Makes No Sense to become a mormon
dennis
Christians have:
Total forgiveness of all of our sins.
Adoption as Sons of God.
Fellowship with God.
The Holy Spirit living within us.
Eternal Life with God.
Love for God, love for our neighbors.
Mormonism has nothing better to offer.
It CLAIMS to. But although it SAYS it believes the Bible to be God's
Word, it's claims contradict the Bible in many places, contradicting
God.
in Christ Jesus (the REAL One, not the mormon one),
dennis
exmo
>
> Mormonism has nothing to offer Christians.
>
> Christians have:
>
> Total forgiveness of all of our sins.
>
> Adoption as Sons of God.
>
> Fellowship with God.
>
> The Holy Spirit living within us.
>
> Eternal Life with God.
>
> Love for God, love for our neighbors.
Yeah right, as long as you play by your pastor's rules, whatever they
happen to be at the time. And don't make too many waves in the
congregation. Of course, if you don't get along with a particular church
you can just pick another one from the Yellow Pages. (Mormondumb still
sux BTW).
Just Me
"dennis" <dcke...@covenantmail.net> wrote in message
news:9b562a9b.02042...@posting.google.com...
> Mormonism has nothing to offer Christians.
>
> Christians have:
>
> Total forgiveness of all of our sins.
>
> Adoption as Sons of God.
>
> Fellowship with God.
>
> The Holy Spirit living within us.
>
> Eternal Life with God.
>
> Love for God, love for our neighbors.
correct in the assumption that we get Total forgiveness of all our sins
simply by accepting Christ. WRONG WRONG WRONG. I have seen tracts put out
by conventional Christianity that claim that all you need to do to be saved
is rattle off this short prayer, that says you accept Christ, and voila.
Pigs Arse that's all it takes. Total forgiveness of our sins, only comes to
us through total repentance, which is what the LDS church teaches. Gets
back to the old "Grace and Works" argument - to which the simple answer is,
if works aren't important, why did the Lord give us commandments? There are
other requirements too - the Baptismal ordinance for example. Now before
all you "by Grace alone you are saved" moron's start saying baptism is
non-essential, why did Jesus say that "except a man be born of the water and
of the spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of god" - if that's not saying
that baptism is essential i dunno what is. Face it - although conventional
Christianity has many good points, and does teach people to be better, it
does lack many things due to corruptions and errors in Bible translations.
Explain to me how there can be so many different Christian sects, all
claiming the Bible as their basis? Especially when the bible clearly states
"one word, one faith, one baptism" - ONE, not a bunch. Last time I checked
one meant single, not multiples. So which conventional christian church can
save me? which one is right? they all use the bible. Are the baptists
right? are the Presbyterians right? the Catholics? the Anglicans? They all
use the bible, so how can they have differences? Obviously they can't all
be right. If so many sects can use the one book to come up with so many
different theologies, doesn't that prove that there is something lacking in
that book? doesn't that prove that errors have crept into the bible. It is
indeed impossible to prove the truthfulness of any one religion by reason
and logic, - that truth can only be established by the witness of the holy
ghost. But it is not hard to prove that conventional christianity does not
hold the truth of the gospel, by using their own arguments as to why the LDS
church is flawed.
Lets take another argument, that there was no apostacy as LDS teaches. Well
by using this reasoning, then the Catholic church can be the only true
church - none of the protestant churches can be true, because by arguing
that there was no falling away, that the church established by Christ has
never failed, then you are instantly arguing that the church established by
Christ must be the Catholic church, as it can trace an unbroken link of
authority back to Peter. Interesting that there are only 2 churches that
can even attempt to claim an unbroken link of priesthood authority to
Christ - the Catholic church and the LDS Church.
One thing I find ironic... conventional Christianity does have sufficient
redeeming power to save it's adherents to what they perceive as Heaven.
When you look at the 3 degrees of glory and the entry requirements for each,
and the blessings in each, conventional Heaven matches the Terrestrial just
nicely. So the Christians who have accepted Christ and his atonement, but
haven't taken upon them all of the necessary ordinances, will inherit the
Terrestrial kingdom, which will be a heaven to them. They will dwell there
in the presence of the saviour. Those who are non-christians - never accept
the saviours atonement - will inherit the Telestial kingdom, which is still
a degree of glory and is better than this life. So in a sense, everyone
(other than those who commit the unpardonable sin), will be saved - as
taught by conventional Christendom.
Really, if you read between the lines, conventional Christianity and LDS
doctrines do marry up quite well. They are not mutually exclusive. The
difference really, is that LDS has more information and a clearer view of
those doctrines - simply because we accept the fact that the Lord is
prepared to speak to more of his servants than just a relatively small
number of Jews living 1900+ years ago. Again, a principle that the Bible
teaches, but ignored by others. "Surely the lord god doeth nothing save he
revealeth his will to his servants the prophets". Considering he
communicated with his servants for a 4000 year period from the time of Adam
to the time of Paul, why would he stop talking to them now? when we live in
times very close to his 2nd coming, when turmoil and strife around us is at
it's highest point at any time in human history? surely if we need
communication from the lord at any time in the history of the earth it is
now. Well fact is, he does still communicate with man. From the time of
Joseph Smith the windows of heaven were re-opened, and have not closed.
Pres Hinckley does receive guidance and inspiration from the lord now.
FACT.
>
> Mormonism has nothing better to offer.
>
> It CLAIMS to. But although it SAYS it believes the Bible to be God's
> Word, it's claims contradict the Bible in many places, contradicting
> God.
"We believe the bible to be the word of God, so far as it is translated
correctly" - we do not contradict god, we contradict the errors introduced
to the book by man.
Chief Capt. Moroni
> Mormonism has nothing to offer Christians.
We're Christians. Do you mean Protestants?
> Christians have:
>
> Total forgiveness of all of our sins.
Got that.
> Adoption as Sons of God.
What does that mean? We're all sons and daughters of God, uh, hello?
> Fellowship with God.
How do we not have this?
> The Holy Spirit living within us.
We definately have that. I don't see how you do though, living in
constant fear...
> Eternal Life with God.
Got that.
> Love for God, love for our neighbors.
Yes again.
> Mormonism has nothing better to offer.
That depends on if you're out for yourself or for God. Being 'saved
by grace' sure must be great. You can do whatever you want.
If you're goal is to subject yourself to the will of God then what we
offer is truth.
> It CLAIMS to. But although it SAYS it believes the Bible to be God's
> Word, it's claims contradict the Bible in many places, contradicting
> God.
No.
!
>
Except the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.
Kevin Thurston
"Just Me" <bo...@toranas.com> wrote in message
news:3cc6...@news.comindico.com.au...
<major snippage>
> Pres Hinckley does receive guidance and inspiration from the lord now.
> FACT.
Give one example of where Hinckley revealed his guidance and inspiration to
the membership and that guidance was good. I can give you several counter
examples. Try looking at the thread by Darrick titled Can the Brethren See
the Future. You could also start with
http://www.freewebz.com/hofmannchronology/
Kevin Thurston
--
"I choose to believe what I have been programmed to believe"... Unidentified
robot on Futurama
Jeff Shirton
news:2a24a9b2.02042...@posting.google.com...
> > Adoption as Sons of God.
>
> What does that mean? We're all sons and daughters of God, uh, hello?
No, you're actually mistaken.
Jesus is the "only-begotten" (ie. only *natural* "son of God").
The rest of us are God's *CREATIONS* (Gen. 1:27, etc.)
We are no more (natural) "sons and daughters" of God than a clay pot
is a "son" of the Potter:
Isa 64:8 Yet, O LORD, you are our father;
we are the clay and you the potter:
we are all the work of your hands.
However, God *adopts* the elect of God to become part of His family, such
that we can call Him, "Abba, Father" (Rom. 8:15, Gal. 4:4-6, Eph. 1:3-5)
"Uh, hello?"
> > Fellowship with God.
>
> How do we not have this?
Ask the inhabitants of the Terrestrial and Telestial kingdoms, how are not
in the
presence of God.
> > The Holy Spirit living within us.
>
> We definately have that. I don't see how you do though, living in
constant fear...
What "constant fear"?!
> That depends on if you're out for yourself or for God.
Good point.
Christians spend eternity praising God and enjoying His presence.
Mormons spend eternity "progressing" to become gods themselves,
to rule over other planets/worlds/whatever.
Which group is "out for themselves", and which group is "for God"?
> Being 'saved by grace' sure must be great.
> You can do whatever you want.
Are you *INTENTIONALLY* misrepresenting our beliefs,
or are you simply speaking out of ignorance?
--
Jeff Shirton
jshirton at cogeco dot ca
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
He didn't sound like a baseball player... He said things like,
"Nevertheless", and "if, in fact." - Dan Quisenberry on Ted Simmons
!
"Jeff Shirton" <jshi...@burlington.unlisted.ca> wrote in message
news:emDx8.2346$op.1...@read2.cgocable.net...
> "Chief Capt. Moroni" <chief...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2a24a9b2.02042...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > Adoption as Sons of God.
> >
> > What does that mean? We're all sons and daughters of God, uh, hello?
>
> No, you're actually mistaken.
>
> Jesus is the "only-begotten" (ie. only *natural* "son of God").>
You're forgetting "in the flesh".
We're all spiritual sons and daughters of God, made in God's own image.
> > > Fellowship with God.
> >
> > How do we not have this?
>
> Ask the inhabitants of the Terrestrial and Telestial kingdoms, how are not
> in the presence of God.
>
> > > The Holy Spirit living within us.
> >
> > We definately have that. I don't see how you do though, living in
> constant fear...
>
> What "constant fear"?!
>
> > That depends on if you're out for yourself or for God.
>
> Good point.
>
> Christians spend eternity praising God and enjoying His presence.
> Mormons spend eternity "progressing" to become gods themselves,
What loving God would have it any other way? Why would God need to slake
His ego by having His "creations" praise and worship him nonstop?
