorry for rambling!

warriorlion
07-25-2009, 07:45 AM
[QUOTE=warriorlion][QUOTE=eric84]Since I believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet, and not just a scholar, I believe God gave him the inspiration he needed to translate. He learning Hebrew was after he translated the Book of Mormon and it's intent was to read the Bible in it's original language(he also was learning greek).

Your quoting from the Bible, but once again, if the Bible isn't 100% then quoting from it to prove the Book of Mormon wrong isn't very substantial. It could be the Bible is off and the Book of Mormon is right(which I believe). It goes back to the argument if the Bible is 100% correct or not.


1 - As stated in the Book of Mormon, it was "Reformed Egyptian". I don't know exactly what it was, but its possible that it was the Hebrew language written using Egyptian Heiroglyphics.

2 - You say it's been passed down by people that don't get their stories confused, which I definately don't agree with. All it takes is 1 word changed from each Generation, and over a few thousands years it can be a completely different story. But I'm not saying it's completely different, I'm saying there have been changes here and there. Also you have to take into consideration that we don't have any original manuscripts, today's translations/copies are done off other copies, which were done off other copies, and so on. And each of those copies were done by hand, by imperfect men. Nothing is impossible with God, so it comes down to if God divinely preserved it EXACTLY the way it was written, or if he inspired me to do the best they could do, but still have imperfections.

3 - Actually the Book of Mormon records were written down and preserved until a Prophet named Mormon(where the book of mormon gets its name from) abridged them into one book. I said I believe the doctrine to be perfect, but that doesn't mean the stories are word for word.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abridge

4 - Being an "expert" does not mean they will give you a perfect translation. Yep your right, I keep saying it's not 100%, and your right, the Mormon view is it's the word of God as long as it's translated correctly. Both are true in this sense, thus the mormon view is that the Bible we have today isn't a 100% correct translation, but we use the KJV because we feel that is as close as any Bible we have currently.

5 - First of all, worldly facts really don't stand up to spiritual facts. But since you keep insisting the Book of Mormon is so fallible, I'm open to anymore reasons why. I have yet to see a reason on here that couldn't be explained. People have bashed the book for a variety of reasons since it was published and no one has found a way to prove it wrong. Please prove me wrong in actually checking these sites out before continuing, since I honestly doubt anyone will.......but I have hope!

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=14&num=2&id=376
http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml
http://www.jefflindsay.com/bme-index.shtml

I'd like to point out a few key ones(all these can be found in the above links):
- Gold Plates, pretty ridiculous right.... especially since people laughed him to scorn. Even better that it was buried in a box in the side of a hill. Yet today archaeologists have shown writing on ore plates and burying them in a box was actually a common practice. Even better is the find of another set of Gold plates.

- Chiasmus, ever heard of it? Neither did Joseph Smith.
http://www.jefflindsay.com/chiasmus.shtml

- Grammar/Punctuation in the Book of Mormon.

- Cement. In the 1820's, people didn't think the natives of America even knew what cement was. It would seem ridiculous for someone to say they did when at the time it was so obviously wrong. And now today it isn't even a question of whether it's true or not, pre-colombus cement is all over central America.


None of this PROVES the Book of Mormon true, and I don't base my belief in the Book of Mormon off any of this. But it clearly shows that the claims made against it regarding its authenticity don't have a lot of ground to stand on.

That was longer than I intended... sorry for rambling!

I will take a closer look at those links a little later when |I have a bit more time, for now, since you feel the KJV is the closest to the correct tranlslation, lets take a look at what Galatians says in KJV

Galatians 1:6-9 (King James Version)

6I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.


thats seems to me to say much the same as the modern version I pointed out. By your own admission you believe this to be the closest to true translation, yet still refustes another gospel.

You talked of not having original manusripts. You dont have original manusripts of the book of mormon either, you dont have the gold plates, no one else has looked at them in an attempt to translate them.

I am not doubting Gold plates existed, If there were other people who had tried to translate them then I would say that the book had more viability but there isnt anyone else, there are a few people that have said they have seen and held them, but no one else translated them.

As for the reformed egyptian, would you say that its fair that the Jaradite, if they indeed existed, who were hebrew would have spoken their native toungue of hebrew, so then if these plates were written in egyptian, its a fair sugestion that the words were translaed from hebrew to egyptian, and there for theres the fact ust as you state about the bible, it can only be correct as far as it is translated, since its translated from hebrew to eyptian to english.

Where as the bible is translated from hebrew to english directly.

eric84
07-27-2009, 03:19 PM
[QUOTE=eric84][QUOTE=warriorlion]

I will take a closer look at those links a little later when |I have a bit more time, for now, since you feel the KJV is the closest to the correct tranlslation, lets take a look at what Galatians says in KJV

Galatians 1:6-9 (King James Version)

6I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.


thats seems to me to say much the same as the modern version I pointed out. By your own admission you believe this to be the closest to true translation, yet still refustes another gospel.

You talked of not having original manusripts. You dont have original manusripts of the book of mormon either, you dont have the gold plates, no one else has looked at them in an attempt to translate them.

I am not doubting Gold plates existed, If there were other people who had tried to translate them then I would say that the book had more viability but there isnt anyone else, there are a few people that have said they have seen and held them, but no one else translated them.

As for the reformed egyptian, would you say that its fair that the Jaradite, if they indeed existed, who were hebrew would have spoken their native toungue of hebrew, so then if these plates were written in egyptian, its a fair sugestion that the words were translaed from hebrew to egyptian, and there for theres the fact ust as you state about the bible, it can only be correct as far as it is translated, since its translated from hebrew to eyptian to english.

Where as the bible is translated from hebrew to english directly.

I don't believe the Bible is 100%, then that doesn't necessarily mean the scripture is correct to me. Also if it was exactly the way they wrote it, The Gospel can be seen as the basics of Christs teachings, which were faith, hope, love, repentance, baptism... Which we most definitely believe in.

I agree, we don't have any "proof" of the Gold Plates, that's where faith comes in, just like truly knowing the Bible is the word of God. The Jaredites were led to the America's right after the tower of babel, so I'm not sure what language they spoke, but the records show it wasn't hebrew or egyptian.

I'm not exactly sure how the translation process went, but it wasn't translated from Hebrew to Egyptian to English. It was translated straight from that language into English by the power of God. And since I believe he translated by the power of God, and not his worldly knowledge(he had very low education), that is where the big difference comes between that and the Bible.

warriorlion
07-27-2009, 09:08 PM
[QUOTE=warriorlion][QUOTE=eric84]

I don't believe the Bible is 100%, then that doesn't necessarily mean the scripture is correct to me. Also if it was exactly the way they wrote it, The Gospel can be seen as the basics of Christs teachings, which were faith, hope, love, repentance, baptism... Which we most definitely believe in.

I agree, we don't have any "proof" of the Gold Plates, that's where faith comes in, just like truly knowing the Bible is the word of God. The Jaredites were led to the America's right after the tower of babel, so I'm not sure what language they spoke, but the records show it wasn't hebrew or egyptian.

I'm not exactly sure how the translation process went, but it wasn't translated from Hebrew to Egyptian to English. It was translated straight from that language into English by the power of God. And since I believe he translated by the power of God, and not his worldly knowledge(he had very low education), that is where the big difference comes between that and the Bible.

but by your own admission the jaradite didnt speak egyptian, therefore no matter how you look at it, the book of mormon is no different from the bible in terms of translation issues.

You believe that Joseph Smith translated the plates by the power of God, so in your view you beliee thats an acurate translation, but do you have any references taht show that Mormon, had God translate from his language into reformed egyptian???

For me this is why the mormon book falls down, you cast aside the fact that the bible is spirit breathed yet are more than ready to accept that something with no proof, no evidence, and a fairly loose back story is God translated, not once but twice.

You are 100% ready to cast the bible off as acurate, due to translation, and are not ready to accept that God inspired these people that translated the bible, at the same time casting off taht God gave these people the gifts taht allow them to do their job in translating.

Yet your very arguement against the bible from what you have said and from what I have read can be pointed directly at your own book

eric84
07-27-2009, 10:33 PM
[QUOTE=eric84][QUOTE=warriorlion]

but by your own admission the jaradite didnt speak egyptian, therefore no matter how you look at it, the book of mormon is no different from the bible in terms of translation issues.

You believe that Joseph Smith translated the plates by the power of God, so in your view you beliee thats an acurate translation, but do you have any references taht show that Mormon, had God translate from his language into reformed egyptian???

For me this is why the mormon book falls down, you cast aside the fact that the bible is spirit breathed yet are more than ready to accept that something with no proof, no evidence, and a fairly loose back story is God translated, not once but twice.

You are 100% ready to cast the bible off as acurate, due to translation, and are not ready to accept that God inspired these people that translated the bible, at the same time casting off taht God gave these people the gifts taht allow them to do their job in translating.

Yet your very arguement against the bible from what you have said and from what I have read can be pointed directly at your own book

I can't change how you believe about it, and the same goes for my belief, only we can change them. So from my belief there is a huge difference in the Bible translation compared to the Book of Mormon because of a few key points, which because of your difference in belief will of course, be different. Once again it goes back to belief, you can't prove to me the Bible is God's word anymore than I can prove to you the Book of Mormon is Gods word, my intent was to show that the Book of Mormon can't be discredited due to the "wisdom of the world". Onto my key points(once again, from my beliefs)

Bible was written by inspired men, but compiled and translated by scholars/scribes/men. I don't doubt that some of the men were inspired, but not all, and all it takes is one translation to mess up a lot more.

The Book of Mormon was written by Prophets, abridged by a Prophet, and translations were done by Prophets.

Of course if you don't believe these men, or even one of them wasn't a prophet, just like I don't believe the same way many of you do about the Bible translations, then you wouldn't believe the Book of Mormon the same way I do... which is obviously the case. My whole point is that the book can't make a person a Christian, it's about belief/faith in Jesus.


****
I missed commenting about a part of what you said, regarding dismissing the Bible as Spirit Breathed. I gain alot out of the Bible, it has helped me out in many situations and I feel like it was inspired of God. I know people on here probably think that I'm just saying that with the way I have posted, but that was only in the point of my trying to make that we can't prove anything spiritual with worldly ways. (1 Cor 2:10-14)

Moose
07-28-2009, 04:40 AM
Galatians 1:8

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!

Doesn't that wrap it up?

TexasRN
07-28-2009, 11:22 AM
Galatians 1:8

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!

Doesn't that wrap it up?


I vote yes.



~Amy

Tyburn
07-28-2009, 12:05 PM
I vote yes.



~Amy
:) me two!

warriorlion
07-28-2009, 12:29 PM
already quoted that earlier, as far as eric is concerned it doesnt.

personaly i think mormons are tricked away from true faith.

Eric said that true christians are christians from belief in Christ however by ignoring he bible as incorrect, you take away from that belief as you dont believe that Jesus' life is acurate, and so you are nothing more than a historian or an muslim that agrees Jesus was alive.

Heck Satan believes in Jesus, knows he is the son of God, that dont make him a christian.

Mormons are not christian, ust acknowledging Jesus is not enough, almost every religion acknowledges him.

You take away from the bible which is Spirit breathed, you lose the point.

Mark
07-29-2009, 12:59 PM
eric84, what do you think of polygamy?

eric84
07-29-2009, 03:14 PM
eric84, what do you think of polygamy?

Personally I wouldn't want to live it. At first glance in todays time people automatically judge(not saying you are, just some people do), since Polygamy is very against our culture, the law and many peoples beliefs.

But throughout the Old Testament many Prophets practiced Polygamy(Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc). David was given many wives by God (Samuel 12:8). I think it can be established that God has not always condemned Polygamy, that being said, we can see it change in the New Testament. The Church(LDS church) believes that God at times may have his people practice polygamy for one reason or another, and that he only authorizes it through his Prophet.

It's very easy to hear/read that Joseph Smith(and other prophets) had multiple wives and automatically be turned off about it, I can understand why that is so. But sometimes everything is not as it seems, and if God has done it before, why not again.

warriorlion
07-29-2009, 03:23 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onlo8bLSTVE

warriorlion
07-29-2009, 03:34 PM
Personally I wouldn't want to live it. At first glance in todays time people automatically judge(not saying you are, just some people do), since Polygamy is very against our culture, the law and many peoples beliefs.

But throughout the Old Testament many Prophets practiced Polygamy(Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc). David was given many wives by God (Samuel 12:8). I think it can be established that God has not always condemned Polygamy, that being said, we can see it change in the New Testament. The Church(LDS church) believes that God at times may have his people practice polygamy for one reason or another, and that he only authorizes it through his Prophet.

It's very easy to hear/read that Joseph Smith(and other prophets) had multiple wives and automatically be turned off about it, I can understand why that is so. But sometimes everything is not as it seems, and if God has done it before, why not again.

there is a context to think about here as well.

all the people you named from the bible (which you claim is not 100% - until you want to make a point from it) all lived in an arab culture where multiply wifes was commonplace. joseph smith did not.

Also can you show me an example of where a prophet authorises such???

you can excuse someones act by calling them a prophet.

I believe that bigamy is not defined by law a anything different rom ploygomy, and is against the law in all states

can you get away with killing people because you are called a prophet, and because both David and Moses did it???

Jesus said 17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

king james version matthew 5 (verses listed)

eric84
07-29-2009, 03:57 PM
there is a context to think about here as well.

all the people you named from the bible (which you claim is not 100% - until you want to make a point from it) all lived in an arab culture where multiply wifes was commonplace. joseph smith did not.

Also can you show me an example of where a prophet authorises such???

you can excuse someones act by calling them a prophet.

I believe that bigamy is not defined by law a anything different rom ploygomy, and is against the law in all states

can you get away with killing people because you are called a prophet, and because both David and Moses did it???

Jesus said 17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

king james version matthew 5 (verses listed)

I don't need to quote from the Bible to convince myself of my belief, I do it because it makes it easier to get my point across since the Bible is common between us. There aren't very many things in the Bible I disagree with(I quote from scriptures all the time), so to continually keep downplaying my belief in the Bible just because I don't agree with 100% of what you do about it is inaccurate. No where has anyone shown me or given a good reason where the Bible has to be 100% or it is completely void. You are taking your OWN interpretation/belief, and since I don't agree with yours, you make it out like I don't believe in it. I don't mean this to get into an argument, I just want you to realize(since you keep saying otherwise) that I hold the Bible in very high regard and there are very few things I find fault with in it.

1 - So just because they lived in a place that it was common makes it ok and Josephs not? I don't think God molds his Laws around what the people want.

2 - God Authorizes it through his Prophet, aka, Abraham, Isaac, Etc. With

3 - If he is a TRUE Prophet and following God, sure, God knows better than us. It goes back to if you believe the person is doing God's will, many falsely claim they are, and it's up to us to find out if they are God's chosen or not. You could say this about many TRUE prophets in the Old Testament.

4 - "I believe that bigamy is not defined by law a anything different rom ploygomy, and is against the law in all states", not sure exactly about what you meant by this.

5 - Can I get away with it? If God commanded me to, but I would hope he wouldn't. Your example of David and Moses is a great example, killing is wrong, right, it forbids it in the 10 commandments. But did not God command them to? So if God commands you to do something, it "overrides" the other laws he has asked us to keep. The part that gets wary is when people claim to get an order from God, but those that try to claim false commands will get it in the life hereafter.

eric84
07-29-2009, 04:06 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onlo8bLSTVE

And this proves? Oh wait, it proves that some people might have studied the Bible more than 19 year old's. We should read and study the scriptures of course, but just because we don't know as much about it as another person doesn't make their belief more valid than ours. Peter was just a fisherman, do we even know if he could read? And yet he became a great Apostle for the Lord.

Also some of these I've seen online were obviously staged, I'm not sure about this one, it could be real, but doesn't change what I said. I was a missionary, and there were times I was attacked(verbally) by ministers/pastors/priests and used scriptures to confound them, but that doesn't necessarily make me right and them wrong. As you can see from the countless Christian churches based off the Bible, scripture sometimes can be twisted this way and that to back up someones beliefs.

I'm curious though what people think about the missionaries that come by their house, and don't sugarcoat it because of me(not that you would, ha), because I really want to know.

Tyburn
07-29-2009, 04:19 PM
eric84, what do you think of polygamy?
:laugh:

Neezar
07-29-2009, 05:08 PM
eric84, what do you think of polygamy?

What do you think of polygamy? :biggrin-1:

Tyburn
07-29-2009, 05:12 PM
What do you think of polygamy? :biggrin-1:
:laugh: :laugh:

Chris F
07-29-2009, 05:31 PM
And this proves? Oh wait, it proves that some people might have studied the Bible more than 19 year old's. We should read and study the scriptures of course, but just because we don't know as much about it as another person doesn't make their belief more valid than ours. Peter was just a fisherman, do we even know if he could read? And yet he became a great Apostle for the Lord.

Also some of these I've seen online were obviously staged, I'm not sure about this one, it could be real, but doesn't change what I said. I was a missionary, and there were times I was attacked(verbally) by ministers/pastors/priests and used scriptures to confound them, but that doesn't necessarily make me right and them wrong. As you can see from the countless Christian churches based off the Bible, scripture sometimes can be twisted this way and that to back up someones beliefs.

I'm curious though what people think about the missionaries that come by their house, and don't sugarcoat it because of me(not that you would, ha), because I really want to know.

I invite them in all the time and like you they skirt the issues and quote their books and ignore the questions about their unbiblical doctrines. The fact is your beliefs for salvation are not Christian and thus there is no salvation for you and others who believe like you. Your faith must be in the cross of Christ alone. Jesus is the only way to the father. There are no other planet where you will get your own to rule, Jesus in not Satan brothers, etc etc. Jesus is Lord and Savior! Without Him as such you will go to Hell. Many will say Lord Lord did we not do many works in your name? Depart from me I never knew you. It is not if you know Jesus, it is does he know YOU.

rearnakedchoke
07-29-2009, 05:34 PM
I invite them in all the time and like you they skirt the issues and quote their books and ignore the questions about their unbiblical doctrines. The fact is your beliefs for salvation are not Christian and thus there is no salvation for you and others who believe like you. Your faith must be in the cross of Christ alone. Jesus is the only way to the father. There are no other planet where you will get your own to rule, Jesus in not Satan brothers, etc etc. Jesus is Lord and Savior! Without Him as such you will go to Hell. Many will say Lord Lord did we not do many works in your name? Depart from me I never knew you. It is not if you know Jesus, it is does he know YOU.
This pretty much sums it up ... Great post!

warriorlion
07-29-2009, 05:43 PM
And this proves? Oh wait, it proves that some people might have studied the Bible more than 19 year old's. We should read and study the scriptures of course, but just because we don't know as much about it as another person doesn't make their belief more valid than ours. Peter was just a fisherman, do we even know if he could read? And yet he became a great Apostle for the Lord.

Also some of these I've seen online were obviously staged, I'm not sure about this one, it could be real, but doesn't change what I said. I was a missionary, and there were times I was attacked(verbally) by ministers/pastors/priests and used scriptures to confound them, but that doesn't necessarily make me right and them wrong. As you can see from the countless Christian churches based off the Bible, scripture sometimes can be twisted this way and that to back up someones beliefs.

I'm curious though what people think about the missionaries that come by their house, and don't sugarcoat it because of me(not that you would, ha), because I really want to know.

I didnt say that it proved anything, I think the guy has a very interesting view and makes some very valid points bout scripture.

As for comfounding people with scripture, you have not done so at any point here

warriorlion
07-29-2009, 05:57 PM
I don't need to quote from the Bible to convince myself of my belief, I do it because it makes it easier to get my point across since the Bible is common between us. There aren't very many things in the Bible I disagree with(I quote from scriptures all the time), so to continually keep downplaying my belief in the Bible just because I don't agree with 100% of what you do about it is inaccurate. No where has anyone shown me or given a good reason where the Bible has to be 100% or it is completely void.


You question the acuracy of the bible, therefore you must question its validity, your religion claims that the book of mormon is the most acurate book.And that very fact goes against the teachings of the bible. you cant pick and choose which bits are acurately translated and which bit ae not, either its all truth or its all inacurate. and if its inacurate then you lose the point of it - if I state a truth and you mistranslate it, you can change its context and the statement entirely so it completely changes what I stated. Therefore if the bible is not 100% its void

You are taking your OWN interpretation/belief, and since I don't agree with yours, you make it out like I don't believe in it.

you said you are mormon, and that you dont believe the bibloe is 100%. those were your words not mine. Thats not my interpretation. If you take the law of the land and claim its not 100% acurate then its void of its meaning, the same goes for anything. If truth is not 100% acurate its no longer truth, therefore truth would be void

I don't mean this to get into an argument, I just want you to realize(since you keep saying otherwise) that I hold the Bible in very high regard and there are very few things I find fault with in it.

except you claim its not 100%. Would that not be all the fault you need to miss the boat

1 - So just because they lived in a place that it was common makes it ok and Josephs not? I don't think God molds his Laws around what the people want.

first ff I didnt say it was right that they had many wives, just that in context their culture allowed it, their land allowed it, their laws allowed it. God never said that they could not have many wives. The big difference is most western countries it is illegal. All of the states in the US class polygamy as no different from bigamy and that is illegal. The same is true of the UK and Northern Ireland. The biblical examples you gave were not breaking the law, Smith was

2 - God Authorizes it through his Prophet, aka, Abraham, Isaac, Etc. With
Show me where it justifies that. Show me God telling them they could

3 - If he is a TRUE Prophet and following God, sure, God knows better than us. It goes back to if you believe the person is doing God's will, many falsely claim they are, and it's up to us to find out if they are God's chosen or not. You could say this about many TRUE prophets in the Old Testament.


4 - "I believe that bigamy is not defined by law a anything different rom ploygomy, and is against the law in all states", not sure exactly about what you meant by this.
see above

5 - Can I get away with it? If God commanded me to, but I would hope he wouldn't. Your example of David and Moses is a great example, killing is wrong, right, it forbids it in the 10 commandments. But did not God command them to? So if God commands you to do something, it "overrides" the other laws he has asked us to keep. The part that gets wary is when people claim to get an order from God, but those that try to claim false commands will get it in the life hereafter.

again show me where God commanded murder??? remembering the in times of war thekilling of people is not murder. When Moses killed the egyptian where did god command that, when David had Uriah killed after impregnating Uriahs wife where did God command that????

see answers in bold in qte

eric84
07-29-2009, 06:52 PM
see answers in bold in qte

A - Do you honestly think the laws of the land are perfect? I guess we should just throw out all law because it's not 100% perfect....I doubt many people, if any, think that its perfect. You keep saying if something isn't 100% its completely void, which is totally untrue. If a specific detail is false, then that detail is false, that doesn't make everything else false also. If I lied once, does that make everything I say a lie? If a car has a dent in the bump does that automatically make the car obsolete? Of course not, you can't generalize everything.

B - Miss the boat as in??? Salvation? Last time I checked no where did God say if I don't believe the Bible 100% I'm going to hell. I'll stick to believing in God 100%, not a book compiled by men.

1 - So if God was to command something but it's against the law, you shouldn't obey God?

2 - 2 Samuel 12:8 is one example, God GAVE those wives to David. Doesn't get any more straight forward than that.

3 - You were talking about killing people, you never specifically said murder. All throughout the Old Testament God instructs people to kill others. 1 Samuel 15:33, Gods Prophet commits "murder".

Mark
07-29-2009, 07:05 PM
how many gods does the mormon church have?

warriorlion
07-29-2009, 07:05 PM
[QUOTE=eric84]
2 - 2 Samuel 12:8 is one example, God GAVE those wives to David. Doesn't get any more straight forward than that.

[QUOTE]


shall we talk context again!!!

care to go read that scripture again, Think you will find it was God rebuking David through his Prophet Nathan.

When something is delivered into your hands, doesnt automatically make them your wife, the scripture says that the masters wives were delivered into Davids hands, not given to him as wives.

And itz the very thing I was talking about - God rebuked David for killing Uriah and taking his wife as his own. Thats not exactly God giing permission to have many wives.

CONTEXT my friend. Dont just qutoe one verse that seems to back you up

warriorlion
07-29-2009, 07:10 PM
.


3 - You were talking about killing people, you never specifically said murder. All throughout the Old Testament God instructs people to kill others. 1 Samuel 15:33, Gods Prophet commits "murder".


Again you might need togo back and re read the scripture, theres no murder there, its |God declaring that decendents will die in the prime of life, and about cutting people off from the alter, not murdering them!!!!

warriorlion
07-29-2009, 07:16 PM
you said about a true prophet acting on God commands.

Well if that Prophet is not judging what he feels God has commanded by the scripture and seeing that there is no contradiction then he should act, this status alone shows that Joseph Smith is no prophet.

The churches checked scripture that Paul taught to make sure his teaching aligned with scripture, I would do the same of any person who claimed to be a prophet or sent from God, including all the people on here.

When someone gives their opinion and preaches something I go back and look at the scripture to see if it is in line.

Joseph Smith obviously did not do this, because his teaching and your views contradict God's word, contradict the scripture, and therefore they are not of God. If the teaching a person who calls himself or gets called a prophet of God does not match the scripture of God then he is a false prophet and brings lies and deception.

The evil one is on the prowl like a lion aiming to steal kill and destroy.

This forum has tried to show you the light and the truth yet you remain decieved. We cant help you if you are not willing to help yourself by opening your eyes.

You can find the turth and that thruth will set you free.

eric84
07-29-2009, 07:21 PM
[QUOTE=eric84]
2 - 2 Samuel 12:8 is one example, God GAVE those wives to David. Doesn't get any more straight forward than that.

[QUOTE]


shall we talk context again!!!

care to go read that scripture again, Think you will find it was God rebuking David through his Prophet Nathan.

When something is delivered into your hands, doesnt automatically make them your wife, the scripture says that the masters wives were delivered into Davids hands, not given to him as wives.

And itz the very thing I was talking about - God rebuked David for killing Uriah and taking his wife as his own. Thats not exactly God giing permission to have many wives.

CONTEXT my friend. Dont just qutoe one verse that seems to back you up

God chastises David through his Prophet, not for taking another wife, but for taking another mans wife. THAT is the context. Also giving the "wives into thy bosom ", and other scriptures clearly show God gave these women to David to be his concubines.

eric84
07-29-2009, 07:25 PM
Again you might need togo back and re read the scripture, theres no murder there, its |God declaring that decendents will die in the prime of life, and about cutting people off from the alter, not murdering them!!!!

I put the "murder" in quotes for a reason, because I don't consider it murder, just like you said, it was God's punishment. Yet you changed the CONTEXT of what we were talking about from Killing to Murder, and now your trying to change the meaning behind what I said

The 10 commandments specifically say "Thou shalt not kill ", which he obviousely did, and which the Israelites killed thousands of people following God's commands.

eric84
07-29-2009, 07:27 PM
I invite them in all the time and like you they skirt the issues and quote their books and ignore the questions about their unbiblical doctrines. The fact is your beliefs for salvation are not Christian and thus there is no salvation for you and others who believe like you. Your faith must be in the cross of Christ alone. Jesus is the only way to the father. There are no other planet where you will get your own to rule, Jesus in not Satan brothers, etc etc. Jesus is Lord and Savior! Without Him as such you will go to Hell. Many will say Lord Lord did we not do many works in your name? Depart from me I never knew you. It is not if you know Jesus, it is does he know YOU.

I don't worship a symbol like the cross, I worship Jesus my Savior, thanks.

NateR
07-29-2009, 07:34 PM
how many gods does the mormon church have?

Mormons believe in "countless" or a nearly infinite amount of gods. Which is what makes them a heretical religion.

eric84
07-29-2009, 07:52 PM
Mormons believe in "countless" or a nearly infinite amount of gods. Which is what makes them a heretical religion.

What he said, taking out the heretical part. I could easily apply that heretical part to your belief in the trinity which is unscriptural, does it feel good?

Romans 8:17, we are joint heirs of Christ

It might be hard to comprehend, but eternity is .... well.... eternity. You think that maybe after eternity of living with God that we somehow could learn to be like him? Anything is possible with God.