Frank Smith
"exmo" <ex...@freeatlast.com> wrote in message
news:3CC635...@freeatlast.com...
> dennis wrote:
> >
> > Mormonism has nothing to offer Christians.
> >
> > Christians have:
> >
> > Total forgiveness of all of our sins.
> >
> > Adoption as Sons of God.
> >
> > Fellowship with God.
> >
> > The Holy Spirit living within us.
> >
> > Eternal Life with God.
> >
> > Love for God, love for our neighbors.
>
>
> Yeah right, as long as you play by your pastor's rules, whatever they
> happen to be at the time. And don't make too many waves in the
> congregation. Of course, if you don't get along with a particular church
> you can just pick another one from the Yellow Pages. (Mormondumb still
> sux BTW).
>
Frank Smith
"!" <!@aol.com> wrote in message news:aa70u9$8dr$1...@news.aros.net...
>
> "Jeff Shirton" <jshi...@burlington.unlisted.ca> wrote in message
> news:emDx8.2346$op.1...@read2.cgocable.net...
> > "Chief Capt. Moroni" <chief...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:2a24a9b2.02042...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > > Adoption as Sons of God.
> > >
> > > What does that mean? We're all sons and daughters of God, uh, hello?
> >
> > No, you're actually mistaken.
> >
> > Jesus is the "only-begotten" (ie. only *natural* "son of God").>
>
> You're forgetting "in the flesh".
>
> We're all spiritual sons and daughters of God, made in God's own image.
>
period
> >
> > Christians spend eternity praising God and enjoying His presence.
> > Mormons spend eternity "progressing" to become gods themselves,
>
> What loving God would have it any other way? Why would God need to slake
> His ego by having His "creations" praise and worship him nonstop?
>
AnthonyPaul
>From: "Frank Smith" vc...@pld.com
>Date: 4/24/02 5:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <7mFx8.57$k24....@newsfeed.slurp.net>
>
>
>"!" <!@aol.com> wrote in message news:aa70u9$8dr$1...@news.aros.net...
>>
>> "Jeff Shirton" <jshi...@burlington.unlisted.ca> wrote in message
>> news:emDx8.2346$op.1...@read2.cgocable.net...
>> > "Chief Capt. Moroni" <chief...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:2a24a9b2.02042...@posting.google.com...
>> >
>> > > > Adoption as Sons of God.
>> > >
>> > > What does that mean? We're all sons and daughters of God, uh, hello?
>> >
>> > No, you're actually mistaken.
>> >
>> > Jesus is the "only-begotten" (ie. only *natural* "son of God").>
>>
>> You're forgetting "in the flesh".
>>
>> We're all spiritual sons and daughters of God, made in God's own image.
>>
>period
Only begotten is a mistranslation from the Greek "monogenes". In order to
relate to being "begotten"; the word would have to be rendered "monogennes".
"Monogenes" means unique, one of a kind; it relates along the same intent as
"agapetos" - beloved.
John is the only writer to refer to Jesus as the "monogenes" Son of God.
"Monogenes" is used in Hebrews 11:17, "By faith Abraham, when he was tried,
offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only
begotten son,"
We know that Abraham did not have only one son; in fact, Isaac was not even
Abraham's first son. Yet we read in Genesis 22:2, "And he said, Take now thy
son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of
Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains
which I will tell thee of."
"Yachiyd" is rendered as "only son" in Genesis 22:2; and we find that it also
conveys the intent of "darling" which relates also to Beloved.
Mormons use the phrase "Only begotten in the flesh" to render the unique
application of Jesus as the only Son of God; whereas the rest of us are born
again - or rather, begotten in the Spirit when we enter into the waters of
Baptism and receive the Holy Ghost.
Anthony
dennis
you posted:
That is a joke. The "restored" version bears almost no resemblance to
the ORIGINAL VERSION.
The mormon religion doesn't even RESEMBLE the church Jesus built.
Jesus didn't have:
a stone-peeper or seer for a leader in His church
a fake "aaronic priesthood" in His church (or a REAL one either)
Temples built in his church
marriages for eternity
baptisms for the dead
etc. etc. etc.
To "restore" them to joe smith really meant to "invent" them.
in Christ Jesus,
dennis
dennis
> >
> > Mormonism has nothing to offer Christians.
> >
> > Christians have:
> >
> > Total forgiveness of all of our sins.
> >
> > Adoption as Sons of God.
> >
> > Fellowship with God.
> >
> > The Holy Spirit living within us.
> >
> > Eternal Life with God.
> >
> > Love for God, love for our neighbors.
>
>
> Yeah right, as long as you play by your pastor's rules, whatever they
> happen to be at the time. And don't make too many waves in the
> congregation. Of course, if you don't get along with a particular church
> you can just pick another one from the Yellow Pages.
In Christ's church, the pastor doesn't make the rules. And even
mormons are free to move to another church and neighborhood.
(Mormondumb still
> sux BTW).
?????????????
Are you always this way?
BigSlurrp
"dennis" <dcke...@covenantmail.net> wrote in message
news:9b562a9b.02042...@posting.google.com...
> Hello whoever you are,
> you posted:
>
> > "dennis" <dcke...@covenantmail.net> wrote in message
> > news:9b562a9b.02042...@posting.google.com...
> > > Mormonism has nothing to offer Christians.
> > >
> >
> > Except the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.
>
> That is a joke. The "restored" version bears almost no resemblance to
> the ORIGINAL VERSION.
Which original version are you referring to? And which religion do we have
today that resembles that version?
>
> The mormon religion doesn't even RESEMBLE the church Jesus built.
>
> Jesus didn't have:
>
> a stone-peeper or seer for a leader in His church
So you are saying that he did not build his church upon apostles and
prophets? Who I might add receive revelation? I'd like to see your sources
for that.
>
> a fake "aaronic priesthood" in His church (or a REAL one either)
You realize we are talking about the priesthood of Aaron here aren't you?
You know, the one that the tribe of Levi got in Moses' day? The one that
John the Baptist officiated under?
>
> Temples built in his church
Now I have never heard of God's people building temples. Loser.
>
> marriages for eternity
God gave Adam a wife in the garden of eden, in the beginning, while they
were immortal, before they partook of the fruit and were subject to death.
Do you think he said 'till death do you part' when he married them? And if
your response is 'he never married them' then go back to the hole you
crawled out of.
>
> baptisms for the dead
Never heard that mentioned in the bible? Idiot.
>
> etc. etc. etc.
>
dumb, dumb, dumn
> To "restore" them to joe smith really meant to "invent" them.
>
> in Christ Jesus,
> dennis
Joe mama should have taught you better.
In the name of.....Amen
dennis
You posted:
> "dennis" <dcke...@covenantmail.net> wrote in message
> news:9b562a9b.02042...@posting.google.com...
> > Mormonism has nothing to offer Christians.
> >
> > Christians have:
> >
> > Total forgiveness of all of our sins.
> >
> > Adoption as Sons of God.
> >
> > Fellowship with God.
> >
> > The Holy Spirit living within us.
> >
> > Eternal Life with God.
> >
> > Love for God, love for our neighbors.
> Well DUH, conventional Christianity can only offer those things if it is
> correct in the assumption that we get Total forgiveness of all our sins
> simply by accepting Christ.
If the Bible is the Word of God, it is not an assumption; it is a
FACT.
> WRONG WRONG WRONG. I have seen tracts put out
> by conventional Christianity that claim that all you need to do to be saved
> is rattle off this short prayer, that says you accept Christ, and voila.
> Pigs Arse that's all it takes.
I don't know about your pigs arse, and simply rattling off a prayer is
NOT what you must do. You must HAVE FAITH. You must RECEIVE JESUS
CHRIST BY FAITH. Not mouthe some words, but BELIEVE.
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that
not of
yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
I will accept what the Bible says. You I do not know, so your word is
not something I would hang my hat on.
> Total forgiveness of our sins, only comes to
> us through total repentance, which is what the LDS church teaches.
SHOW ME Biblical scripture that says so. Total repentance only comes
with total conviction (BELIEF, FAITH). It is the RESULT of Faith in
Christ, the RESULT of salvation.
> Gets
> back to the old "Grace and Works" argument - to which the simple answer is,
> if works aren't important, why did the Lord give us commandments?
Let's look at the above passage again, along with the one that FOLOWS
IT.
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that
not of
yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good
works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
CREATED IN CHRIST JESUS (the NEW man, the SAVED man) to do good works.
Not to BECOME saved, but BECAUSE WE ARE saved.
Very UNLIKE you mormons.
> There are
> other requirements too - the Baptismal ordinance for example. Now before
> all you "by Grace alone you are saved" moron's start saying baptism is
> non-essential, why did Jesus say that "except a man be born of the water and
> of the spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of god" - if that's not saying
> that baptism is essential i dunno what is.
Since you don't KNOW what that is about, let me mention a few things
of importance:
1. Baptism didn't EXIST at that time, so the water could not have
been baptism.
2. The water a Jew would have thought of would have been Moses
leading the Jews through the Red Sea. Unless you (a Jew) were born
physically (a Jew) and are born Spiritually (in Christ), you cannot
enter the kingdom of God.
> Face it - although conventional
> Christianity has many good points, and does teach people to be better, it
> does lack many things due to corruptions and errors in Bible translations.
Corruptions and errors in Bible translations? We have over 5,300
copies of New Testament manuscripts from the first two centuries. The
language is well known. We have Old Testament manuscripts from over
450 years before PLUS we have the Septuagint, and Jesus quoted that
over and over, calling it God's Word.
Exactly WHAT "corruptions and errors?"
And what about the over 4,000 CHANGES in the Book of Mormon, the
thousands more in the D&C and the PGP?
And what about the fact that NOT ONE PERSON IS A WITNESS to the Book
of Mormon?
NOT ONE PERSON EVER translated the book, copied it, or had it
available to check out what joe smith said that it said.