But we do believe there is ONE God for us, in our realm of things.

NateR
07-29-2009, 08:01 PM
What he said, taking out the heretical part. I could easily apply that heretical part to your belief in the trinity which is unscriptural, does it feel good?

Romans 8:17, we are joint heirs of Christ

It might be hard to comprehend, but eternity is .... well.... eternity. You think that maybe after eternity of living with God that we somehow could learn to be like him? Anything is possible with God.

But we do believe there is ONE God for us, in our realm of things.

So, you believe that at some point in the future you might actually be equal to Jesus Christ? Wow, that's Satanic deception in it's purest form.

There is a biblical basis for understanding the Trinity. Saying that it's heresy is really just evidence of your lack of knowledge about the Bible; but I forgot you don't really believe in the Bible do you? At least, not in the parts that you don't like.

There is also Biblical precedent for your claim that you will eventually become a god yourself. Unfortunately, it's in Genesis chapter 3 and it's the very first deception that Satan uses to bring about Adam and Eve's fall in the Garden of Eden.

Sorry you fell for it as well. :mellow:

Crisco
07-29-2009, 08:19 PM
What he said, taking out the heretical part. I could easily apply that heretical part to your belief in the trinity which is unscriptural, does it feel good?

Romans 8:17, we are joint heirs of Christ

It might be hard to comprehend, but eternity is .... well.... eternity. You think that maybe after eternity of living with God that we somehow could learn to be like him? Anything is possible with God.

But we do believe there is ONE God for us, in our realm of things.

That is definately not Christianity sir.

eric84
07-29-2009, 08:21 PM
So, you believe that at some point in the future you might actually be equal to Jesus Christ? Wow, that's Satanic deception in it's purest form.

There is a biblical basis for understanding the Trinity. Saying that it's heresy is really just evidence of your lack of knowledge about the Bible; but I forgot you don't really believe in the Bible do you? At least, not in the parts that you don't like.

There is also Biblical precedent for your claim that you will eventually become a god yourself. Unfortunately, it's in Genesis chapter 3 and it's the very first deception that Satan uses to bring about Adam and Eve's fall in the Garden of Eden.

Sorry you fell for it as well. :mellow:

As much as I enjoyed this(and I did, for awhile), it's getting pretty repetitive with your belief compared to my belief in the Bible. Almost everything we have talked about stems around that difference. I've already presented why we believe the way we do. Simply put we believe in Jesus, and that he talks to a prophet today to help us understand how to make it back to him. Unless something really really really good gets posted, I probably won't reply on this thread again, since it keeps getting repetitive.

Yep, I sure fell for it, I'll go change my ways now.

Crisco
07-29-2009, 08:25 PM
As much as I enjoyed this(and I did, for awhile), it's getting pretty repetitive with your belief compared to my belief in the Bible. Almost everything we have talked about stems around that difference. I've already presented why we believe the way we do. Simply put we believe in Jesus, and that he talks to a prophet today to help us understand how to make it back to him. Unless something really really really good gets posted, I probably won't reply on this thread again, since it keeps getting repetitive.

Yep, I sure fell for it, I'll go change my ways now.

We'll all be praying for you.

TexasRN
07-29-2009, 08:38 PM
I have a few general questions. I want to know about the garments or special underwear. Also, I want to know about the room with the mirrors and it's purpose. Last, no hot caffeine drinks? So no coffee but soda is ok? The details of religions other than my own fascinate me.


~Amy

Chris F
07-29-2009, 08:46 PM
As much as I enjoyed this(and I did, for awhile), it's getting pretty repetitive with your belief compared to my belief in the Bible. Almost everything we have talked about stems around that difference. I've already presented why we believe the way we do. Simply put we believe in Jesus, and that he talks to a prophet today to help us understand how to make it back to him. Unless something really really really good gets posted, I probably won't reply on this thread again, since it keeps getting repetitive.

Yep, I sure fell for it, I'll go change my ways now.

It is getting repetitive because you keep using the same talking points and quoting the same text out of context. I am pretty sure no one has ill feeling toward you. We just fear for your eternal soul. Even the demons believe in Jesus that is not enough. God speaks to us today through His word the Bible. There is nothing new under the sun. He has already said all he is going to say when it comes to eternal life. Everything else is just righteous living and moral turpitude. So when it comes to essential Christian doctrine IE the divinity of Christ and the moral depravity of man we as Christ followers cannot and will not sway. There is ONE way to Heaven and that is Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Anything else is a lie from Hell.

eric84
07-29-2009, 08:47 PM
I have a few general questions. I want to know about the garments or special underwear. Also, I want to know about the room with the mirrors and it's purpose. Last, no hot caffeine drinks? So no coffee but soda is ok? The details of religions other than my own fascinate me.


~Amy

I'm a sucker for questions, it's so hard for me to pass them up.

1 - Garments, we feel are symbolic of the protection keeping God's commandments give us.

2 - Your probably talking about a "sealing" room, where we believe man and wife(and kids) can be "sealed", or bound together for eternity, not just till death do you part. We believe this can only be done through God, and that he gives the authority to do this only to certain people. The mirrors facing each other represent eternity, since they reflect each other, it's a constant reflection if you are in between them, which occurs when the 2 are wed, facing each other, but both able to see the reflections going on forever.

3 - I don't know why one and not the other, but coffee has been shown to be more detrimental to the body than soda, although both are unhealthy. The church is against anything addictive or harmful to your body, but they only outline a few specific ones, leaving most to the judgement of each person. We don't believe in drinking alcohol, smoking/chewing tobacco, any illegal drugs or drinking tea from the tea leaf.(and of course coffee from the coffee bean)

Crisco
07-29-2009, 08:52 PM
I have a few general questions. I want to know about the garments or special underwear. Also, I want to know about the room with the mirrors and it's purpose. Last, no hot caffeine drinks? So no coffee but soda is ok? The details of religions other than my own fascinate me.


~Amy


Kind of Ironic ain't it Amy? haha :laugh: :tongue0011:

Crisco
07-29-2009, 08:54 PM
I'm a sucker for questions, it's so hard for me to pass them up.

1 - Garments, we feel are symbolic of the protection keeping God's commandments give us.

2 - Your probably talking about a "sealing" room, where we believe man and wife(and kids) can be "sealed", or bound together for eternity, not just till death do you part. We believe this can only be done through God, and that he gives the authority to do this only to certain people. The mirrors facing each other represent eternity, since they reflect each other, it's a constant reflection if you are in between them, which occurs when the 2 are wed, facing each other, but both able to see the reflections going on forever.

3 - I don't know why one and not the other, but coffee has been shown to be more detrimental to the body than soda, although both are unhealthy. The church is against anything addictive or harmful to your body, but they only outline a few specific ones, leaving most to the judgement of each person. We don't believe in drinking alcohol, smoking/chewing tobacco, any illegal drugs or drinking tea from the tea leaf.(and of course coffee from the coffee bean)

One more thing I disagree on hehe.

Your churches health facts are bit outdated me thinks.

Not trying to fight just a subject of discussion.

Where does your church get it's health information from? Who decided on those things?

TexasRN
07-29-2009, 08:54 PM
Kind of Ironic ain't it Amy? haha :laugh: :tongue0011:

Smartaleck... :laugh:



~Amy

eric84
07-29-2009, 08:57 PM
One more thing I disagree on hehe.

Your churches health facts are bit outdated me thinks.

Not trying to fight just a subject of discussion.

Where does your church get it's health information from? Who decided on those things?

What part do you disagree on? The health information was revelation from God to the Prophet Joseph Smith back in the 1800's long before people thought smoking was unhealthy for you.

EDIT:

I noticed the bolded part just now.. I'm blind it seems. That part was my own personal opinion, not the churches. The church doesn't say why coffee is chosen and not soda. Part of it is using our own judgement in what we take into our bodies, and since there is sooooo many things that are unhealthy, it would be rediculous to name them all. Soda wasn't an issue back in the 1830's(I think that's when the church came out with this). Is it outdated.... I think its more of the fact there is so many new things they aren't going to keep adding everything to it.

Crisco
07-29-2009, 08:57 PM
:laugh: Smartaleck... :laugh:



~Amy

Crisco
07-29-2009, 09:03 PM
http://men.webmd.com/features/coffee-new-health-food


Soda is crammed with sugar and harmful additives that cause all kinds of horrible diseases.

This is just a quick article for you to browse regarding the cafe issue.

warriorlion
07-29-2009, 09:04 PM
What part do you disagree on? The health information was revelation from God to the Prophet Joseph Smith back in the 1800's long before people thought smoking was unhealthy for you.

.


out of interest where are these revelations recorded???

eric84
07-29-2009, 09:06 PM
out of interest where are these revelations recorded???

They are recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants of the church, Section 89 for this, which is called the Word of Wisdom. I'm sure out of interest really means so you can find something wrong with it, haha, but I guess that's what this is all about :)

Crisco
07-29-2009, 09:07 PM
As far as Tobacco props to J.Smith for having good sense.

If your ingesting something and it makes you cough and weaze and feel terrible it doesnt take a divine revelation to know you should probably avoid it.

eric84
07-29-2009, 09:10 PM
http://men.webmd.com/features/coffee-new-health-food


Soda is crammed with sugar and harmful additives that cause all kinds of horrible diseases.

This is just a quick article for you to browse regarding the cafe issue.

The anti-oxidants in coffee can be taken in with different, healthier means, without consuming so much caffeine. I completely agree Soda is very unhealthy, thus I drink it very rarely, and when I say rarely, like maybe 2 a year.

eric84
07-29-2009, 09:12 PM
As far as Tobacco props to J.Smith for having good sense.

If your ingesting something and it makes you cough and weaze and feel terrible it doesnt take a divine revelation to know you should probably avoid it.

Haha, I agree, but look at the times, they knew very little about harmful effects from it. Even today with all our knowledge about how harmful it is there are still millions that do it. 170 years ago things were much different.

Chuck
07-29-2009, 09:16 PM
I put the "murder" in quotes for a reason, because I don't consider it murder, just like you said, it was God's punishment. Yet you changed the CONTEXT of what we were talking about from Killing to Murder, and now your trying to change the meaning behind what I said

The 10 commandments specifically say "Thou shalt not kill ", which he obviousely did, and which the Israelites killed thousands of people following God's commands.

No brother, the 10 Commandments say "Thou shalt not commit murder" not kill.... huge difference..

Where did you go on your mission trip out of curiosity?

eric84
07-29-2009, 09:26 PM
No brother, the 10 Commandments say "Thou shalt not commit murder" not kill.... huge difference..

Where did you go on your mission trip out of curiosity?

So exodus 20:13 doesn't say "Thou shall not kill " ?

I was in Kentucky, and boy is it a lot different than my home state of Arizona!

Crisco
07-29-2009, 09:33 PM
So exodus 20:13 doesn't say "Thou nhall not kill " ?

I was in Kentucky, and boy is it a lot different than my home state of Arizona!

When you go back to the hebrew word retzach which is used in the old testament writing it is translated as an act or murder or revenge killing.

God won't command us to do something that he specifically commanded us not too. The Israelites would not have been able to make war on anyone on behalf of God if God had commanded them not to "kill"

Retzach was not was never used in conjuction with war in the bible so it is presumed and I believe rightfully so that Retzach and killing are 2 very different things.

TexasRN
07-29-2009, 09:36 PM
My brother worked at a hospital in Salt Lake City and is quite the practical jokester. He loved to go around during his shift and run the coffeemakers on all the floors to permeate the place with the smell. No one caught on that it was him. :laugh:


~Amy

eric84
07-29-2009, 09:41 PM
When you go back to the hebrew word retzach which is used in the old testament writing it is translated as an act or murder or revenge killing.

God won't command us to do something that he specifically commanded us not too. The Israelites would not have been able to make war on anyone on behalf of God if God had commanded them not to "kill"

Retzach was not was never used in conjuction with war in the bible so it is presumed and I believe rightfully so that Retzach and killing are 2 very different things.

I don't doubt what you said, although I would have to verify :). From my understanding Hebrew is a shortened language where certain words can mean multiple things. I know many people(not just from my church) that use the same english version I use, the KJV, so not having the correct translation is not good, haha.

Crisco
07-29-2009, 09:42 PM
I don't doubt what you said, although I would have to verify :). From my understanding Hebrew is a shortened language where certain words can mean multiple things. I know many people(not just from my church) that use the same english version I use, the KJV, so not having the correct translation is not good, haha.

I use the NKJV and it is translated to murder in that version.

eric84
07-29-2009, 09:43 PM
My brother worked at a hospital in Salt Lake City and is quite the practical jokester. He loved to go around during his shift and run the coffeemakers on all the floors to permeate the place with the smell. No one caught on that it was him. :laugh:


~Amy

Haha, that is pretty hilarious actually. I think the smell can be good sometimes, but I have never drank it, and really have no desire to drink it, especially when water tastes so good!

eric84
07-29-2009, 09:47 PM
I use the NKJV and it is translated to murder in that version.

I have always felt that was the overall meaning behind it, since it's obvious in the scriptures that at times God "condones" killing. I don't know if that is the right way of saying it, but can't think of another word. But it goes to show that the Bible isn't infallible, there are translation errors that occur because men are not perfect.

I've read a little in spanish looking at english books the same time, and although they try to get the same meaning across, sometimes it doesn't work out so well. Maybe I should stop trying to learn spanish and start trying to learn Hebrew!

atomdanger
07-29-2009, 10:51 PM
Ok, I am no mormon expert.
But I do have some serious problems with the belief system.

1. No Coffee. WTF.
Why doesn't the bible say no coffee? Or does it? I have never heard that.

2. Jesus in the America's.
Why would the bible completely leave this out?

3. Multiple heavens? Celestial Kingdom, Terrestrial Kingdom, and Telestial Kingdom. Why 3 heavens?

4. Multiple Worlds and Multiple Gods.
Multiple universes and gods? and we can become god? WTF

D&C 76: 24
24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.

D&C 93: 10
10 The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him.

Moses 1: 33
33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.