YOU HAVE ONLY joe smith's WORD as to what the text of the BofM says.
ONLY ONE WITNESS.
> Explain to me how there can be so many different Christian sects, all
> claiming the Bible as their basis? Especially when the bible clearly states
> "one word, one faith, one baptism" - ONE, not a bunch. Last time I checked
> one meant single, not multiples.
Simple. The same way there can be so many different mormon sects,
like the RLDS, the Temple Lot LDS, the Fundamentalists, the
Hutterites, etc. The SLC mormons are a breakoff of what became the
RLDS; joe smith said that God told him that HIS SON, Joseph Smith III
would head God's church, but Brigham Young and his bunch had more
power than Emma Smith's bunch and Young and his group broke off and
went to Utah.
HOW MANY mormon religions?
Simply put, whenever folks don't like something they leave.
In Christianity we have had over 2,000 years for that to happen. You
mormons have had 170 years. So it has happened more for us than for
you. . .more time to do it.
> So which conventional christian church can
> save me?
None. The Bible never says that ANY church can save you. Only Jesus
can do that.
> which one is right? they all use the bible. Are the baptists
> right? are the Presbyterians right? the Catholics? the Anglicans? They all
> use the bible, so how can they have differences? Obviously they can't all
> be right. If so many sects can use the one book to come up with so many
> different theologies, doesn't that prove that there is something lacking in
> that book? doesn't that prove that errors have crept into the bible. It is
> indeed impossible to prove the truthfulness of any one religion by reason
> and logic, - that truth can only be established by the witness of the holy
> ghost.
Jesus did not found a religious organization or a single heirarchy.
He did not put a seer, rock-peeker, or prophet at the head of His
church.
"Church" is not a religious organization or a building; it is PEOPLE
gathered for a purpose.
The Greek word we translate "church" is ekklesia, and it simply means
a gathering of people called together for some purpose. Look it up in
any Greek lexicon.
Christ's church is made up of ALL CHRISTIANS, whether they worship
with Anglicans, Presbyterians, Baptists, or on mountain tops with
sheep.
> But it is not hard to prove that conventional christianity does not
> hold the truth of the gospel, by using their own arguments as to why the LDS
> church is flawed.
It depends upon who you include in your argument as "conventional"
Christianity.
The God of the Bible is the One Who decides who meets HIS requirements
for being Christian. Not any religious organization.
And the LDS does NOT match the requirements that the God of the Bible
set forth.
The LDS set up their own standards, and those standards are NOT God's
standards.
> Lets take another argument, that there was no apostacy as LDS teaches.
The Bible teaches that Jesus' Church will NEVER fail, never has, never
can.
There have been (and are) apostasies, but the church Jesus built NEVER
falls.
It can't; it has the Power of God to keep it going.
> Well
> by using this reasoning, then the Catholic church can be the only true
> church - none of the protestant churches can be true, because by arguing
> that there was no falling away, that the church established by Christ has
> never failed, then you are instantly arguing that the church established by
> Christ must be the Catholic church, as it can trace an unbroken link of
> authority back to Peter.
If you want to believe the rewritten "history" by the RCC as truth you
may. Christianity does not. There is no "pope" in the Bible, no
mariology, no celibate priests, etc. in the Bible.
And the Roman church NEVER ruled all of the Christian world.
No, the RCC is NOT the "true church." At one time it was INCLUDED IN
Christ's church, but mostly it is no longer.
> Interesting that there are only 2 churches that
> can even attempt to claim an unbroken link of priesthood authority to
> Christ - the Catholic church and the LDS Church.
There are several others including the Coptics, the Eastern and
Russian Orthodox churches and MANY others. You simply don't know what
you are talking about here.
> One thing I find ironic... conventional Christianity does have sufficient
> redeeming power to save it's adherents to what they perceive as Heaven.
Conventional Christianity? No, Jesus does.
> When you look at the 3 degrees of glory and the entry requirements for each,
> and the blessings in each, conventional Heaven matches the Terrestrial just
> nicely.
Too bad joey smith didn't know the difference between nouns and
adjectives in the Greek and English. If he had, he would have known
that the "glories" of which he made religious doctrine had nothing to
do with PLACES, but were the QUALITIES of the sun, moon, and stars.
If the King James Bible has said, "the SHINENESS of" those things,
would you be planning to go to the "shinyness" places? Hahahahaaaaa.
Poor joey smith!
<snipped the mormon doctrine that didn't apply to anything at all>
> Really, if you read between the lines, conventional Christianity and LDS
> doctrines do marry up quite well. They are not mutually exclusive. The
> difference really, is that LDS has more information and a clearer view of
> those doctrines - simply because we accept the fact that the Lord is
> prepared to speak to more of his servants than just a relatively small
> number of Jews living 1900+ years ago.
Now He is limited to speaking to a feeble old man in SLC once in a
while (when WAS the last entry to the D&C?)?????
And now you think God has changed His mind about what He gave us in
the Bible?
I don't think so.
The mormon religion does copy some of Christianity, so they are NOT
mutually exclusive.
But the mormon religion teaches that there are many gods and you can
become one.
That in itself separates it from Christianity which says there is only
1 God anywhere.
Gotta git. Lawn guy is here and I have to move the grill.
in Christ Jesus (the REAL ONE, not the mormon one),
dennis
dennis
I got that done, so will try to finish this post before going off to
work on a piano.
Continuing onward:
> Again, a principle that the Bible
> teaches, but ignored by others. "Surely the lord god doeth nothing save he
> revealeth his will to his servants the prophets". Considering he
> communicated with his servants for a 4000 year period from the time of Adam
> to the time of Paul, why would he stop talking to them now? when we live in
> times very close to his 2nd coming, when turmoil and strife around us is at
> it's highest point at any time in human history? surely if we need
> communication from the lord at any time in the history of the earth it is
> now.
Let's see what the Bible says about that, shall we?
Hebrews 1:1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the
prophets in many portions and in many ways,
2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He
appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
God spoke to the fathers in the prophets WHEN???? "LONG AGO!" Even
LONGER ago now that 2,000 years or so have passed since this was
written.
And HOW DOES GOD SPEAK TO US _NOW_????
In Christ Jesus.
> Well fact is, he does still communicate with man.
He does indeed. Through His Word, the Bible. By His Holy Spirit.
John 14:16 "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another
Helper, that
He may be with you forever;
17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive,
because
it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He
abides with you and will be in you.
The HOLY SPIRIT is our helper, not some dumb old man in SLC.
John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send
in My
name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all
that I said to you.
The HOLY SPIRIT teaches us and brings to our remembrance what JESUS
SAID.
Not some old guy in SLC.
John 15:26 "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the
Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He
will
testify about Me,
27 and you will testify also, because you have been with Me from the
beginning.
The HOLY SPIRIT testifies to us about Jesus, not some shriveled up old
man in SLC.
I am well into my 50's and I have not found a problem or situation in
life yet that the Bible didn't have the answers for if needed.
God has NEVER sold us Christians short.
Sorry about yours.
> From the time of
> Joseph Smith the windows of heaven were re-opened, and have not closed.
> Pres Hinckley does receive guidance and inspiration from the lord now.
> FACT.
No, fiction. God never "closed the windows of heaven." Joe smith
made that stuff up.
> >
> > Mormonism has nothing better to offer.
> >
> > It CLAIMS to. But although it SAYS it believes the Bible to be God's
> > Word, it's claims contradict the Bible in many places, contradicting
> > God.
> "We believe the bible to be the word of God, so far as it is translated
> correctly" - we do not contradict god, we contradict the errors introduced
> to the book by man.
You have your own "corrected" version and you contradict that one too.
And joey smith "corrected" it from his own imagination; he didn't have
a SHRED of text to correct from.
Roy Stogner
> "dennis" <dcke...@covenantmail.net> wrote in message
> news:9b562a9b.02042...@posting.google.com...
>> a fake "aaronic priesthood" in His church (or a REAL one either)
>
> You realize we are talking about the priesthood of Aaron here aren't
> you? You know, the one that the tribe of Levi got in Moses' day? The
> one that John the Baptist officiated under?
John the Baptist was an Aaronic priest? Reference, please?
---
Roy Stogner
Gadianton
> We don't play by eny pastor's rules, we live by the rules in the Bible
I know. That's why there are umpteen thousand Christian denominations in
existence.
Roy Stogner
> Heloo Bogan,
>> There are
>> other requirements too - the Baptismal ordinance for example. Now
>> before all you "by Grace alone you are saved" moron's start saying
>> baptism is non-essential, why did Jesus say that "except a man be born
>> of the water and of the spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of god" - if
>> that's not saying that baptism is essential i dunno what is.
>
> 1. Baptism didn't EXIST at that time, so the water could not have been
> baptism.
What was John the Baptist doing two chapters earlier?
Baptism does seem to precede Jesus' ministry in at least that one case;
does anyone have information indicating when the practice did start? Was
John the first?
> 2. The water a Jew would have thought of would have been Moses leading
> the Jews through the Red Sea. Unless you (a Jew) were born physically
> (a Jew) and are born Spiritually (in Christ), you cannot enter the
> kingdom of God.
Someone else mentioned this, and it sounds plausible to me, but I'd
appreciate it if you could provide some references.
---
Roy Stogner
Jeff Shirton
news:pan.2002.04.24.21....@SPAMticam.utexas.edu...
> > 2. The water a Jew would have thought of would have been Moses leading
> > the Jews through the Red Sea. Unless you (a Jew) were born physically
> > (a Jew) and are born Spiritually (in Christ), you cannot enter the
> > kingdom of God.
>
> Someone else mentioned this, and it sounds plausible to me, but I'd
> appreciate it if you could provide some references.
I guess it's time I reposted my visual analysis of this passage:
Jesus is trying to teach Nicodemus a spiritual teaching.
Nicodemus wrongly interprets it as a physical teaching,
but Jesus corrects him and shows it to be spiritual.