D&C 76: 108
108 Then shall he be crowned with the crown of his glory, to sit on the throne of his power to reign forever and ever.

atomdanger
07-29-2009, 10:56 PM
but coffee has been shown to be more detrimental to the body than soda, although both are unhealthy. The church is against anything addictive or harmful to your body

I would LOVE to see studies that support that claim.

black coffee in moderation is downright good for you.
In no way shape or form does soda offer ANY benefit to your diet or health.

But moving on, why coffee and soda?
Do Mormons have to eat organic? and count calories?
Are Mormons not allowed to be over weight?

Chris F
07-30-2009, 02:41 AM
I don't worship a symbol like the cross, I worship Jesus my Savior, thanks.

This just show how ignorant you really are. No cross no salvation.!!!!

NateR
07-30-2009, 03:18 AM
This just show how ignorant you really are. No cross no salvation.!!!!

I think what he is talking about is the mistaken notion that Christians worship the symbol of the cross.

The cross as a symbol didn't come to represent the Christian faith until around the 4th century. Before that, it was a purely pagan symbol.

Of course, Christians use the symbol of the cross to represent Jesus' atoning sacrifice for our sins (although I wouldn't go so far as to claim that NO Christians worship the symbol of the cross), it was never intended to represent GOD.

Personally, I think the cross is a terrible symbol for Christians to use, since it only represents Christ's death and not His resurrection. I prefer the Messianic Seal, since it doesn't ignore the fact that Christianity is essentially a fulfilled form Judaism.

I believe it's the lack of reverence for the Jewish roots of the Christian faith that leads to much of the heresy and false doctrine that we see today.

Chris F
07-30-2009, 03:30 AM
I think what he is talking about is the mistaken notion that Christians worship the symbol of the cross.

The cross as a symbol didn't come to represent the Christian faith until around the 4th century. Before that, it was a purely pagan symbol.

Of course, Christians use the symbol of the cross to represent Jesus' atoning sacrifice for our sins (although I wouldn't go so far as to claim that NO Christians worship the symbol of the cross), it was never intended to represent GOD.

Personally, I think the cross is a terrible symbol for Christians to use, since it only represents Christ's death and not His resurrection. I prefer the Messianic Seal, since it doesn't ignore the fact that Christianity is essentially a fulfilled form Judaism.

I believe it's the lack of reverence for the Jewish roots of the Christian faith that leads to much of the heresy and false doctrine that we see today.

I speak in term as it pertains to the crucifixion. And even if it is not a popular idea the fact is the cross (crucifixion) is the root of our faith and the reason we are saved. Pauls said I know NOTHING said Christ and Him crucified. SO the cross is the perfect symbol if one is so foolishly to think of it as a mere symbol. There can be no resurrection without a cross. No atonement for sins w/o a cross. So no belief in the cross (what Jesus did on it for us), no salvation.

NateR
07-30-2009, 03:51 AM
I speak in term as it pertains to the crucifixion. And even if it is not a popular idea the fact is the cross (crucifixion) is the root of our faith and the reason we are saved. Pauls said I know NOTHING said Christ and Him crucified. SO the cross is the perfect symbol if one is so foolishly to think of it as a mere symbol. There can be no resurrection without a cross. No atonement for sins w/o a cross. So no belief in the cross (what Jesus did on it for us), no salvation.

I just think you are putting too much emphasis on the cross, an object. The cross itself was nothing special, it was just two chunks of wood nailed together. It had no innate power within itself. What is more important is that Jesus was sacrificed on that cross. However, what's even more important than Christ's crucifixion is His Resurrection. It doesn't take a GOD to die, people have been doing that since Cain and Abel. It does, however, take a GOD to raise Himself from the dead. That's the miracle.

The disciples understood that, which is why, before Christ's Resurrection, they were scattered and in hiding. After Christ's Resurrection they were traveling the world, boldly proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ.

I'm not trying to diminish the importance of the crucifixion, just trying to put it in the proper perspective. As Christians we should be focused more on the empty tomb, not the cross.

Tyburn
07-30-2009, 11:44 AM
This just show how ignorant you really are. No cross no salvation.!!!!
Technically, its no Ressurection, No Salvation :ninja:

The Cross as a Symbol, is an Ikon, like all Ikons it points to something (GOD) but like all other Ikons it is just a physical token, and as such can have multiple meanings eqaully valid.

The Cross itself (even the relic of the True Cross) has no power in an of itself. Only the Gothic Genre has put the power into the Cross like that.

Besides...its so much more complex then that. Eric believes the Crucifixion happened, he even believes that Christ was ressurected. But he doesnt actually know WHO Christ is. At best he's a Diety OUTSIDE of the The Father, and at Worst, He's only a Human Prophet whom GOD made an example of. If you want to be more effective, and less offensive, you might try questions on THAT area...because THAT is where the Salvation lies....or doesnt, so to speak.

I aggree with Nathan :happydancing:

Tyburn
07-30-2009, 11:47 AM
I prefer the Messianic Seal, since it doesn't ignore the fact that Christianity is essentially a fulfilled form Judaism.
.
Have you got a picture of that please :huh:

warriorlion
07-30-2009, 01:58 PM
I'm sure out of interest really means so you can find something wrong with it, haha, but I guess that's what this is all about :)

out of interest mean, I am not looking for an arguement on the question, I am not pointing fingers, i have a genuine question

warriorlion
07-30-2009, 02:08 PM
Technically, its no Ressurection, No Salvation :ninja:
:

no its no cross no salvation, since its Jesus on the cross that paid the price for your sin. The resurection shows that death is beaten, but the cross act that is the atonement for sin. It fulfils the prophecy from the OT, and it creates the same measure that sacrifices wee used in the OT.

I pure lamb without blemish is picked from the flock and take to the slaughter, to replace the blood that should be shed for man, the wages of sin is death. Blood must pay the price of sin, that is what alows us to get back to God, Jesus taking the punishment we should be getting.

Resurrection gives us the shall not die but have everlasting life. More or less returs us to the state adam and eve began.

figuratively speaking

mikthehick
07-30-2009, 02:24 PM
I come from a Lutheran background filled to the gills with symbolism. As kids, our pastors explained that symbolism was brought in Catholic doctrine in the middle ages to help people who were illiterate. I'm not entirely sure that is true, but it possibly is. I would need to look this up for verification.

The cross represents the blood of the Lamb, as explained previously. Nate I would love to see the Messeanic symbol as well.

I have a few cross necklaces, and I have one hanging up in my car. Maybe it is the wrong symbol to have, but I think seeing it everyday reminds me of the immense presence Jesus has in my life.

I don't worship symbols, I worship God :cool:

rearnakedchoke
07-30-2009, 03:15 PM
I think what he is talking about is the mistaken notion that Christians worship the symbol of the cross.

The cross as a symbol didn't come to represent the Christian faith until around the 4th century. Before that, it was a purely pagan symbol.

Of course, Christians use the symbol of the cross to represent Jesus' atoning sacrifice for our sins (although I wouldn't go so far as to claim that NO Christians worship the symbol of the cross), it was never intended to represent GOD.

Personally, I think the cross is a terrible symbol for Christians to use, since it only represents Christ's death and not His resurrection. I prefer the Messianic Seal, since it doesn't ignore the fact that Christianity is essentially a fulfilled form Judaism.

I believe it's the lack of reverence for the Jewish roots of the Christian faith that leads to much of the heresy and false doctrine that we see today.
Off topic a bit, but how come Christians do not follow the same menu, diet whatever you want to call it that the Jewish faith requires? just asking, cuz i loves me some swine and nothing better than a burger and milkshake ..

eric84
07-30-2009, 03:19 PM
I would LOVE to see studies that support that claim.

black coffee in moderation is downright good for you.
In no way shape or form does soda offer ANY benefit to your diet or health.

But moving on, why coffee and soda?
Do Mormons have to eat organic? and count calories?
Are Mormons not allowed to be over weight?

Mormons can drink soda, its not restricted, but since we believe in keeping our bodies healthy, personally I think it should be avoided. We are also supposed to use our own judgement in things we eat, so organic isn't required, nor counting calories, or being overweight. But just because it isn't required, doesn't mean we shouldn't abide by those concepts, I personally prefer stuff out of my own garden, but I don't count calories. I could be in better shape but I don't feel like im unhealthy at all.

NateR
07-30-2009, 03:46 PM
Have you got a picture of that please :huh:

Here it is:
http://thejewelryladyonline.com/p319S.jpg

NateR
07-30-2009, 04:08 PM
Off topic a bit, but how come Christians do not follow the same menu, diet whatever you want to call it that the Jewish faith requires? just asking, cuz i loves me some swine and nothing better than a burger and milkshake ..

I've always wondered that myself; but many of those dietary laws can be better understood in the context of ancient Israel at the time. In a desert environment without refrigeration, pasteurization, or modern food processing technology, diseases, parasites and illnesses would spread quickly from what we would consider normal everyday foods. Pork would be the number one culprit of this.

These days, pork is so heavily processed and refined, that there is very little unhealthy about it (except for fat content in stuff like bacon and ham).

There are also a couple of verses from the New Testament that put the kosher laws into perspective:

Matthew 15:10-11
Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "

Acts 10: 9-16
About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

Of course, Peter's vision was making a spiritual point not a dietary one (GOD was telling Peter that the good news of His Son was for Gentiles as well as Jews); but it's used by many to illustrate that the Old Testament kosher laws are just not that important anymore.

Personally, I think that there is still a lot of wisdom in those old kosher laws (or kashrut in Hebrew, which simply means "fit").

On a side note, the burger and milkshake would be fine under Jewish kosher laws; but the burger would have to be made from kosher beef. Which basically means that the animal would have to be killed in a certain way and drained of all blood before being cut up and you could only use cuts from the general area of the chest and shoulders (no rump roast). The meat would also have to be as lean as possible, since the Bible forbad the eating of fat.

NateR
07-30-2009, 04:43 PM
no its no cross no salvation, since its Jesus on the cross that paid the price for your sin. The resurection shows that death is beaten, but the cross act that is the atonement for sin. It fulfils the prophecy from the OT, and it creates the same measure that sacrifices wee used in the OT.

I pure lamb without blemish is picked from the flock and take to the slaughter, to replace the blood that should be shed for man, the wages of sin is death. Blood must pay the price of sin, that is what alows us to get back to God, Jesus taking the punishment we should be getting.

Resurrection gives us the shall not die but have everlasting life. More or less returs us to the state adam and eve began.

figuratively speaking

I don't think anyone is trying to deny the importance of the crucifixion. However, back in the 1st century, literally thousands of people were being crucified every year. In fact, there were many Rabbis walking around claiming to be The Messiah before, during, and after Jesus' ministry. Many of them would have ended up being crucified as well, most likely for inciting a revolt against Rome. So there was nothing special about Jesus' death at that point in history.

In retrospect, we understand why Jesus needed to die the way He did; but back then dying on a cross didn't make anyone special or godlike. In fact, it would have been just the opposite. It's in Jesus' Resurrection where we find the true miracle.

Chuck
07-30-2009, 05:08 PM
So exodus 20:13 doesn't say "Thou shall not kill " ?

I was in Kentucky, and boy is it a lot different than my home state of Arizona!

It may, depending on which translation of the Bible you're reading... but as believers we need to be careful to pay attention to context, meaning etc..

The word "ratsach" is more accurately defined as murder then kill. That's why as believers we need to make sure we're not taking a word or verse from scripture and twisting it to meet our own wants or needs. We have an obligation to study God's word.. to get beyond our first impression and look at things like:

1) Who was speaking?
2) Who were they speaking to?
3) Does the culture or geography impact what is being said?
4) What was happening during the time that the author was writing?

We can't just take a word or verse and run with it... that's how false religions are formed and people are led away from Christ instead of to him.

NateR
07-30-2009, 05:27 PM
It may, depending on which translation of the Bible you're reading... but as believers we need to be careful to pay attention to context, meaning etc..

The word "ratsach" is more accurately defined as murder then kill. That's why as believers we need to make sure we're not taking a word or verse from scripture and twisting it to meet our own wants or needs. We have an obligation to study God's word.. to get beyond our first impression and look at things like:

1) Who was speaking?
2) Who were they speaking to?
3) Does the culture or geography impact what is being said?
4) What was happening during the time that the author was writing?

We can't just take a word or verse and run with it... that's how false religions are formed and people are led away from Christ instead of to him.

That's the danger of basing our theology solely off of an English translation of the Bible. English is a very crude and imprecise language which is ill-suited for conveying the deep meanings present in the Bible text. That's why it was considered heresy to translate the Bible into English for hundreds of years.

rearnakedchoke
07-30-2009, 05:35 PM
I've always wondered that myself; but many of those dietary laws can be better understood in the context of ancient Israel at the time. In a desert environment without refrigeration, pasteurization, or modern food processing technology, diseases, parasites and illnesses would spread quickly from what we would consider normal everyday foods. Pork would be the number one culprit of this.

These days, pork is so heavily processed and refined, that there is very little unhealthy about it (except for fat content in stuff like bacon and ham).

There are also a couple of verses from the New Testament that put the kosher laws into perspective:

Matthew 15:10-11
Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "

Acts 10: 9-16
About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

Of course, Peter's vision was making a spiritual point not a dietary one (GOD was telling Peter that the good news of His Son was for Gentiles as well as Jews); but it's used by many to illustrate that the Old Testament kosher laws are just not that important anymore.

Personally, I think that there is still a lot of wisdom in those old kosher laws (or kashrut in Hebrew, which simply means "fit").

On a side note, the burger and milkshake would be fine under Jewish kosher laws; but the burger would have to be made from kosher beef. Which basically means that the animal would have to be killed in a certain way and drained of all blood before being cut up and you could only use cuts from the general area of the chest and shoulders (no rump roast). The meat would also have to be as lean as possible, since the Bible forbad the eating of fat.
phew ... thanks for that ... i am gonna go gets me some lobster ... on a side note, although i am guilty of it sometimes, i think gorging oneself like at a buffet is a sin ... God gave us food as sustinence, imo and not to be greedy bastards and eat in a gluttonous manner until we are bloated ... just my opinion though ...

Chuck
07-30-2009, 05:43 PM
phew ... thanks for that ... i am gonna go gets me some lobster ... on a side note, although i am guilty of it sometimes, i think gorging oneself like at a buffet is a sin ... God gave us food as sustinence, imo and not to be greedy bastards and eat in a gluttonous manner until we are bloated ... just my opinion though ...

Gee thanks for the extra helping of CONVICTION bro.... did you see my Facebook picture today or what??? :D

rearnakedchoke
07-30-2009, 05:46 PM
Gee thanks for the extra helping of CONVICTION bro.... did you see my Facebook picture today or what??? :D
sorry man .. i have been guilty in the past as the next guy ...

warriorlion
07-30-2009, 05:52 PM
I don't think anyone is trying to deny the importance of the crucifixion. However, back in the 1st century, literally thousands of people were being crucified every year. In fact, there were many Rabbis walking around claiming to be The Messiah before, during, and after Jesus' ministry. Many of them would have ended up being crucified as well, most likely for inciting a revolt against Rome. So there was nothing special about Jesus' death at that point in history.

In retrospect, we understand why Jesus needed to die the way He did; but back then dying on a cross didn't make anyone special or godlike. In fact, it would have been just the opposite. It's in Jesus' Resurrection where we find the true miracle.

I hope I was not misunderstod, I dont think anyone was taking away from the cruxifixion, I know that the way Jesus died in and of itself was not what was important, but the fact that he was the spotless lamb that makes it important. and that is what pays the price allowing salvation to be possible.

The miricle is of course the resurrection, the defeat of death

Chris F
07-30-2009, 06:04 PM
I just think you are putting too much emphasis on the cross, an object. The cross itself was nothing special, it was just two chunks of wood nailed together. It had no innate power within itself. What is more important is that Jesus was sacrificed on that cross. However, what's even more important than Christ's crucifixion is His Resurrection. It doesn't take a GOD to die, people have been doing that since Cain and Abel. It does, however, take a GOD to raise Himself from the dead. That's the miracle.

The disciples understood that, which is why, before Christ's Resurrection, they were scattered and in hiding. After Christ's Resurrection they were traveling the world, boldly proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ.

I'm not trying to diminish the importance of the crucifixion, just trying to put it in the proper perspective. As Christians we should be focused more on the empty tomb, not the cross.

Again it i snot the symbol I speak of. Did Paul say I know nothing except Christ and him resurrected? The atonement was not the resurrection it was the cross. The sacrifice for sins came at the cross not the empty tomb. Our victory was at the empty tomb. So as a Christian I will stand with Paul and say I know nothing but Christ and Him crucified. Thank you Jesus for the cross.

Chris F
07-30-2009, 06:08 PM
Technically, its no Ressurection, No Salvation :ninja:

The Cross as a Symbol, is an Ikon, like all Ikons it points to something (GOD) but like all other Ikons it is just a physical token, and as such can have multiple meanings eqaully valid.

The Cross itself (even the relic of the True Cross) has no power in an of itself. Only the Gothic Genre has put the power into the Cross like that.

Besides...its so much more complex then that. Eric believes the Crucifixion happened, he even believes that Christ was ressurected. But he doesnt actually know WHO Christ is. At best he's a Diety OUTSIDE of the The Father, and at Worst, He's only a Human Prophet whom GOD made an example of. If you want to be more effective, and less offensive, you might try questions on THAT area...because THAT is where the Salvation lies....or doesnt, so to speak.

I aggree with Nathan :happydancing:

Dave read what I said to NateR. It has nothing to do with the symbol. It was the act I am concerned about so technically it is the cross because there can be no raising from the dead if one does not die. And Paul put little emphasis in comparison. Only in Corinth did he speak much about the resurrection. While he dedicated several books on the subject of the cross.

Chris F
07-30-2009, 06:11 PM
no its no cross no salvation, since its Jesus on the cross that paid the price for your sin. The resurection shows that death is beaten, but the cross act that is the atonement for sin. It fulfils the prophecy from the OT, and it creates the same measure that sacrifices wee used in the OT.

I pure lamb without blemish is picked from the flock and take to the slaughter, to replace the blood that should be shed for man, the wages of sin is death. Blood must pay the price of sin, that is what alows us to get back to God, Jesus taking the punishment we should be getting.

Resurrection gives us the shall not die but have everlasting life. More or less returs us to the state adam and eve began.

figuratively speaking

THANKS I am glad the are others who feel this way.

Chris F
07-30-2009, 06:16 PM
I don't think anyone is trying to deny the importance of the crucifixion. However, back in the 1st century, literally thousands of people were being crucified every year. In fact, there were many Rabbis walking around claiming to be The Messiah before, during, and after Jesus' ministry. Many of them would have ended up being crucified as well, most likely for inciting a revolt against Rome. So there was nothing special about Jesus' death at that point in history.

In retrospect, we understand why Jesus needed to die the way He did; but back then dying on a cross didn't make anyone special or godlike. In fact, it would have been just the opposite. It's in Jesus' Resurrection where we find the true miracle.

There are many acts that made him like God. Virgin birth etc etc. But when it comes to the remission of sins the resurrection did nothing for that. It was his act on the cross that atoned for our sins. You are right about it showing Chrsit divinity, but the subject is salvation not the divinity of cross. In that we are in complete agreement.

Chris F
07-30-2009, 06:20 PM
phew ... thanks for that ... i am gonna go gets me some lobster ... on a side note, although i am guilty of it sometimes, i think gorging oneself like at a buffet is a sin ... God gave us food as sustinence, imo and not to be greedy bastards and eat in a gluttonous manner until we are bloated ... just my opinion though ...

Sin is missing the mark. The mark is Gods standard or his law. So the real sin is not overeating as it is feeding the lust of flesh. Enjoying a buffet is hardly sin. But like you said if one over indulges to feed the flesh its desire for more food then it becomes sin. But this can be the same in all aspect of life. Over exercising to get that perfect six pack. etc etc.

atomdanger
07-30-2009, 06:25 PM
Mormons can drink soda, its not restricted, but since we believe in keeping our bodies healthy, personally I think it should be avoided. We are also supposed to use our own judgement in things we eat, so organic isn't required, nor counting calories, or being overweight. But just because it isn't required, doesn't mean we shouldn't abide by those concepts, I personally prefer stuff out of my own garden, but I don't count calories. I could be in better shape but I don't feel like im unhealthy at all.

Ok, but not soda with Caffeine?

and not alcohol? But didn't Jesus drink wine?

Crisco
07-30-2009, 07:02 PM
Ok, but not soda with Caffeine?

and not alcohol? But didn't Jesus drink wine?

That reminds me of that family guy scene.


Peter drinks the wine at church and says "holy crap is that really the blood of christ" and the priest says "yes" Peter says " Wow he must have been drunk 24/7"

Mark
07-30-2009, 07:03 PM
What he said, taking out the heretical part. I could easily apply that heretical part to your belief in the trinity which is unscriptural, does it feel good?

Romans 8:17, we are joint heirs of Christ

It might be hard to comprehend, but eternity is .... well.... eternity. You think that maybe after eternity of living with God that we somehow could learn to be like him? Anything is possible with God.

But we do believe there is ONE God for us, in our realm of things.

When you pray, which god do you pray to and what are you asking him? do you ask to be a god of your own planet someday? don't you believe in multiple heavens? so which heaven do you want to go to?

Chuck
07-30-2009, 07:23 PM
IMO Cross>Resurrection

I'm grateful for Christ, His death for my sins and His defeat of the grave but to me our faith is built more on Him being crucified for OUR sins then Him defeating the grave.

But that's just me....

NateR
07-30-2009, 07:40 PM
IMO Cross>Resurrection

I'm grateful for Christ, His death for my sins and His defeat of the grave but to me our faith is built more on Him being crucified for OUR sins then Him defeating the grave.

But that's just me....

But, as Josh McDowell put it, "What good is a dead Messiah?" Meaning would Jesus' sacrifice have really meant anything if He was still dead in the grave?

NateR
07-30-2009, 07:40 PM
When you pray, which god do you pray to and what are you asking him? do you ask to be a god of your own planet someday? don't you believe in multiple heavens? so which heaven do you want to go to?

His aspirations might be more humble, maybe he just wants to be god of his own country. :laugh:

Crisco
07-30-2009, 07:42 PM
But, as Josh McDowell put it, "What good is a dead Messiah?" Meaning would Jesus' sacrifice have really meant anything if He was still dead in the grave?

I think it would have... Just because Jesus chose to be ressurected instead of simply passing on to heaven is a good visual for his followers and proves everything he had been saying.

It doesn't make his sacrifice anyless important I would think.

eric84
07-30-2009, 07:48 PM
When you pray, which god do you pray to and what are you asking him? do you ask to be a god of your own planet someday? don't you believe in multiple heavens? so which heaven do you want to go to?

I'm not sure so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm wondering if your saying this mockingly. If you are that's fine, I would just like to know.

Nope, I don't pray that way, I try to be humble in my prayers and thank him for the things he has given me and ask for strength to be a better servant. I pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus, and want to be with them after judgement.

Chuck
07-30-2009, 07:52 PM
But, as Josh McDowell put it, "What good is a dead Messiah?" Meaning would Jesus' sacrifice have really meant anything if He was still dead in the grave?

It would have met everything.... I don't have an opportunity for salvation because He rose from the dead... He didn't rise from the dead for me, a believer... He died for ME..... he took MY sins and without that I would have no hope at eternal life.

warriorlion
07-30-2009, 08:05 PM
I'm not sure so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm wondering if your saying this mockingly. If you are that's fine, I would just like to know.

Nope, I don't pray that way, I try to be humble in my prayers and thank him for the things he has given me and ask for strength to be a better servant. I pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus, and want to be with them after judgement.


I am confused, you believe that Jesus is the God of the Old testament right.

So who in your view is God the father. Since Jesus talks of the father being the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, which from what I read from your views would make the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, Jesus surely

maybe I got your post confused and misunderstood what you mean

eric84
07-30-2009, 08:20 PM
I am confused, you believe that Jesus is the God of the Old testament right.

So who in your view is God the father. Since Jesus talks of the father being the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, which from what I read from your views would make the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, Jesus surely

maybe I got your post confused and misunderstood what you mean

We are adopted as children of Jesus when we come unto him, thus he is the Father of Abraham/Isaac/Jacob in that sense.

eric84
07-30-2009, 08:23 PM
It would have met everything.... I don't have an opportunity for salvation because He rose from the dead... He didn't rise from the dead for me, a believer... He died for ME..... he took MY sins and without that I would have no hope at eternal life.

We can't really downplay the importance of his sacrifice on the cross for us, but that wasn't the only thing he did for us. I personally have a problem with the way many people view the cross because I think they are too focused on just his death, when his resurrection was also immensely important. Was it as important as his death... that can be debated I think. I just feel like why focus on just one or the other when they are both important, including his entire life.

NateR
07-30-2009, 08:49 PM
It would have met everything.... I don't have an opportunity for salvation because He rose from the dead... He didn't rise from the dead for me, a believer... He died for ME..... he took MY sins and without that I would have no hope at eternal life.

Well, a guy who sacrificed his life during WW2 died for you as well, didn't he? Without the Resurrection, how is that sacrifice any different?

The apostles were raised studying the Scriptures and would be able to recite the entire Torah by heart at the age of twelve. So, they were fully aware of the prophecies that the Messiah was supposed to fulfill. It was because of this knowledge that they were able to recognize Jesus as the Messiah (they weren't just going off of feelings).

So, with that in mind, what was the apostles reaction to Jesus' arrest and crucifixion? Confusion, disillusionment, fear and loss of hope. It wasn't until Jesus rose from the dead and met with them in person that they became on fire for Him. And it wasn't until the living Christ handed down the Great Commission that they began to evangelize the world.

So without the Resurrection, there is no salvation. Without the Resurrection, Christianity becomes just another world religion following a dead prophet (like Buddhism or Islam). Without the Resurrection, Jesus becomes just another martyr for a cause, like the Buddhist monks who set themselves on fire, to protest the Vietnam War, or the 9/11 hijackers.

Yes, the crucifixion is EXTREMELY important to the Gospel of Christ. However, it's wrong to pretend it is somehow the only important aspect of salvation and nothing else matters.

There are still prophecies for Christ to fulfill. Prophecies that He cannot fulfill if He is dead.

warriorlion
07-30-2009, 09:14 PM
I agree with Nate that you cant forget the fact that the resurrection plays a massive role in our lives as Christians, I think we are getting past the original statement about the Cross bringing salvation, Jesus paid the price we owed allowing us to come back to God,

But without the resurrection there is no defeat of death and therefore paying the price s not enough.

Both aspects go hand in hand, they just play different parts of the final outcome.

and thats basically without Jesus dying and beoing raised, we are doomed to eternal suffering

Crisco
07-30-2009, 09:22 PM
I agree with Nate that you cant forget the fact that the resurrection plays a massive role in our lives as Christians, I think we are getting past the original statement about the Cross bringing salvation, Jesus paid the price we owed allowing us to come back to God,

But without the resurrection there is no defeat of death and therefore paying the price s not enough.

Both aspects go hand in hand, they just play different parts of the final outcome.

and thats basically without Jesus dying and beoing raised, we are doomed to eternal suffering

Love and marriage.

Can't have one without the other :laugh:

Chuck
07-30-2009, 10:19 PM
Well, a guy who sacrificed his life during WW2 died for you as well, didn't he? Without the Resurrection, how is that sacrifice any different?
Nate you can't be serious. To compare a man sacrificing his life for a country's freedom to our Savior sacrificing His life for the sins of all mankind is truly offensive. I hope I"m misunderstanding you in some way.

The apostles were raised studying the Scriptures and would be able to recite the entire Torah by heart at the age of twelve. So, they were fully aware of the prophecies that the Messiah was supposed to fulfill. It was because of this knowledge that they were able to recognize Jesus as the Messiah (they weren't just going off of feelings).

So, with that in mind, what was the apostles reaction to Jesus' arrest and crucifixion? Confusion, disillusionment, fear and loss of hope. It wasn't until Jesus rose from the dead and met with them in person that they became on fire for Him. And it wasn't until the living Christ handed down the Great Commission that they began to evangelize the world.