Follow the columns:
.--------------- --. .--------.
|NICODEMUS| |JESUS|
`------------------' `--------'
.---------------. .----------------.
|PHYSICAL| |SPIRITUAL|
`---------------' `---------------'
3:3 Jesus answered and
said unto him, Verily,
verily, I say unto thee,
Except a man be born
again, he cannot see the
kingdom of God.
3:4 Nicodemus saith
unto him, How can
a man be born when
he is old? can he
enter the second time
into his mother's womb,
and be born?
3:5 Jesus answered, Verily,
verily, I say unto thee,
Except a man be born .---.
of water |and| of the Spirit,
`----' he cannot enter into
the kingdom of God.
3:6 That which is born .---.
of the flesh is flesh; |and| that which is born
`---' of the Spirit is spirit.
3:7 Marvel not that I
said
unto thee, Ye
must be
born again.
.------------------. .--------.
|NICODEMUS| |JESUS|
`-----------------' `--------'
.---------------. .---------------.
|PHYSICAL| |SPIRITUAL|
`---------------' `----------------'
> Roy Stogner
Roy Stogner
> I guess it's time I reposted my visual analysis of this passage:
I'm sorry, I must have missed or skimmed it the first time.
I hadn't really looked at the parallel between 3:5 and 3:6 so closely
before; thank you.
---
Roy Stogner
Jeff Shirton
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 21:43:00 -0500, Jeff Shirton wrote:
>
> > I guess it's time I reposted my visual analysis of this passage:
>
> I'm sorry, I must have missed or skimmed it the first time.
No problem.
It's undoubtedly been some months since the last time I posted it.
I've been posting it on and off for years in this newsgroup, whenever
I see the topic come up.
BigSlurrp
My sources are mormon theology/doctrine
(Doctrine and Covenants 27:8)
Which John I have sent unto you, my servants, Joseph Smith, Jun., and Oliver
Cowdery, to ordain you unto the first priesthood which you have received,
that you might be called and ordained even as Aaron;
(Doctrine and Covenants 84:25-28.)
25 Therefore, he took Moses out of their midst, and the Holy Priesthood
also;
26 And the lesser priesthood continued, which priesthood holdeth the key of
the ministering of angels and the preparatory gospel;
27 Which gospel is the gospel of repentance and of baptism, and the
remission of sins, and the law of carnal commandments, which the Lord in his
wrath caused to continue with the house of Aaron among the children of
Israel until John, whom God raised up, being filled with the Holy Ghost from
his mother's womb.
28 For he was baptized while he was yet in his childhood, and was ordained
by the angel of God at the time he was eight days old unto this power, to
overthrow the kingdom of the Jews, and to make straight the way of the Lord
before the face of his people, to prepare them for the coming of the Lord,
in whose hand is given all power.
!
"dennis" <dcke...@covenantmail.net> wrote in message
news:9b562a9b.02042...@posting.google.com...
> Hello whoever you are,
> you posted:
>
> > "dennis" <dcke...@covenantmail.net> wrote in message
> > news:9b562a9b.02042...@posting.google.com...
> > > Mormonism has nothing to offer Christians.
> > >
> >
> > Except the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.
>
> That is a joke. The "restored" version bears almost no resemblance to
> the ORIGINAL VERSION.>
Actually, modern "christianity" bears little resemblence to the primitive
church. That's quite obvious. Many protestant reformers pointed this fact
out when they broke from more mainstream "christian" sects to start their
own.
>
> The mormon religion doesn't even RESEMBLE the church Jesus built.
>
> Jesus didn't have:
1. 12 apostles to guide his church. He didn't? Actually he did. Which
church has them now?
2. A person selected to hold the keys of the kingdom. Actually he did.
Peter. Which church other than Mormonism claims to hold any keys at all
(e.g., the sealing power).
3. Continuing revelation. Actually, he did. See vision of Paul and
others, day of pentecost, etc. Which church has continuing revelation.
Only one. The restored gospel.
The list goes on and on.
> >
> baptisms for the dead.
That's funny. Paul seemed to think they did. He referred to the practice
in corinthians when he asked, "why do baptisms for the dead if the dead rise
not at all." The practice was posed as proof of the resurrection. If the
practice wasn't valid, why would Paul have offered it as proof of anything?
!
"Roy Stogner" <royst...@SPAMticam.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2002.04.24.19....@SPAMticam.utexas.edu...
He was the son of a priest--Zacharias, who must have been a Levite. All
Levites held the Levitical or Aaronic priesthood.
!
"Frank Smith" <vc...@pld.com> wrote in message
news:7mFx8.57$k24....@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
> "!" <!@aol.com> wrote in message news:aa70u9$8dr$1...@news.aros.net...
> >
> > "Jeff Shirton" <jshi...@burlington.unlisted.ca> wrote in message
> > news:emDx8.2346$op.1...@read2.cgocable.net...
> > > "Chief Capt. Moroni" <chief...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:2a24a9b2.02042...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > > > Adoption as Sons of God.
> > > >
> > > > What does that mean? We're all sons and daughters of God, uh,
hello?
> > >
> > > No, you're actually mistaken.
> > >
> > > Jesus is the "only-begotten" (ie. only *natural* "son of God").>
> >
> > You're forgetting "in the flesh".
> >
> > We're all spiritual sons and daughters of God, made in God's own image.
> >
> The Bible dose not say in the flesh. It says Jesus is the only betotten
> period>
Either way he's the Son of God. Then why do "christians" then say Jesus is
God?
> > >
> > > Christians spend eternity praising God and enjoying His presence.
> > > Mormons spend eternity "progressing" to become gods themselves,
> >
> > What loving God would have it any other way? Why would God need to
slake
> > His ego by having His "creations" praise and worship him nonstop?
> >
> why wouldn't you not want to praise the God that made you nonstop?
>
Didn't say I wouldn't. Please reread the question, which has to do with
what God would want, not us.
Jeff Shirton
> Either way he's the Son of God. Then why do "christians" then say Jesus
is
> God?
I am a "son of man" (ie. my father was a man).
Yet I correctly claim that I am *also* "man".
How can I be "son of man" and at the same time, "man"?
!
> "!" <!@aol.com> wrote in message news:aa9jri$28vj$1...@news.aros.net...
>
> > Either way he's the Son of God. Then why do "christians" then say Jesus
> is
> > God?
>
> I am a "son of man" (ie. my father was a man).
> Yet I correctly claim that I am *also* "man".>
1 man + 1 man = 2 men.
Let's see if you can fill in the blank:
1 God + 1 (Son of God, who is really a God) = ____ Gods.
>
> How can I be "son of man" and at the same time, "man"?>
Can you be both the "son of your father" and "you father"?
Jeff Shirton
> > I am a "son of man" (ie. my father was a man).
> > Yet I correctly claim that I am *also* "man".>
>
> 1 man + 1 man = 2 men.
Yes, that's correct.
With humans, there is a 1:1 correspondence between "people" and "men".
You seem to be *ASSUMING* it is the same with God.
> Let's see if you can fill in the blank:
>
> 1 God + 1 (Son of God, who is really a God) = ____ Gods.
According to the *BIBLE*, it equals *one* God.
dennis
EXACTLY WHERE in the Bible do you think you see that? It is not there.
in Christ Jesus,
dennis
Roy Stogner
> "Roy Stogner" <royst...@SPAMticam.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:pan.2002.04.24.19....@SPAMticam.utexas.edu...
>> John the Baptist was an Aaronic priest? Reference, please? ---
>
> He was the son of a priest--Zacharias, who must have been a Levite. All
> Levites held the Levitical or Aaronic priesthood.
Ah, yes. Thank you,
---
Roy Stogner
Roy Stogner
> "!" <!@aol.com> wrote in message news:<aa9f2b$253u$1...@news.aros.net>...
>> "Roy Stogner" <royst...@SPAMticam.utexas.edu> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2002.04.24.19....@SPAMticam.utexas.edu...
>> > John the Baptist was an Aaronic priest? Reference, please? ---
>>
>> He was the son of a priest--Zacharias, who must have been a Levite. All
>> Levites held the Levitical or Aaronic priesthood.
>
> EXACTLY WHERE in the Bible do you think you see that? It is not there.
Luke 1?
---
Roy Stogner
dennis
You posted:
> "dennis" <dcke...@covenantmail.net> wrote in message
> news:9b562a9b.02042...@posting.google.com...
> > Hello whoever you are,
> > you posted:
> >
> > > "dennis" <dcke...@covenantmail.net> wrote in message
> > > news:9b562a9b.02042...@posting.google.com...
> > > > Mormonism has nothing to offer Christians.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Except the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.
> >
> > That is a joke. The "restored" version bears almost no resemblance to
> > the ORIGINAL VERSION.
>
> Which original version are you referring to? And which religion do we have
> today that resembles that version?
The BIBLICAL Version. The church Jesus Himself founded.
> >
> > The mormon religion doesn't even RESEMBLE the church Jesus built.
> >
> > Jesus didn't have:
> >
> > a stone-peeper or seer for a leader in His church
>
> So you are saying that he did not build his church upon apostles and
> prophets? Who I might add receive revelation? I'd like to see your sources
> for that.
Re-read what I SAID. Don't simply mouth the knee-jerk responses of
your religious leaders.
Jesus didn't have a stone-peeper or seer for a leader in His church.
NO PASSAGE ANYWHERE places a "seer" or "prophet" as an earthly "head"
to Jesus' church.
Jesus DID build his church upon Apostles and prophets.
Ephesians 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you
are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household,
20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and
prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,
21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into
a
holy temple in the Lord,
22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God
in
the Spirit.
Of course, the FOUNDATION does NOT EXTEND UP THE WHOLE SIDE OF THE
BUILDING; it is just at the BOTTOM or the BEGINNING.
The Jesus and His Apostles FOUNDED the new church. The Prophets
FORETOLD OF IT. FOUNDATION.