So without the Resurrection, there is no salvation. Without the Resurrection, Christianity becomes just another world religion following a dead prophet (like Buddhism or Islam). Without the Resurrection, Jesus becomes just another martyr for a cause, like the Buddhist monks who set themselves on fire, to protest the Vietnam War, or the 9/11 hijackers.
Nate it's not often I've seen this posted on this site but I have to say your theology is simply wrong. You're comparing the Creator of the known universe, personified in flesh, who lived a sinless life, fulfilled prophecy, performed miracles and saved the human race from eternal damnation to terrorists or a monk who sets himself on fire? HUH???

Yes, the crucifixion is EXTREMELY important to the Gospel of Christ. However, it's wrong to pretend it is somehow the only important aspect of salvation and nothing else matters.
I know I'm not saying that and I really don't see anybody else on here saying that either... you've lost me on this one.

There are still prophecies for Christ to fulfill. Prophecies that He cannot fulfill if He is dead.
Agreed. but His resurrection isn't responsible for the possibility of eternal life. You don't have the option of Heaven because of His defeat of the grave. You ONLY have it because of His death.

I'm not a RC Nate... I don't have a single icon or other trinket in my home or worn around my neck. When I shut my eyes... when I'm in my quiet time crying out to Him I don't picture Him dead on a cross... I see Him alive.. defeating death, sin and tearing down the gates of Hell to do so... BUT.... it's only because of that death that I have the option to receive the gift of eternal life.

I'll quote my earlier post again.... "I'm grateful for Christ, His death for my sins and His defeat of the grave but to me our faith is built more on Him being crucified for OUR sins then Him defeating the grave."

Chuck
07-30-2009, 10:22 PM
Love and marriage.

Can't have one without the other :laugh:
I agree bro... at some point we're just going to be arguing schematics :D

NateR
07-30-2009, 11:24 PM
I'm not a RC Nate... I don't have a single icon or other trinket in my home or worn around my neck. When I shut my eyes... when I'm in my quiet time crying out to Him I don't picture Him dead on a cross... I see Him alive.. defeating death, sin and tearing down the gates of Hell to do so... BUT.... it's only because of that death that I have the option to receive the gift of eternal life.

I'll quote my earlier post again.... "I'm grateful for Christ, His death for my sins and His defeat of the grave but to me our faith is built more on Him being crucified for OUR sins then Him defeating the grave."

Read, chapter 7 of Josh McDowell's book More Than A Carpenter, entitled "What Good is a Dead Messiah?", to understand my point.

Chuck
07-31-2009, 02:16 AM
Read, chapter 7 of Josh McDowell's book More Than A Carpenter, entitled "What Good is a Dead Messiah?", to understand my point.

Well then send me the book and I will!

But I don't care too much about Josh McDowell's opinion I want yours brother! :wink:

NateR
07-31-2009, 02:29 AM
Well then send me the book and I will!

But I don't care too much about Josh McDowell's opinion I want yours brother! :wink:

I already gave you my opinion. Send me your address and I'll send you a copy.

Mark
07-31-2009, 02:37 AM
I'm not sure so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm wondering if your saying this mockingly. If you are that's fine, I would just like to know.

Nope, I don't pray that way, I try to be humble in my prayers and thank him for the things he has given me and ask for strength to be a better servant. I pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus, and want to be with them after judgement.
So you don't believe in the trinity? but you believe in god, jesus and the holy spirit?

atomdanger
07-31-2009, 03:18 AM
Read, chapter 7 of Josh McDowell's book More Than A Carpenter, entitled "What Good is a Dead Messiah?", to understand my point.

Is the book worth reading?
I am really trying to learn more about Christ and Christianity.
(hence all my silly questions on here)

NateR
07-31-2009, 03:27 AM
Is the book worth reading?
I am really trying to learn more about Christ and Christianity.
(hence all my silly questions on here)

It definitely is! PM me your address and I'll send you a copy too.

Chuck
07-31-2009, 03:27 AM
I already gave you my opinion. Send me your address and I'll send you a copy.

I might take you up on that but dude... "go read this book" is a pretty weak exit out of a discussion...

I doubt you'd let anybody else out of a discussion that easy! :tongue0011:

atomdanger
07-31-2009, 03:28 AM
It definitely is! PM me your address and I'll send you a copy too.

Oh man you're the best.
Done and done, thanks!

I will post up a review when I am done reading it

NateR
07-31-2009, 03:43 AM
I might take you up on that but dude... "go read this book" is a pretty weak exit out of a discussion...

I doubt you'd let anybody else out of a discussion that easy! :tongue0011:

Well, you clearly weren't understanding the point I was trying to make in our off-topic discussion. If you want to continue to discuss it, then you can start up a new thread.

NateR
07-31-2009, 03:45 AM
Oh man you're the best.
Done and done, thanks!

I will post up a review when I am done reading it

No problem. :cool:

Chris F
07-31-2009, 03:50 AM
Well, a guy who sacrificed his life during WW2 died for you as well, didn't he? Without the Resurrection, how is that sacrifice any different?

The apostles were raised studying the Scriptures and would be able to recite the entire Torah by heart at the age of twelve. So, they were fully aware of the prophecies that the Messiah was supposed to fulfill. It was because of this knowledge that they were able to recognize Jesus as the Messiah (they weren't just going off of feelings).

So, with that in mind, what was the apostles reaction to Jesus' arrest and crucifixion? Confusion, disillusionment, fear and loss of hope. It wasn't until Jesus rose from the dead and met with them in person that they became on fire for Him. And it wasn't until the living Christ handed down the Great Commission that they began to evangelize the world.

So without the Resurrection, there is no salvation. Without the Resurrection, Christianity becomes just another world religion following a dead prophet (like Buddhism or Islam). Without the Resurrection, Jesus becomes just another martyr for a cause, like the Buddhist monks who set themselves on fire, to protest the Vietnam War, or the 9/11 hijackers.

Yes, the crucifixion is EXTREMELY important to the Gospel of Christ. However, it's wrong to pretend it is somehow the only important aspect of salvation and nothing else matters.

There are still prophecies for Christ to fulfill. Prophecies that He cannot fulfill if He is dead.

I undersatnd your heart in this. However if the resurrection was so important then why did they focus so much of their ministry preaching the cross? The sacrifice of the lamb that God promised Abraham in the place of Issac it the salvation. The resurrection show our victory over death and the grave. But our victory from the second death is the cross.

Chris F
07-31-2009, 03:52 AM
Read, chapter 7 of Josh McDowell's book More Than A Carpenter, entitled "What Good is a Dead Messiah?", to understand my point.

I prefer to read the 6th and 7th chapter of Romans myself

Chris F
07-31-2009, 03:55 AM
Is the book worth reading?
I am really trying to learn more about Christ and Christianity.
(hence all my silly questions on here)

It is a great book. Also check out "The Gospel according to Jesus" by John MacArthur. Both are excellent on this issue (resurrection) But again we must not forget there would be no Easter if there was no Good Friday.

NateR
07-31-2009, 03:59 AM
I prefer to read the 6th and 7th chapter of Romans myself

:cool: Good choice as well:

Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.

Romans 6: 3-14 (emphasis added)

Chuck
07-31-2009, 04:04 AM
:cool: Good choice as well:



Romans 6: 3-14 (emphasis added)

:sign0006:

:happy0198:

NateR
07-31-2009, 04:20 AM
It is a great book. Also check out "The Gospel according to Jesus" by John MacArthur. Both are excellent on this issue (resurrection) But again we must not forget there would be no Easter if there was no Good Friday.

Well, technically, the pagan holiday of Easter existed long before Jesus was even born; but I understand the point you are trying to make.

Another technicality is the timeline. If Jesus was crucified on a Friday, then raised again on a Sunday morning, then that is at most 36 hours or a day and a half. The Bible says that Jesus was in the grave for three days, so counting back 3 days from Sunday morning puts us at Thursday morning. But John 19:31 tells of the Jews wanting the bodies off of the cross before the Sabbath started. Jewish Sabbaths started at sundown, not at sunrise, so a Wednesday afternoon is the most likely time of Jesus' death.

eric84
07-31-2009, 03:04 PM
So you don't believe in the trinity? but you believe in god, jesus and the holy spirit?

I don't believe in the concept of the trinity as stated in the Nicean Creed. I believe in the 3, that they are all seperate beings but one in purpose.

NateR
07-31-2009, 05:04 PM
I don't believe in the concept of the trinity as stated in the Nicean Creed. I believe in the 3, that they are all seperate beings but one in purpose.

So, you believe in the three Entities that make up the Trinity, you just don't believe them to be a Trinity. What is the Mormon concept of the Holy Spirit?

eric84
07-31-2009, 05:08 PM
So, you believe in the three Entities that make up the Trinity, you just don't believe them to be a Trinity. What is the Mormon concept of the Holy Spirit?

That it is a separate entity sent from God to help us in many different ways. I don't believe them to be a "trinity" as a lot of Christianity view them. I believe them to be one in purpose, but not in being.

NateR
07-31-2009, 05:55 PM
That it is a separate entity sent from God to help us in many different ways. I don't believe them to be a "trinity" as a lot of Christianity view them. I believe them to be one in purpose, but not in being.

Now is this the official stance of the Mormon Church or just your personal belief?

Exactly what is it about the Nicene Creed description of the Trinity that you object to?

eric84
07-31-2009, 06:56 PM
Now is this the official stance of the Mormon Church or just your personal belief?

Exactly what is it about the Nicene Creed description of the Trinity that you object to?

That is personal and the Church's Stance. This article is by one of the Leaders of the Church, and explains our view alot better than I can explain it.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=00d51b3e50cf5110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Chris F
07-31-2009, 11:46 PM
:cool: Good choice as well:



Romans 6: 3-14 (emphasis added)

Like someone said you can't have one w/o the other. The entire context of chapter 6 is the cross.

Chris F
07-31-2009, 11:49 PM
Well, technically, the pagan holiday of Easter existed long before Jesus was even born; but I understand the point you are trying to make.

Another technicality is the timeline. If Jesus was crucified on a Friday, then raised again on a Sunday morning, then that is at most 36 hours or a day and a half. The Bible says that Jesus was in the grave for three days, so counting back 3 days from Sunday morning puts us at Thursday morning. But John 19:31 tells of the Jews wanting the bodies off of the cross before the Sabbath started. Jewish Sabbaths started at sundown, not at sunrise, so a Wednesday afternoon is the most likely time of Jesus' death.

This has been debated for years. Peter and Paul celebrated the Lords day on Sunday and that is all that matters for me at least. I used the term Easter because most would not understand Resurrection day because so much pop culture has infiltrated the church.

Chuck
08-01-2009, 08:58 PM
Well, technically, the pagan holiday of Easter existed long before Jesus was even born; but I understand the point you are trying to make.

Another technicality is the timeline. If Jesus was crucified on a Friday, then raised again on a Sunday morning, then that is at most 36 hours or a day and a half. The Bible says that Jesus was in the grave for three days, so counting back 3 days from Sunday morning puts us at Thursday morning. But John 19:31 tells of the Jews wanting the bodies off of the cross before the Sabbath started. Jewish Sabbaths started at sundown, not at sunrise, so a Wednesday afternoon is the most likely time of Jesus' death.

While there are some people who believe in a Wednesday crucifixion there is far too much conflicting evidence to present that as anything more than a theory.

How do you reconcile a Wednesday Crucifixion with John 19:14? Do you accept the theory of a Passover Sabbath followed by a 7th day Sabbath?

NateR
08-01-2009, 09:29 PM
While there are some people who believe in a Wednesday crucifixion there is far too much conflicting evidence to present that as anything more than a theory.

How do you reconcile a Wednesday Crucifixion with John 19:14? Do you accept the theory of a Passover Sabbath followed by a 7th day Sabbath?

Well, in Matthew 12:40, Jesus predicted that He would be in the grave "three days and three nights" not one day and two nights (which is the time He would have been in the grave if He had been crucified on a Friday).

Also, for Passover, there is a mandatory 72-hour Sabbath that takes place. Which is actually 3 Sabbaths in a row: the 7th-day sabbath, the passover sabbath, and the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread sabbath. This is explained in Leviticus chapter 23, so it's not a theory.

NateR
08-01-2009, 09:33 PM
This has been debated for years. Peter and Paul celebrated the Lords day on Sunday and that is all that matters for me at least. I used the term Easter because most would not understand Resurrection day because so much pop culture has infiltrated the church.

If I recall, in those Bible passages, Paul refers to it as the "first day" he never actually says "Sunday." In Jewish culture, days began at sundown, not sunrise. So when Paul refers to taking up the offering on the first day of the week, he's actually referring to Saturday evening, not Sunday morning. And the only reason they waited until the first day is because the weren't allowed to exchange money on the Sabbath.

Chris F
08-01-2009, 11:29 PM
If I recall, in those Bible passages, Paul refers to it as the "first day" he never actually says "Sunday." In Jewish culture, days began at sundown, not sunrise. So when Paul refers to taking up the offering on the first day of the week, he's actually referring to Saturday evening, not Sunday morning. And the only reason they waited until the first day is because the weren't allowed to exchange money on the Sabbath.
Sunday was the first day of the week on their calendar just as it is now. The days of the week have not changed much since their invention. Even with the lunar based calendar. I would have to see some primary source documents before I change my mind on that.

NateR
08-01-2009, 11:56 PM
Sunday was the first day of the week on their calendar just as it is now. The days of the week have not changed much since their invention. Even with the lunar based calendar. I would have to see some primary source documents before I change my mind on that.

But that doesn't change the fact that a Jewish day starts at sundown, not at sunrise, so the beginning of the first day of the week for a 1st century Jew would be Saturday evening for us.

That goes back to Genesis 1, where GOD defines a day as "evening and morning" not morning and evening.

This guy does a pretty good job of explaining it:
http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/283,198/Why-does-the-Jewish-day-start-at-sundown.html

Chuck
08-02-2009, 02:08 AM
Well, in Matthew 12:40, Jesus predicted that He would be in the grave "three days and three nights" not one day and two nights (which is the time He would have been in the grave if He had been crucified on a Friday).

Also, for Passover, there is a mandatory 72-hour Sabbath that takes place. Which is actually 3 Sabbaths in a row: the 7th-day sabbath, the passover sabbath, and the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread sabbath. This is explained in Leviticus chapter 23, so it's not a theory.

But 3 days and 3 nights doesn't need to be taken literally. Being 72 hours or being dead Fri/Sat/Sun doesn't change the fulfillment of Christ being the Messiah. Look at the culture of the time.. there are other places in scripture where 3 days and 3 nights isn't translated literally and this could certainly be one of them.

Scripture says it was Preparation day... most (not all) scholars believe they were referring to the 7th day Sabbath. If you believe it was a mandatory 72 hour Sabbath then how do you explain the Scriptures that say "on the 3rd day" He will be risen? If He is dead 72+ hours then wouldn't he rise on the 4th day?

Chuck
08-02-2009, 02:11 AM
But that doesn't change the fact that a Jewish day starts at sundown, not at sunrise, so the beginning of the first day of the week for a 1st century Jew would be Saturday evening for us.

That goes back to Genesis 1, where GOD defines a day as "evening and morning" not morning and evening.

This guy does a pretty good job of explaining it:
http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/283,198/Why-does-the-Jewish-day-start-at-sundown.html

If that's the case wouldn't going to church on Sunday morning still be considered keeping the Sabbath?

NateR
08-02-2009, 02:22 AM
But 3 days and 3 nights doesn't need to be taken literally. Being 72 hours or being dead Fri/Sat/Sun doesn't change the fulfillment of Christ being the Messiah. Look at the culture of the time.. there are other places in scripture where 3 days and 3 nights isn't translated literally and this could certainly be one of them.

Scripture says it was Preparation day... most (not all) scholars believe they were referring to the 7th day Sabbath. If you believe it was a mandatory 72 hour Sabbath then how do you explain the Scriptures that say "on the 3rd day" He will be risen? If He is dead 72+ hours then wouldn't he rise on the 4th day?

I just don't see any reason to put Church traditions above the words of Jesus Christ. Jesus said "three days and three nights" so what's so hard about believing that it was actually "three days and three nights" and the Church just got it wrong?

The pagan holiday of Easter wasn't changed into a Christian holiday until the 4th century, about 300 years after Christ. So it would make sense that Good Friday would be founded around the same time. Meaning long after the events and the traditions of the Jewish people had been forgotten.

NateR
08-02-2009, 02:25 AM
If that's the case wouldn't going to church on Sunday morning still be considered keeping the Sabbath?

Sabbath is a transliteration of the Hebrew word shabbat, which means "seven." So the Sabbath is the seventh day of the week, not the first. Making Sunday the official day of worship for Christianity has more roots in Pagan traditions than Biblical truth.

Chuck
08-02-2009, 02:35 AM
I just don't see any reason to put Church traditions above the words of Jesus Christ. Jesus said "three days and three nights" so what's so hard about believing that it was actually "three days and three nights" and the Church just got it wrong?

The pagan holiday of Easter wasn't changed into a Christian holiday until the 4th century, about 300 years after Christ. So it would make sense that Good Friday would be founded around the same time. Meaning long after the events and the traditions of the Jewish people had been forgotten.

I don't think it's a huge stretch to believe the church got it wrong at all... but I'm not putting church traditions above the words of Christ. Other scripture conflicts with a literal 72 hour period. Our first rule of interpretation is to let scripture interpret scripture..

Again... I'm not a RC.. I personally could care less about what day of the week it is, I have no personal vested argument in this issue. It's just when I read the scripture the Fri - Sun time period makes the most sense. Christ was crucified on Preparation day which is normally identified as Friday. The Sabbath is Saturday and He rose on Sunday. Can it be read differently as in a Wed Crucifixion? Sure. But if we want to accept that it then it's us who is complicating the issue. Ignoring what is presented plainly to attach to a more complicated and less probable time line.

It really makes no difference to me... I was just curious how you reconciled a Wed Crucifixion with some of the Scripture that seems to contradict it.

Chuck
08-02-2009, 02:39 AM
Sabbath is a transliteration of the Hebrew word shabbat, which means "seven." So the Sabbath is the seventh day of the week, not the first. Making Sunday the official day of worship for Christianity has more roots in Pagan traditions than Biblical truth.

Gotcha.

So to a 1st century Jew right now it's technically Sunday, the first day of the week?

NateR
08-02-2009, 05:42 AM
I don't think it's a huge stretch to believe the church got it wrong at all... but I'm not putting church traditions above the words of Christ. Other scripture conflicts with a literal 72 hour period. Our first rule of interpretation is to let scripture interpret scripture..

Again... I'm not a RC.. I personally could care less about what day of the week it is, I have no personal vested argument in this issue. It's just when I read the scripture the Fri - Sun time period makes the most sense. Christ was crucified on Preparation day which is normally identified as Friday. The Sabbath is Saturday and He rose on Sunday. Can it be read differently as in a Wed Crucifixion? Sure. But if we want to accept that it then it's us who is complicating the issue. Ignoring what is presented plainly to attach to a more complicated and less probable time line.

It really makes no difference to me... I was just curious how you reconciled a Wed Crucifixion with some of the Scripture that seems to contradict it.

Again, Jesus died just before Passover, so it was not a normal Sabbath, it was a High Sabbath. You have to remember that the New Testament was written by 1st century Jews to 1st century Jews and Greeks. There would have been no need to explain to them that the Passover Sabbath was special and lasted 72-hours (which means it started on Wednesday night).

And do you really think having three consecutive Sabbaths during Passover was a accident? It's clear that GOD set it up that way all along.

NateR
08-02-2009, 05:52 AM
Gotcha.

So to a 1st century Jew right now it's technically Sunday, the first day of the week?

9:39 PM on Saturday is technically the first day of the week for a Jew. I think they even keep that schedule today for the most part. We had a couple of guys helping us out with the store who were devout Jews and from Friday evening to Saturday evening we could never get ahold of them, because that was the Sabbath. I'm not sure if it's against the Sabbath to answer a telephone, but we would only have a need to call them if it was business related and conducting business of any kind is definitely a violation of the Sabbath.

In fact, it's more than likely that Jesus actually rose from the grave on Saturday evening. The Bible never says that Jesus rose again on Sunday morning, it just says that when the women went to his grave on Sunday morning, He was already gone.

Chris F
08-02-2009, 03:04 PM
Sabbath is a transliteration of the Hebrew word shabbat, which means "seven." So the Sabbath is the seventh day of the week, not the first. Making Sunday the official day of worship for Christianity has more roots in Pagan traditions than Biblical truth.

Not at all Nate. They worshiped on the first day of the week. Paul and the other apostles all did this to set themselves apart from the law and to focus on grace. You will need book chapter and verse and some good primary source documents to prove otherwise. Even the 1st century Christians worshipped on Sunday.

As for for the sundown sunrise thing. Jesus arose sunrise Sunday morning. He died Friday before sunset. They would usually keep crucified bodies on the cross for weeks but they kept the local happy and removed them before the Sabbath Sat sunrise. This is why the clubbed the legs of the other two guys and would have Jesus had he not already been dead. So please by all means share your sources for your point of view. Most bible histories and backgrounds do not share what you are saying.

warriorlion
08-02-2009, 03:26 PM
we kinda got of the source subject here a bit didnt we

NateR
08-02-2009, 05:36 PM
1.Not at all Nate. They worshiped on the first day of the week. Paul and the other apostles all did this to set themselves apart from the law and to focus on grace. You will need book chapter and verse and some good primary source documents to prove otherwise. Even the 1st century Christians worshipped on Sunday.

2. As for for the sundown sunrise thing. Jesus arose sunrise Sunday morning.

3. He died Friday before sunset. They would usually keep crucified bodies on the cross for weeks but they kept the local happy and removed them before the Sabbath Sat sunrise. This is why the clubbed the legs of the other two guys and would have Jesus had he not already been dead. So please by all means share your sources for your point of view. Most bible histories and backgrounds do not share what you are saying.

1. I would disagree with that. It helps if you study about Jewish culture from actual Jews and don't just read what Christian commentators think they know about Jewish culture. For Jews, the "first day" of the week starts on Saturday evening. Thus, those New Testament passages are just as likely to be referring to Saturday night as they are to Sunday morning. So, there is no real Biblical basis for a Sunday morning worship.

One of the verses in the NT where the "first day" of the week is mentioned is Acts 20:7. A lot of Christians use that reference to breaking bread as an endorsement of Sunday morning worship. Well, that doesn't fit, because Acts 2:46 states that they broke bread daily from house to house.

Also, in 20:7, Luke refers to Paul getting ready to depart the next day so he continued speaking to them until midnight. Now what is more likely, that they sat around and talked for 18 hours, from 6 AM to 12 AM all day Sunday? Or that they talked for 6 hours, from 6 PM to 12 AM on Saturday night?

1 Corinthian 16:2 talks about taking up the offering on the "first day" of the week. Well again this is just more misunderstanding of Jewish culture. The "first day" here is just as likely to be referring to Saturday night, especially since Jews weren't allowed to monetary transactions on the Sabbath.

2. The Bible never actually says that. What it does say is that when the women went to the tomb at dawn on the first day, Jesus was already gone. The Bible never actually says that Jesus rose again on Sunday morning.

3. You seem to be ignoring the Biblical proofs that I provide and then claim that I am not proving my point. The timeline that puts Jesus on the cross on a Friday afternoon is simply wrong. I've already provided the chapter and verse from Leviticus that explains why the Passover Sabbath was different and lasted a total of 72 hours, not just 24 hours. It was High Sabbath, not just your average weekly Sabbath.

Plus, I would prefer to believe the words of Christ, when He said "three days and three nights." Show me a verse in the Bible where Jesus said that He would only be in the grave one day and two nights and then maybe I'll believe your version. Otherwise, the whole "Good Friday" timeline is nonsense.

rearnakedchoke
08-02-2009, 09:43 PM
1. I would disagree with that. It helps if you study about Jewish culture from actual Jews and don't just read what Christian commentators think they know about Jewish culture. For Jews, the "first day" of the week starts on Saturday evening. Thus, those New Testament passages are just as likely to be referring to Saturday night as they are to Sunday morning. So, there is no real Biblical basis for a Sunday morning worship.

One of the verses in the NT where the "first day" of the week is mentioned is Acts 20:7. A lot of Christians use that reference to breaking bread as an endorsement of Sunday morning worship. Well, that doesn't fit, because Acts 2:46 states that they broke bread daily from house to house.

Also, in 20:7, Luke refers to Paul getting ready to depart the next day so he continued speaking to them until midnight. Now what is more likely, that they sat around and talked for 18 hours, from 6 AM to 12 AM all day Sunday? Or that they talked for 6 hours, from 6 PM to 12 AM on Saturday night?

1 Corinthian 16:2 talks about taking up the offering on the "first day" of the week. Well again this is just more misunderstanding of Jewish culture. The "first day" here is just as likely to be referring to Saturday night, especially since Jews weren't allowed to monetary transactions on the Sabbath.

2. The Bible never actually says that. What it does say is that when the women went to the tomb at dawn on the first day, Jesus was already gone. The Bible never actually says that Jesus rose again on Sunday morning.

3. You seem to be ignoring the Biblical proofs that I provide and then claim that I am not proving my point. The timeline that puts Jesus on the cross on a Friday afternoon is simply wrong. I've already provided the chapter and verse from Leviticus that explains why the Passover Sabbath was different and lasted a total of 72 hours, not just 24 hours. It was High Sabbath, not just your average weekly Sabbath.

Plus, I would prefer to believe the words of Christ, when He said "three days and three nights." Show me a verse in the Bible where Jesus said that He would only be in the grave one day and two nights and then maybe I'll believe your version. Otherwise, the whole "Good Friday" timeline is nonsense.
i have always thought that the timing was off, but i just figured it was placed that way to avoid less time with the traditional work week ... i thought the sabbath was the day of rest and the end of the week .. "and on the seventh day He rested" ... no?

Chris F
08-03-2009, 07:56 PM
1. I would disagree with that. It helps if you study about Jewish culture from actual Jews and don't just read what Christian commentators think they know about Jewish culture. For Jews, the "first day" of the week starts on Saturday evening. Thus, those New Testament passages are just as likely to be referring to Saturday night as they are to Sunday morning. So, there is no real Biblical basis for a Sunday morning worship.

One of the verses in the NT where the "first day" of the week is mentioned is Acts 20:7. A lot of Christians use that reference to breaking bread as an endorsement of Sunday morning worship. Well, that doesn't fit, because Acts 2:46 states that they broke bread daily from house to house.

Also, in 20:7, Luke refers to Paul getting ready to depart the next day so he continued speaking to them until midnight. Now what is more likely, that they sat around and talked for 18 hours, from 6 AM to 12 AM all day Sunday? Or that they talked for 6 hours, from 6 PM to 12 AM on Saturday night?

1 Corinthian 16:2 talks about taking up the offering on the "first day" of the week. Well again this is just more misunderstanding of Jewish culture. The "first day" here is just as likely to be referring to Saturday night, especially since Jews weren't allowed to monetary transactions on the Sabbath.

2. The Bible never actually says that. What it does say is that when the women went to the tomb at dawn on the first day, Jesus was already gone. The Bible never actually says that Jesus rose again on Sunday morning.

3. You seem to be ignoring the Biblical proofs that I provide and then claim that I am not proving my point. The timeline that puts Jesus on the cross on a Friday afternoon is simply wrong. I've already provided the chapter and verse from Leviticus that explains why the Passover Sabbath was different and lasted a total of 72 hours, not just 24 hours. It was High Sabbath, not just your average weekly Sabbath.

Plus, I would prefer to believe the words of Christ, when He said "three days and three nights." Show me a verse in the Bible where Jesus said that He would only be in the grave one day and two nights and then maybe I'll believe your version. Otherwise, the whole "Good Friday" timeline is nonsense.