Jesus' disciples CONTINUED IT, for the next 2,000 or so years!
Sorry about the "new guy," the mormon religion.
> >
> > a fake "aaronic priesthood" in His church (or a REAL one either)
>
> You realize we are talking about the priesthood of Aaron here aren't you?
DUH! Did I misspell the name? Or did you just have a difficult time
connecting it up?
> You know, the one that the tribe of Levi got in Moses' day? The one that
> John the Baptist officiated under?
John the Baptist's FATHER officiated under, you mean. The Bible NEVER
makes John the Baptist a Levitical Priest. NEVER does the Bible say
that honor came automatically, and John the Baptist NEVER CLAIMED TO
BE any kind of priest, and NO BIBLICAL PASSAGE indicates that he was.
You are ASSUMING something that is without foundation.
>
> >
> > Temples built in his church
>
> Now I have never heard of God's people building temples. Loser.
Call names if you wish, but the BIBLE NEVER SAYS THAT CHRIST OR ANY OF
HIS DISCIPLES _EVER_ BUILT A TEMPLE. The Temple of God is now our
BODIES.
1 Corinthians 3:16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and
that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
17 If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for
the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.
1 Corinthians 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of
the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you
are not your
own?
20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in
your body.
BEFORE Jesus' resurrection they built temples. NOW we ARE temples.
> >
> > marriages for eternity
>
> God gave Adam a wife in the garden of eden, in the beginning, while they
> were immortal, before they partook of the fruit and were subject to death.
> Do you think he said 'till death do you part' when he married them? And if
> your response is 'he never married them' then go back to the hole you
> crawled out of.
I'll do better than that. I'll show you what GOD SAID about it.
1 Corinthians 7: 39 A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but
if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes,
only in the
Lord.
Romans 7:1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to
those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person
as long as he lives?
2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is
living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law
concerning the husband.
3 So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another
man,
she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is
free
from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to
another man.
You may hold any "opinion" you wish. For me and my house, we will
serve the LORD. We will stick to what HE says and not your OPINION.
> >
> > baptisms for the dead
>
> Never heard that mentioned in the bible? Idiot.
> >
Your name calling reflects upon your intellect. Perhaps you should
stop calling names and actually SHOW even ONE PLACE I have said
anything that IS NOT TRUE. SHOW US, with BIBLICAL TEXT.
Of course, you cannot.
And baptism for the dead? Paul pointed out that unbelievers did it
even though they didn't believe in the resurrection of the dead.
But CHRISTIANS NEVER DID. NOT ONE SINGLE WORD IN THE BIBLE SAYS THEY
DID.
in Christ Jesus (the REAL ONE, not the mormon one),
dennis
NOT by Christians.
dennis
You posted:
> >
> > > "dennis" <dcke...@covenantmail.net> wrote in message
> > > news:9b562a9b.02042...@posting.google.com...
> > > > Mormonism has nothing to offer Christians.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Except the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.
> >
> > That is a joke. The "restored" version bears almost no resemblance to
> > the ORIGINAL VERSION.>
>
> Actually, modern "christianity" bears little resemblence to the primitive
> church. That's quite obvious. Many protestant reformers pointed this fact
> out when they broke from more mainstream "christian" sects to start their
> own.
It is obvious that you have never read the writings of the first two
centuries of Christ's church, that you don't know the Bible, and that
you are well brain-washed by the mormonos.
The fact that some people leave a religion to form their own does NOT
alter (either as good or bad) the original religion they were in.
Evidence: The RLDS, Temple Lot LDS, Hutterites, Fundamentalists, etc
who "left" mainstream mormonism. Does that make it "obvious" that the
SLC group is is NOT like joe smith's first church?
Your logic is flawed, to say the least, as proved when we apply it to
your own religion.
> >
> > The mormon religion doesn't even RESEMBLE the church Jesus built.
> >
> > Jesus didn't have:
>
> 1. 12 apostles to guide his church. He didn't? Actually he did. Which
> church has them now?
SEVERAL churches have what they CLAIM are apostles. The New Apostolic
Church comes to mind right off.
But SAYING you have apostles, or CLAIMING that some of your people are
apostles does not make it so.
After all except the Apostle John had died, John lived about 20 more
years. He had LOTS of time to ordain more REAL Apostles if God
desired apostles to lead His church. God didn't lead him to do so.
Again, the FOUNDATION does NOT RUN UP THE WALL TO THE ROOF. IT STOPS
at the bottom, the beginning.
We CHRISTIANS have the foundation of the prophets (in the Old
Testament) and the Apostles (in the New Testament), and Jesus IS the
chief cornerstone of our faith.
IF you must have PHYSICALLY PRESENT your apostles and prophets, THEN
THE SAME MUST BE TRUE OF JESUS CHRIST. WHERE is your PHYSICAL
LOCATION OF YOUR JESUS?
Does he hide in a closet in the SLC Temple? THE SAME RULES MUST APPLY
TO ALL OF THE "FOUNDATIONAL" PARTS.
> 2. A person selected to hold the keys of the kingdom. Actually he did.
> Peter. Which church other than Mormonism claims to hold any keys at all
> (e.g., the sealing power).
Peter HELD the keys to the kingdom. He UNLOCKED the kingdom when he
preached a sermon that led about 3,000 people to Jesus Christ. But he
was NOT a "pope," and Paul chewed him out at least once.
In the Bible we are sealed by
1 Corinthians 1:20 For as many as are the promises of God, in Him they
are yes;
therefore also through Him is our Amen to the glory of God through us.
21 Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is
God,
22 who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a
pledge.
JESUS sealed us, not Peter or any little old man in SLC.
Ephesians 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of
truth, the
gospel of your salvation -- having also believed, you were sealed in
Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,
We were sealed IN JESUS WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT, not by Peter or anyone
else.
Ephesians 4: 30 Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were
sealed
for the day of redemption.
> 3. Continuing revelation. Actually, he did. See vision of Paul and
> others, day of pentecost, etc. Which church has continuing revelation.
> Only one. The restored gospel.
>
Revelation 22: 18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the
prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the
plagues which
are written in this book;
19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this
prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from
the holy city, which are written in this book.
Jude 1:3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about
our
common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that
you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed
down to the saints.
THE FAITH which was ONCE FOR ALL handed down to the saints. PAST
TENSE.
PERIOD.
> The list goes on and on.
>
> > >
> > baptisms for the dead.
>
> That's funny. Paul seemed to think they did. He referred to the practice
> in corinthians when he asked, "why do baptisms for the dead if the dead rise
> not at all." The practice was posed as proof of the resurrection. If the
> practice wasn't valid, why would Paul have offered it as proof of anything?
Paul NEVER said "we" do it. He said "THEY" and "THEIR" in that
passage. Is that why you didn't QUOTE it? We might notice that Paul
is NOT referring to himself or other Christians, but to unbelievers?
So far, you have not shown ONE SINGLE THING that contradicts what I
have said.
NOT ONE.
!
>
Hi
!
"dennis" <dcke...@covenantmail.net> wrote in message
news:9b562a9b.02042...@posting.google.com...
> "!" <!@aol.com> wrote in message news:<aa9f2b$253u$1...@news.aros.net>...
> > "Roy Stogner" <royst...@SPAMticam.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2002.04.24.19....@SPAMticam.utexas.edu...
> > > On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:48:34 -0500, BigSlurrp wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > "dennis" <dcke...@covenantmail.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:9b562a9b.02042...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > >> a fake "aaronic priesthood" in His church (or a REAL one either)
> > > >
> > > > You realize we are talking about the priesthood of Aaron here aren't
> > > > you? You know, the one that the tribe of Levi got in Moses' day?
The
> > > > one that John the Baptist officiated under?
> > >
> > > John the Baptist was an Aaronic priest? Reference, please?
> > > ---
> >
> > He was the son of a priest--Zacharias, who must have been a Levite. All
> > Levites held the Levitical or Aaronic priesthood.
>
> EXACTLY WHERE in the Bible do you think you see that? It is not there.
>
Luke 1. Don't remember the story of Zacharias being struck dumb?
Timothy Griffy
>
> 1. 12 apostles to guide his church. He didn't? Actually he did. Which
> church has them now?
How would the existence of 12 apostles in a church's hierarchy or lack
thereof constitute the truth or falsity of a church?
> 2. A person selected to hold the keys of the kingdom. Actually he did.
> Peter. Which church other than Mormonism claims to hold any keys at all
> (e.g., the sealing power).
Most churches claim some divine authority for what they do, in effect
claiming the keys of the kingdom. How would the claim to have the keys
of the kingdom or lack of such claim establish the truth or falsity of a
church?
> 3. Continuing revelation. Actually, he did. See vision of Paul and
> others, day of pentecost, etc. Which church has continuing revelation.
> Only one. The restored gospel.
Not true. Besides all the other churches derived from Joseph Smith,
there are mainstream Christian churches that claim continuing revelation
from God. Why would continuing revelation or the lack thereof be
meaningful vis a vis the truth of a given church?
--
Timothy A. Griffy
T.A.G...@cox.net
Forgiving the unforgivable is hard. So was the cross: hard words, hard
wood, hard nails -- William S. Stoddard
dennis
Nope, you are wrong.
Nope, it doesn't say any such thing there. It says that John's father
was Zacharias who WAS a levitical priest. It does NOT say that John
the Baptist was Levitical Priest, NOR does it say that becoming such
was "automatic."
We KNOW that in order to BECOME a Levitical Priest you HAD TO GO
THROUGH THE ORDINATION CEREMONY with all the blood & guts. We ALSO
KNOW that priests were REFERRED TO AS _PRIESTS_ in the Bible when they
were such.
NOT ONE WORD in the Bible EVER says that John the Baptist was a
Levitical Priest. Not in Luke 1 OR ANYWHERE ELSE.
And Jesus Himself was of the tribe of JUDAH, and would NOT QUALIFY for
the Aaronic Priesthood (wrong family).