I studied with one of the leading experts on Jewish culture as it pertains to Christian theology. I am a Christian not a Jew. If I was a Jew I would obey the diteary laws and all the other burdens they place on salvation. You are in the minorty in your beliefs but I know you are muck like me when it comes to not backing down. You are free to those opinions. We will just have to agree to disagree. :)

Tyburn
08-03-2009, 08:24 PM
I studied with one of the leading experts on Jewish culture as it pertains to Christian theology. I am a Christian not a Jew. If I was a Jew I would obey the diteary laws and all the other burdens they place on salvation. You are in the minorty in your beliefs but I know you are muck like me when it comes to not backing down. You are free to those opinions. We will just have to agree to disagree. :)
You are a Messianic Jew...of course you dont consider yourself Orthodox. The only difference between a Jew and Christian is the level of Revelation.

Messianic Jews are Jews that swap the practical performance of the Law with Christs Salvation, they are not Blood Related. Orthodox Jews should be Blood related and descending from one of the Tribes, they still use the practical performance of the Law in a vein attempt for Salvation because they have missapplied key Prophetic Texts, they do not realize that the Prophets speak of two different visits and the displaying of two different persona of The Christ. They only believe he will come as King...and that is as much a luciferian lie as the Apples of Eden....its not wholly false...but it misses out the key truth that in both cases saves.

So...obviously you are not one of them. But that infact, historically, still makes you One of them...only a different Denomination. Denying The Jews makes you a Cult of Judaism. Accepting the Jews makes you a Denomination.

You must accept the Old Testament to be Christian...therefore by my Logic, you ARE Jewish. Just a Messianic Jew (or else you'd ONLY accept the Old Testament) Christianity is just an addition of Revelation to the Jewish Faith. They Even Worshipped in the SAME Temple for AGES.

Never mind the Jews rejecting us...we Reject them at our Peril. You cant have full understanding of the New, before you understand the Old AS A JEW...then you realize the power of what is actually going on. Most Christians dont know the Old Testament...they actually dont understand how much of the New is just Mirrors of the Old...Sadly, neither do the Orthodox Jews.

Even the Word is just a coined phrase used BY OTHERS to recognise and categorise a new set of people, and finally taken on board when the Church went to State level. Its a missnomer. Simple History tells you I'm correct here, Scripture affirms it in The Book of Acts :)

Go ahead...tell me I'm wrong...but please use Scripture to back it up...because if you dont...I WILL to proove my point :w00t: :laugh:

Tyburn
08-03-2009, 08:31 PM
Sunday was the first day of the week on their calendar just as it is now. The days of the week have not changed much since their invention. Even with the lunar based calendar. I would have to see some primary source documents before I change my mind on that.
Chris...its not about what the day is called, its about where the day begins. Even in the Christian Liturgy the FIRST Service of the day is infact EVENSONG OF THE DAY BEFORE. The NEXT day BEGINS at Sunset!

So technically speaking, if the DAY of the Crucifixtion is to be taken as the FIRST day...it could begin as EARLY AS THURSDAY TEA TIME!

You might also notice that Christ Rose DURING THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY...because if the Day STARTS on SATURDAY EVENING...and He Rose Sunday Morning....thats the equivilent of rising at Noon in a callendar day :laugh:

Tyburn
08-03-2009, 08:36 PM
Again, Jesus died just before Passover, so it was not a normal Sabbath, it was a High Sabbath. You have to remember that the New Testament was written by 1st century Jews to 1st century Jews and Greeks. There would have been no need to explain to them that the Passover Sabbath was special and lasted 72-hours (which means it started on Wednesday night).

And do you really think having three consecutive Sabbaths during Passover was a accident? It's clear that GOD set it up that way all along.
:ninja: now that I didnt know.

And no its not accidental at all...its perfect symbolic mirroring isnt it? Its quite deliberate.

I just didnt know coz you never told me before :angry: :laugh:

NateR
08-03-2009, 09:06 PM
i have always thought that the timing was off, but i just figured it was placed that way to avoid less time with the traditional work week ... i thought the sabbath was the day of rest and the end of the week .. "and on the seventh day He rested" ... no?

Again, it was not a normal Sabbath. It was a High Sabbath. It lasted 72 hours from Wednesday evening to Saturday evening.

NateR
08-03-2009, 09:22 PM
I studied with one of the leading experts on Jewish culture as it pertains to Christian theology. I am a Christian not a Jew. If I was a Jew I would obey the diteary laws and all the other burdens they place on salvation. You are in the minorty in your beliefs but I know you are muck like me when it comes to not backing down. You are free to those opinions. We will just have to agree to disagree. :)

Actually, if you are a Christian then you are a Jew. Christianity is simply a fulfilled form of Judaism. Jesus didn't come to earth to replace Judaism with Christianity, He came to fulfill and perfect Judaism. Anything that states otherwise is wandering dangerously close to the heresy of Replacement Theology.

This "leading expert on Jewish culture" that you refer to, where was he born and was he actually raised Jewish? Or did he just study about Jewish culture in books?

Finally, since my views are in the minority, then they must be wrong? Are you serious? I don't care what the world says. I don't care what mainstream Christianity says. I care what GOD says and His Son, Jesus, said that He would be in the grave "three days and three nights." Thus, the Church's Good Friday timeline is simply wrong.

Why cling to a man-made timeline when it directly conflicts what Jesus said?

Tyburn
08-04-2009, 12:07 AM
Finally, since my views are in the minority
Your views arent in the Minority here....I aggree with you and I hold quite the monopoly of posts. :laugh:

Thanks for paraphrasing more consicely what I said above. :wink: :laugh:

NateR
08-04-2009, 12:13 AM
Your views arent in the Minority here....I aggree with you and I hold quite the monopoly of posts. :laugh:

Thanks for paraphrasing more consicely what I said above. :wink: :laugh:

I forgot to start my post with "Dave is right". :laugh:

Tyburn
08-04-2009, 12:27 AM
I forgot to start my post with "Dave is right". :laugh:
dont worry, I probably stole the theology from you anyway :laugh:

Chuck
08-04-2009, 03:29 AM
Again, it was not a normal Sabbath. It was a High Sabbath. It lasted 72 hours from Wednesday evening to Saturday evening.

What's your source?

Chuck
08-04-2009, 04:12 AM
Actually, if you are a Christian then you are a Jew. Christianity is simply a fulfilled form of Judaism. Jesus didn't come to earth to replace Judaism with Christianity, He came to fulfill and perfect Judaism. Anything that states otherwise is wandering dangerously close to the heresy of Replacement Theology.

This "leading expert on Jewish culture" that you refer to, where was he born and was he actually raised Jewish? Or did he just study about Jewish culture in books?

Finally, since my views are in the minority, then they must be wrong? Are you serious? I don't care what the world says. I don't care what mainstream Christianity says. I care what GOD says and His Son, Jesus, said that He would be in the grave "three days and three nights." Thus, the Church's Good Friday timeline is simply wrong.

Why cling to a man-made timeline when it directly conflicts what Jesus said?

Nate you choose to take 1 verse in scripture literal and that makes you right and everyone else wrong??

How is that any different then Eric picking and choosing scripture to defend the LDS faith or a false teacher picking and choosing scripture to justify their beliefs?

Let scripture interpret scripture...

Jesus said in Matthew 5 that we are salt.... But are we really salt??
Jesus said again in Matthew 5 to pluck out our eyes if they cause us to sin... but do we??
Jesus calls Himself a lamb.. but is He really a lamb??
Jesus said in 3 days the Temple will be rebuilt... but is He really a temple?

Mat 16:21 ¶ From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
Is the Bible conflicting itself here? If Jesus was dead a literal 72 hours then wouldn't He be raised again the 4th day????

Mat 17:23 And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again. And they were exceeding sorry.
....and again... how can you be dead for 3 days AND be raised on the 3rd day?

Mat 20:19 And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify [him]: and the third day he shall rise again.
....and AGAIN...

Jesus spoke in parables. Jesus spoke figuratively. Jesus spoke literally. You have chosen to believe a scripture in it's most literal interpretation and your obviously free to do so. But how do you justify making your opinion into a fact? How do you justify telling everybody else who views the subject differently that they are wrong?

You have an opinion about a scripture and others, myself included view it differently. Their doesn't need to be a right vs. wrong. We're not talking about a major tenet of our faith or a salvation issue here. Are we????

Chris F
08-05-2009, 02:37 AM
Nate you choose to take 1 verse in scripture literal and that makes you right and everyone else wrong??

How is that any different then Eric picking and choosing scripture to defend the LDS faith or a false teacher picking and choosing scripture to justify their beliefs?

Let scripture interpret scripture...

Jesus said in Matthew 5 that we are salt.... But are we really salt??
Jesus said again in Matthew 5 to pluck out our eyes if they cause us to sin... but do we??
Jesus calls Himself a lamb.. but is He really a lamb??
Jesus said in 3 days the Temple will be rebuilt... but is He really a temple?

Mat 16:21 ¶ From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
Is the Bible conflicting itself here? If Jesus was dead a literal 72 hours then wouldn't He be raised again the 4th day????

Mat 17:23 And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again. And they were exceeding sorry.
....and again... how can you be dead for 3 days AND be raised on the 3rd day?

Mat 20:19 And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify [him]: and the third day he shall rise again.
....and AGAIN...

Jesus spoke in parables. Jesus spoke figuratively. Jesus spoke literally. You have chosen to believe a scripture in it's most literal interpretation and your obviously free to do so. But how do you justify making your opinion into a fact? How do you justify telling everybody else who views the subject differently that they are wrong?

You have an opinion about a scripture and others, myself included view it differently. Their doesn't need to be a right vs. wrong. We're not talking about a major tenet of our faith or a salvation issue here. Are we????

Chuck I am sure he means well. I am sure we are all majoring on the minors. The facts are that he did die and rose again on the third day. To stray from that in any way is heresy. The calendar is of no real consequence.

Chuck
08-05-2009, 02:41 PM
Chuck I am sure he means well. I am sure we are all majoring on the minors. The facts are that he did die and rose again on the third day. To stray from that in any way is heresy. The calendar is of no real consequence.

I know Nate means well and I think he knows that I know that he means well... you know? :wink:

Play The Man
08-29-2009, 04:55 AM
I was packing up some books and came across a copy of Under The Banner Of Heaven by John Krakauer. Krakauer also wrote Into Thin Air and Into The Wild. The book is about fundamentalist Mormon brothers who killed their sister-in-law and her baby after claiming to have a revelation from God. This thread is 25 pages long and was an attempt to consolidate already on-going discussions on other threads. One of the issues on the thread was the danger of relying on personal revelation through private prayer as opposed to consulting and relying on Scripture on issues that have been clearly addressed in Scripture. The following quote from the book (Page 310) really struck me with how dangerous and absurd this trust in private revelation can be:

After the beating, their jailers separated the brothers, placing them in adjoining cells. Not long thereafter, Ron handed Dan a piece of paper through the bars. Written on it was a revelation Ron said he'd just received, in which God commanded Dan to let Ron kill him. After praying for guidance, Dan says, "I felt that I should submit to what it said, and we discussed how it might be done. We thought the best way might be for me to back up to the bars and let him put a towel around my neck and choke me out."

As soon as Dan agreed to let Ron kill him, he remembers, "I felt the urge to vacate my bowels," which he interpreted as a further sign that the revelation was valid and should be followed. He understood that going to the commode was part of God's meticulous plan, Dan says, so that "I wouldn't make a mess when I died and my muscles relaxed - actually the bowel goes into spasm but the bladder muscles relax when you are throttled." After finishing up his business on the toilet, Dan "said good-bye to Ron and anticipated seeing God as I backed up to the bars and Ron put a towel around my neck."

Over on his side of the partition, Ron stood on one foot, braced the other foot against the bars, and then yanked the towel against Dan's throat as hard as he could and held it there, cutting off the oxygen to Dan's brain and bursting thousands of tiny blood vessels in his eyes.

eric84
09-01-2009, 11:20 PM
I was packing up some books and came across a copy of Under The Banner Of Heaven by John Krakauer. Krakauer also wrote Into Thin Air and Into The Wild. The book is about fundamentalist Mormon brothers who killed their sister-in-law and her baby after claiming to have a revelation from God. This thread is 25 pages long and was an attempt to consolidate already on-going discussions on other threads. One of the issues on the thread was the danger of relying on personal revelation through private prayer as opposed to consulting and relying on Scripture on issues that have been clearly addressed in Scripture. The following quote from the book (Page 310) really struck me with how dangerous and absurd this trust in private revelation can be:



Every Religion has people that claim to be doing things in the name of God when in truth they are being deceived, not just the Mormons. And just for clarification, I didn't think you only meant us either, just wanted people to know.

I don't disagree that "personal revelation" can be dangerous by those that would abuse it, just like any good thing can be twisted for evil purposes. We believe if you receive personal revelation that it can only be for your stewardship that God has set you over(Father has stewardship over his family). Also that when you receive revelation it will be congruent with God's scriptures. Since we have more than just the Bible as Scripture, and our belief in the Bible isn't exactly the same as most Christians, our revelations may seem out of line to you. You can call this a copout or whatever you want, we still believe it to be true :).

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that we also believe in revelation to go along with Scripture, but our Scripture in certain points is different than other peoples. But regardless, those 2 men were obviously deceived and will have to answer to God for those wicked things they did.

I personally feel very saddened when wicked people use religion to promote their wickedness, because it turns more people away from Jesus. If I had a quarter for every time I heard "Look at how many people have been murdered in the name of religion", I'd be a rich man.... well... maybe. There are bad people everywhere, but we can't let that stop us from following God's teachings, we just need to make sure they are truly from God.

cubsfan47
09-03-2009, 12:36 PM
Good post.

Preachers, priests, rabbis, and even imams have done things which are actually counter to the tenets of their faith.

Whenever I feel as if I have received a "message", I consult with believers that I trust, read the Word, and go to the chapel to ask for His guidance. I don't know if my experiences count as private revelation though. Every message has been consistent with scripture and the experiences of others.

I think of my experiences as just the way He has chosen to reach me.

Eric, while I don't believe as you do, I admire your willingness to rely on His will as you have experienced it.

As far as Krakauer books are concerned, I am not so sure they are much more than what Dan Brown has been spewing out lately. (Da Vinci Code anyone?) Remember those are all fiction, although sometimes presented as fact.