The Bible NEVER says that EVEN ONE of the Apostles or disciples was an
Aaronic Priest. NOT ONE.
in Christ Jesus, (the REAL ONE, not the mormon one),
dennis
dennis
Zacharias, NOT JOHN, his son.
Zacharias was a priest. NOT JOHN, his son.
The Bible NEVER says that John was a Levitical priest. NOT ANYWHERE.
fmhlaw
dennis wrote:
> And Jesus Himself was of the tribe of JUDAH, and would NOT QUALIFY for
> the Aaronic Priesthood (wrong family).
Mary's husband was of the tribe of Judah. But he wasn't Jesus's father, God
was. So what tribe does THAT make Jesus?
!
Like Father like son.
Roy Stogner
>> > > > He was the son of a priest--Zacharias, who must have been a
>> > > > Levite.
>> > > > All Levites held the Levitical or Aaronic priesthood.
>> > >
>> > > EXACTLY WHERE in the Bible do you think you see that? It is not
>> > > there.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > Luke 1. Don't remember the story of Zacharias being struck dumb?
>>
>> Zacharias, NOT JOHN, his son.
>
> Like Father like son.
Apply a little recursion to that rule, and you'll see that everyone alive
must have all the same priesthood offices Adam did.
---
Roy Stogner
jamesanderson
probably technically correct. John was
of the decent of Levi, and as a male descendant had a right to the levitical
Priesthood. However, the Mosaic Law is
quite clear on this point. One MUST be a descendant of Levi. Making nearly
all mormon's claim to the Aaronic
priesthood invalid, as to have a change in the priesthood one of necessity
must have a change in the Law.
"dennis" <dcke...@covenantmail.net> wrote in message
news:9b562a9b.02042...@posting.google.com...
Stephen Smith
> the ORIGINAL VERSION.
>
>
Christianity doesn't come close to the original either.
Regards
Stephen
Stephen Smith
>
> You posted:
>
> > "dennis" <dcke...@covenantmail.net> wrote in message
> > news:9b562a9b.02042...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Total forgiveness of all of our sins.
> > >
> > > Adoption as Sons of God.
> > >
> > >
> > > The Holy Spirit living within us.
> > >
> > > Eternal Life with God.
> > >
> > > Love for God, love for our neighbors.
> > Well DUH, conventional Christianity can only offer those things if it is
> > correct in the assumption that we get Total forgiveness of all our sins
> > simply by accepting Christ.
>
> If the Bible is the Word of God, it is not an assumption; it is a
> FACT.
But what it says, is often assumed and not necesarily correct.
>
> > WRONG WRONG WRONG. I have seen tracts put out
> > by conventional Christianity that claim that all you need to do to be
saved
> > is rattle off this short prayer, that says you accept Christ, and voila.
> > Pigs Arse that's all it takes.
>
> I don't know about your pigs arse, and simply rattling off a prayer is
> NOT what you must do. You must HAVE FAITH. You must RECEIVE JESUS
> CHRIST BY FAITH. Not mouthe some words, but BELIEVE.
>
> Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that
> not of
> yourselves, it is the gift of God;
> 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
>
> I will accept what the Bible says. You I do not know, so your word is
> not something I would hang my hat on.
>
> > Total forgiveness of our sins, only comes to
> > us through total repentance, which is what the LDS church teaches.
>
> SHOW ME Biblical scripture that says so. Total repentance only comes
> with total conviction (BELIEF, FAITH). It is the RESULT of Faith in
> Christ, the RESULT of salvation.
I dont understand your definition of repentance here.
>
> > Gets
> > back to the old "Grace and Works" argument - to which the simple answer
is,
> > if works aren't important, why did the Lord give us commandments?
>
> Let's look at the above passage again, along with the one that FOLOWS
> IT.
>
> Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that
> not of
> yourselves, it is the gift of God;
> 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
> 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good
> works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
>
> CREATED IN CHRIST JESUS (the NEW man, the SAVED man) to do good works.
>
> Not to BECOME saved, but BECAUSE WE ARE saved.
>
> Very UNLIKE you mormons.
>
> > There are
> > other requirements too - the Baptismal ordinance for example. Now
before
> > all you "by Grace alone you are saved" moron's start saying baptism is
> > non-essential, why did Jesus say that "except a man be born of the water
and
> > of the spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of god" - if that's not saying
> > that baptism is essential i dunno what is.
>
> Since you don't KNOW what that is about, let me mention a few things
> of importance:
>
> 1. Baptism didn't EXIST at that time, so the water could not have
> been baptism.
Really now, so what was John doing in the Jordan then? The ancient
forerunner of the modern hydro?
>
> 2. The water a Jew would have thought of would have been Moses
> leading the Jews through the Red Sea. Unless you (a Jew) were born
> physically (a Jew) and are born Spiritually (in Christ), you cannot
> enter the kingdom of God.
I dont see how you get water = jewish.
>
> > Face it - although conventional
> > Christianity has many good points, and does teach people to be better,
it
> > does lack many things due to corruptions and errors in Bible
translations.
>
> Corruptions and errors in Bible translations? We have over 5,300
> copies of New Testament manuscripts from the first two centuries. The
> language is well known. We have Old Testament manuscripts from over
> 450 years before PLUS we have the Septuagint, and Jesus quoted that
> over and over, calling it God's Word.
And tell me,are each and every one of them identical? Do they all agree with
each other?
>
> Exactly WHAT "corruptions and errors?"
>
> And what about the over 4,000 CHANGES in the Book of Mormon, the
> thousands more in the D&C and the PGP?
Lets not start counting all the diferences in thos precious manuscripts of
yours and also all the differences between translations of the bible because
it will then make the number above pale into insignificance.
>
> And what about the fact that NOT ONE PERSON IS A WITNESS to the Book
> of Mormon?
> NOT ONE PERSON EVER translated the book, copied it, or had it
> available to check out what joe smith said that it said.
Correct, there were 11 witnesses.
>
> YOU HAVE ONLY joe smith's WORD as to what the text of the BofM says.
>
> ONLY ONE WITNESS.
Yep, the most important one, the witness of the HG, none other counts.
>
> > Explain to me how there can be so many different Christian sects, all
> > claiming the Bible as their basis? Especially when the bible clearly
states
> > "one word, one faith, one baptism" - ONE, not a bunch. Last time I
checked
> > one meant single, not multiples.
>
> Simple. The same way there can be so many different mormon sects,
> like the RLDS, the Temple Lot LDS, the Fundamentalists, the
> Hutterites, etc. The SLC mormons are a breakoff of what became the
> RLDS; joe smith said that God told him that HIS SON, Joseph Smith III
> would head God's church, but Brigham Young and his bunch had more
> power than Emma Smith's bunch and Young and his group broke off and
> went to Utah.
>
> HOW MANY mormon religions?
>
> Simply put, whenever folks don't like something they leave.
>
> In Christianity we have had over 2,000 years for that to happen. You
> mormons have had 170 years. So it has happened more for us than for
> you. . .more time to do it.
>
> > So which conventional christian church can
> > save me?
>
> None. The Bible never says that ANY church can save you. Only Jesus
> can do that.
Ageed.
>
> > which one is right? they all use the bible. Are the baptists
> > right? are the Presbyterians right? the Catholics? the Anglicans? They
all
> > use the bible, so how can they have differences? Obviously they can't
all
> > be right. If so many sects can use the one book to come up with so many
> > different theologies, doesn't that prove that there is something lacking
in
> > that book? doesn't that prove that errors have crept into the bible. It
is
> > indeed impossible to prove the truthfulness of any one religion by
reason
> > and logic, - that truth can only be established by the witness of the
holy
> > ghost.
>
> Jesus did not found a religious organization or a single heirarchy.
Oh, so he didnt organise a group of apostles? And they didnt establish
churches all over the show? I see.
>
> He did not put a seer, rock-peeker, or prophet at the head of His
> church.
No, why usea method of operation in place for 4000 years still, obviously
doesnt work.
>
> "Church" is not a religious organization or a building; it is PEOPLE
> gathered for a purpose.
>
> The Greek word we translate "church" is ekklesia, and it simply means
> a gathering of people called together for some purpose. Look it up in
> any Greek lexicon.
Now I am really confused, was there a church set up or not?
>
> Christ's church is made up of ALL CHRISTIANS, whether they worship
> with Anglicans, Presbyterians, Baptists, or on mountain tops with
> sheep.
But not Mormons?
>
> > But it is not hard to prove that conventional christianity does not
> > hold the truth of the gospel, by using their own arguments as to why the
LDS
> > church is flawed.
>
> It depends upon who you include in your argument as "conventional"
> Christianity.
>
> The God of the Bible is the One Who decides who meets HIS requirements
> for being Christian. Not any religious organization.
Accepted
>
> And the LDS does NOT match the requirements that the God of the Bible
> set forth.
Oh, so now you're God and decide that we dont qualify. I see.
>
> The LDS set up their own standards, and those standards are NOT God's
> standards.
Seems to me you do the same.
>
> > Lets take another argument, that there was no apostacy as LDS teaches.
>
> The Bible teaches that Jesus' Church will NEVER fail, never has, never
> can.
> There have been (and are) apostasies, but the church Jesus built NEVER
> falls.
If something is apostatised and therefore changed, actually, dead and gone,
how can it still continue? For example, the early Christians believed in the
necesity of baptism, now christianity says that all you need to do is
believe, you dont need baptism, is this the same church, the same belief,
the same doctrine, the same anything as was then? You dont make sense.
> It can't; it has the Power of God to keep it going.
Really, even God doesnt use his power to force you to choose something, so
unless he forced people not to change anything, it didnt stay "going". What
remained "going" was something limping along, maintaining some semblence of
the original glorious thing.
>
> > Well
> > by using this reasoning, then the Catholic church can be the only true
> > church - none of the protestant churches can be true, because by arguing
> > that there was no falling away, that the church established by Christ
has
> > never failed, then you are instantly arguing that the church established
by
> > Christ must be the Catholic church, as it can trace an unbroken link of
> > authority back to Peter.
>
> If you want to believe the rewritten "history" by the RCC as truth you
> may. Christianity does not. There is no "pope" in the Bible, no
> mariology, no celibate priests, etc. in the Bible.
>
> And the Roman church NEVER ruled all of the Christian world.
>
> No, the RCC is NOT the "true church." At one time it was INCLUDED IN
> Christ's church, but mostly it is no longer.
Okay, so where is the continuity from the time of Christ till now?
>
> > Interesting that there are only 2 churches that
> > can even attempt to claim an unbroken link of priesthood authority to
> > Christ - the Catholic church and the LDS Church.
>
> There are several others including the Coptics, the Eastern and
> Russian Orthodox churches and MANY others. You simply don't know what
> you are talking about here.
>
> > One thing I find ironic... conventional Christianity does have
sufficient
> > redeeming power to save it's adherents to what they perceive as Heaven.
>
> Conventional Christianity? No, Jesus does.
>
> > When you look at the 3 degrees of glory and the entry requirements for
each,
> > and the blessings in each, conventional Heaven matches the Terrestrial
just
> > nicely.
>
> Too bad joey smith didn't know the difference between nouns and
> adjectives in the Greek and English. If he had, he would have known
> that the "glories" of which he made religious doctrine had nothing to
> do with PLACES, but were the QUALITIES of the sun, moon, and stars.
> If the King James Bible has said, "the SHINENESS of" those things,
> would you be planning to go to the "shinyness" places? Hahahahaaaaa.
> Poor joey smith!
>
> <snipped the mormon doctrine that didn't apply to anything at all>
>
> > Really, if you read between the lines, conventional Christianity and LDS
> > doctrines do marry up quite well. They are not mutually exclusive. The
> > difference really, is that LDS has more information and a clearer view
of
> > those doctrines - simply because we accept the fact that the Lord is
> > prepared to speak to more of his servants than just a relatively small
> > number of Jews living 1900+ years ago.
>
> Now He is limited to speaking to a feeble old man in SLC once in a
> while (when WAS the last entry to the D&C?)?????
No, he speak to thousnads of people daily through the HG, even to you if you
listen carefully.
>
> And now you think God has changed His mind about what He gave us in
> the Bible?
>
> I don't think so.
I dont think so either, how is he supposed to have changed his mind?
>
> The mormon religion does copy some of Christianity, so they are NOT
> mutually exclusive.
>
> But the mormon religion teaches that there are many gods and you can
> become one.
What we teach you do not understand.
>
> That in itself separates it from Christianity which says there is only
> 1 God anywhere.
True enough.
Rgds
Stephen
BigSlurrp
"jamesanderson" <jamesa...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:i3kz8.21643$Oq2.2...@news1.west.cox.net...
> I would just point out that either way you want to put it. The mormon's
are
> probably technically correct. John was
> of the decent of Levi, and as a male descendant had a right to the
levitical
> Priesthood. However, the Mosaic Law is
> quite clear on this point. One MUST be a descendant of Levi. Making nearly
> all mormon's claim to the Aaronic
> priesthood invalid, as to have a change in the priesthood one of necessity
> must have a change in the Law.
>
FYI, the Mosaic Law was fulfilled and done away with by Christ when he came
into the world. It is no longer valid. Someone tell the Jews.
dennis
You posted:
EXACTLY HOW does it differ? Give me some fer'instances, if you can?
We worship the same God.
We follow the same teachings (they are recorded in the Bible, and you
can compare also to the first century writings of the church leaders).
We have the same foundation (the prophets and Apostles)
We follow the same Christ; HE is our cornerstone.
But we don't build temples (neither did the church Jesus began)
We don't try to become gods of our own little worlds; they didn't
either.
We don't baptize for the dead. Christians never did.
We don't marry for eternity. Christians never did.
We don't depend upon a little old man in SLC to tell us how to tie our
shoes or part our hair. The Bible holds all the answers to life's
needs; we do't NEED his pathetic input.
In other words, we ARE part of the original.
It is joe smith and HIS new inventions that are the "new kids on the
block."
in Christ Jesus (the REAL ONE, not the mormon one),
dennis
dennis
It DOESN'T make Him "of the seed of Aaron."
And THAT was the requirement.
No matter how you cut it, he would not have qualified.
dennis
BigSlurrp
>
> In other words, we ARE part of the original.
>
Dennis,
You are even less a part of the original than the Orthodox and Catholic
churches are. You can rant and rave all you want and it won't change a
thing. You are sucking the hind tit of a bull and think you are feasting on
milk. We have answered your silly little claims over and over again. To
state them again would be a waste of bandwidth. But since you insist here
you go.
You worship the god of the Nicene creed. A god which by your own admission
is incomprehensible. That is not the God of the bible. I dare you to show
me the god of this abominable doctrine in the bible. Prove it.
You claim to have a foundation of apostle and prophets? Ones that are dead
and no longer receive revelation? Christ set up his church to be led by
living apostles and prophets to receive REVELATION to lead the church with.
Where are your apostles and prophets?
Christ is your cornerstone to what? The cornerstone is related to the other
foundation of his church. Christ is alive and living, he is not dead. He
speaks to HIS CHURCH as he always has, through his apostles and prophets.
Prove otherwise.
Then there is the subject of temples. Houses of the Lord. You are an
absolute idiot if you believe God has never and will never command his
people to build a temple. When God wanted to speak to his servants and
there was not a temple to be found, he commanded them to get up into a high
mountain. Did God tell his church in the meridian of time to build temples?
I haven't read where he did. What does that mean? It means he didn't tell
them to build one then. Period. Times change. Prove to me that building a
temple is an abomination.
Are we trying to become Gods of our own little worlds? We are trying to
become joint heirs with Christ to receive all that our Father has.
(Romans 8:16-17.) 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that
we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God,
and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may
be also glorified together.
(Revelation 1:5-6.) 5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness,
and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the
earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be
glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen
Marriage for eternity. Hmmm.
(Genesis 2:25.) 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were
not ashamed.
Here we see that Adam had a wife. Yes they were married..before they
partook of the fruit and before they became fallen.before death entered the
world. Do you think that God said "till death do you part?" when HE married
them. What God hath joined let no man set asunder. Prove to me that God
said, till death do us part.
Baptisms for the dead. Now this one really baffles me. I know this
scripture is in the bible that you read.
(1 Corinthians 15:29.) 29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the
dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
So you claim that from reading this that no one was practices baptisms for
the dead? What are the people going to do which are baptized for the dead,
if the dead rise not at all? Why are they doing it? Have another drink
man. If this is not plain to you, god help you. Prove your point.
As far as your slurs against Smith and Hinkley, whatever. Each to his own.
Get a life.
BigSlurrp
> No matter how you cut it, he would not have qualified.
>
> dennis
You know this is absolutely the most stupid line of thought I have ever seen
you utter Dennis. Just what do you think that the Priesthood is and where
do you think that it came from? God stupid. Is Jesus God? He doesn't
qualify for his own Priesthood?
dennis
You posted:
> I would just point out that either way you want to put it. The mormon's are
> probably technically correct. John was
> of the decent of Levi, and as a male descendant had a right to the levitical
> Priesthood.
He had the right as long as he was not disqualified in other ways,
i.e. castrated, blind, one limb shorter than another, unclean, etc.
But NO PASSAGE IN THE BIBLE EVER SAYS that becoming a priest was
automatic, or that EVERY LEVITE BECAME ONE.
And John is NEVER called a levitical priest. His dad was, but he was
not.
If you, like the mormon religion want to ASSUME he was, you are
ASSUMING something not in evidence anywhere in scripture.
> However, the Mosaic Law is
> quite clear on this point. One MUST be a descendant of Levi. Making nearly
> all mormon's claim to the Aaronic
> priesthood invalid, as to have a change in the priesthood one of necessity
> must have a change in the Law.
And Jesus WAS NOT through that lineage no matter HOW YOU CUT IT.
So the mormon claim is invalid.
I agree.
in Christ Jesus (the REAL ONE, not the mormon one),
dennis
dennis
Nice trite saying, but not true.
And CERTAINLY not Biblical.
But a nice trite saying.
!
Since John was the forerunner to Jesus, one ought to expect many parallels
in their lives, including their close relationships with their respective
fathers, both in terms of relationship and in behavior.
Stephen Smith
> HIS DISCIPLES _EVER_ BUILT A TEMPLE. The Temple of God is now our
> BODIES.
>
So why bother if it is not necessary?
Rgds
Stephen
dennis
You posted:
It still isn't necessary. And it was not a _Christian_ temple, it was
a JEWISH Temple, and it was STILL BEING USED BY THE JEWS FOR offering
sin offerings, etc.
They went there to TEACH the Jews about Jesus, not to do "temple duty"
as the mormons do. Completely DIFFERENT temple from the mormon
temples, completely DIFFERENT reason for going.
That answer your question?
in Christ Jesus,
dennis
BigSlurrp
> It still isn't necessary. And it was not a _Christian_ temple, it was
> a JEWISH Temple, and it was STILL BEING USED BY THE JEWS FOR offering
> sin offerings, etc.
>
Dennis, Dennis, Dennis,
Don't you understand anything? Obviously you do not understand the law of
Moses and what it was all about. The law of Moses was a strict set of rules
and obediences that had one purpose.....looking forward to the meridian of
time when the Messiah (that is the Christ) would come and effectuate the
atonement and FULFILL the law. There is only ONE gospel that has ever been
preached on the earth. It is the plan of SALVATION, that Jesus Christ came
into the world to suffer, bleed and die for us. Everthing before the time
of Christ taught that it would happen and all sacrifices performed by the
shedding of blood (before Christ's atonement) were in similitude of his
sacrifice. They were done in the House of the Lord (the Temple) as
commanded under the Law of Moses. Let me spell it out for you. LORD =
CHRIST . tHE HOUSE OF THE LORD IS THE HOUSE OF CHRIST.
> They went there to TEACH the Jews about Jesus, not to do "temple duty"
> as the mormons do. Completely DIFFERENT temple from the mormon
> temples, completely DIFFERENT reason for going.
>
It is true that Herod and Solomon's temple was not set up as temples are
today. That is because they were set up for ordinances pertaining to the
Law of Moses. As previously noted the Law of Moses was fulfilled, EVERY
WHIT, by Jesus Christ. Christ then gave us the new and higher law.
So for once I admit, you made a true statement. There is a difference for
going.
dennis
> >
> > In other words, we ARE part of the original.
> >
> snip
>
> Dennis,
> You are even less a part of the original than the Orthodox and Catholic
> churches are. You can rant and rave all you want and it won't change a
> thing. You are sucking the hind tit of a bull and think you are feasting on
> milk. We have answered your silly little claims over and over again. To
> state them again would be a waste of bandwidth. But since you insist here
> you go.
Name calling, putdowns for putdown sake, and trash talk do NOT enhance
your arguments at all. Surely you can do better than that, can't you?
>
> You worship the god of the Nicene creed. A god which by your own admission
> is incomprehensible. That is not the God of the bible. I dare you to show
> me the god of this abominable doctrine in the bible. Prove it.
First off, I have NEVER SAID ONE WORD about the Nicene Creed, and your
claim is not only ridiculous, but it is baseless.
I worship the God of the Bible. I have NEVER said He is
"incomprehensible." Not once!
So don't lie about me. Lying about what I believe and say doesn't
enhance your argument either. It just shows me you lack of SUBSTANCE
and lack of integrity when you do so.
>
> You claim to have a foundation of apostle and prophets? Ones that are dead
> and no longer receive revelation?
The Bible NEVER SAYS that the Apostles and prophets would continue
forever. NO builder ever builds a foundation that goes on and on and
on, clear up to the 2,000 story!
God has GIVEN us revelation. All that is required for our lives. It
is in the Bible.
YOUR "revelator" has not added to YOUR religious book (PGP) for HOW
LONG NOW???
> Christ set up his church to be led by
> living apostles and prophets to receive REVELATION to lead the church with.
Jesus set up His church to be led by GOD'S WORD and the HOLY SPIRIT,
as FOUNDED by the prophets and Apostles.
He gave us the Faith ONCE FOR ALL (SEE JUDE 3).
Jude 3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our
common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that
you contend earnestly for the faith which was ONCE FOR ALL handed
down to the saints.
> Where are your apostles and prophets?
Where they are supposed to be, with Jesus (the Cornerstone) IN HEAVEN.
IN THE BIBLE.
>
> Christ is your cornerstone to what? The cornerstone is related to the other
> foundation of his church. Christ is alive and living, he is not dead. He
> speaks to HIS CHURCH as he always has, through his apostles and prophets.
> Prove otherwise.
So are our prophets and prophets. And HE SPEAKS TO HIS CHURCH AS HE
HAS EVER SINCE HE FOUNDED IT, THROUGH _SCRIPTURE_ and THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Hebrews 1:1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the
prophets in many portions and in many ways,
2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He
appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
WHEN did God speak to the fathers in the prophets? LONG AGO (VS 1)
Does He do so now?
NO. CONTRASTING SENTENCE.
HOW DOES GOD SPEAK TO US NOW? IN HIS SON (VS 2).
Your theory sinks into a hole.
John 14: 16 "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another
Helper, that
He may be with you forever;
17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive,
because
it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He
abides with you and will be in you.
John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send
in My
name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all
that I said to you.
John 15:26 "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the
Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He
will
testify about Me,
27 and you will testify also, because you have been with Me from the
beginning.
Sorry you don't have such superior guidance as we do and that you must
rely on senile old men in SLC.
>
> Then there is the subject of temples. Houses of the Lord. You are an
> absolute idiot if you believe God has never and will never command his
> people to build a temple.
SHOW ME ONE VERSE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT WHERE JESUS' FOLLOWERS _EVER_
built a temple! You CANNOT.
HIS TEMPLE IS _NOT_ BUILT BY HANDS.
Acts 17: 24 "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He
is Lord
of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;
25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed
anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all
things;
OUR BODIES ARE HIS TEMPLE NOW
1 Corinthians 6: 18 Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man
commits is outside
the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body.
19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit
who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your
own?
20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in
your body.
If you think we are idiots because we believe what GOD HAS SAID, you
are welcome to do so. It reflects your thinking though.
> When God wanted to speak to his servants and
> there was not a temple to be found, he commanded them to get up into a high
> mountain.
He didn't speak down at the river when Jesus was baptized?
Or through David out in the desert?
Or any of a HUNDRED other places where there were no temples or
mountains?
Hahahahaaaaaaaa!
> Did God tell his church in the meridian of time to build temples?
> I haven't read where he did. What does that mean? It means he didn't tell
> them to build one then. Period. Times change. Prove to me that building a
> temple is an abomination.
I didn't say it was an abomination. I just said it was not of God,
not part of Jesus Christ's church.
Farting is not an abomination. But it is not something to consider
part of Jesus Christ's church. It is just something you do.
>
> Are we trying to become Gods of our own little worlds? We are trying to
> become joint heirs with Christ to receive all that our Father has.
Better read section 129 of your d&c to find out.
The Bible does NOT say you will be Gods.
YOUR religion does though.
YOUR religion lies.
>
>
> (Romans 8:16-17.) 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that
> we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God,
> and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may
> be also glorified together.
Being glorified does not mean becoming gods.
Being heirs (inhereting things that BELONG TO God) does not make us
gods either.
>
> (Revelation 1:5-6.) 5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness,
> and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the
> earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
> 6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be
> glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen
Kings & priests in heaven? No problem. Gods? Problem. Makes God a
liar if you could become one.
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.
>
> Marriage for eternity. Hmmm.
>
> (Genesis 2:25.) 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were
> not ashamed.
Yep, they were.
>
> Here we see that Adam had a wife. Yes they were married..before they
> partook of the fruit and before they became fallen.before death entered the
> world. Do you think that God said "till death do you part?" when HE married
> them. What God hath joined let no man set asunder. Prove to me that God
> said, till death do us part.
Okay:
Romans 7:1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to
those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person
as long as he lives?
2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is
living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law
concerning the husband.
3 So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another
man,
she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is
free
from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to
another man.
Matthew 22: 25 "Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first
married
and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother;
26 so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh.
27 "Last of all, the woman died.
28 "In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she
be? For they all had married her."
29 But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not
understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.
30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in
marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
NOT ONE SINGLE MARRIAGE IN HEAVEN. NOT ONE SINGLE MARRIED ANGEL. NOT
ONE SINGLE MARRIED HUMAN.
>
> Baptisms for the dead. Now this one really baffles me. I know this
> scripture is in the bible that you read.
>
> (1 Corinthians 15:29.) 29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the
> dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
>
> So you claim that from reading this that no one was practices baptisms for
> the dead? What are the people going to do which are baptized for the dead,
> if the dead rise not at all? Why are they doing it? Have another drink
> man. If this is not plain to you, god help you. Prove your point.
EASILY DONE. LOOK AT THE _PERSONAL_PRONOUNS_ Paul uses here. THEY.
THEM. NOT ONE SINGLE "We," or "Us."
Paul was talking about the UNBELIEVING (THEY DIDN"T BELIEVE IN THE
RESURRECTION OF JESUS OR ANYONE ELSE) Jews, not of Christians.
Case made clearly.
>
> As far as your slurs against Smith and Hinkley, whatever. Each to his own.
> Get a life.
I have a very fine life, thank you. Smith, hinkley, and the rest had
better enjoy their lives now though; when they die they will have to
face God. They had better invest in some good fireproof clothing!
dennis
BigSlurrp
> >
> > You worship the god of the Nicene creed. A god which by your own
admission
> > is incomprehensible. That is not the God of the bible. I dare you to
show
> > me the god of this abominable doctrine in the bible. Prove it.
>
> First off, I have NEVER SAID ONE WORD about the Nicene Creed, and your
> claim is not only ridiculous, but it is baseless.
>
Where do you think that the abominable doctrine of the trinity came from?
> I worship the God of the Bible. I have NEVER said He is
> "incomprehensible." Not once!
>
> So don't lie about me. Lying about what I believe and say doesn't
> enhance your argument either. It just shows me you lack of SUBSTANCE
> and lack of integrity when you do so.
> >
You have no comprehension about the nature of the Father, the Son and the
Holy Ghost
> > You claim to have a foundation of apostle and prophets? Ones that are
dead
> > and no longer receive revelation?
>
> The Bible NEVER SAYS that the Apostles and prophets would continue
> forever. NO builder ever builds a foundation that goes on and on and
> on, clear up to the 2,000 story!
>
No shit Sherlock. That is what is called the apostacy.
> God has GIVEN us revelation. All that is required for our lives. It
> is in the Bible.
>
Oh please. Give me a break.
> YOUR "revelator" has not added to YOUR religious book (PGP) for HOW
> LONG NOW???
>
Every revelation ever received was not added to the cannon of scripture.
Lame.
> > Christ set up his church to be led by
> > living apostles and prophets to receive REVELATION to lead the church
with.
> Jesus set up His church to be led by GOD'S WORD and the HOLY SPIRIT,
> as FOUNDED by the prophets and Apostles.
> He gave us the Faith ONCE FOR ALL (SEE JUDE 3).
> Jude 3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our
> common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that
> you contend earnestly for the faith which was ONCE FOR ALL handed
> down to the saints.
>
That is a great excuse for not have a foundation of living prophets and
apostle but it doesn't work. You just can't get over the fact that Christ
set up his church one way and one way only. Apostles and prophets.
> > Where are your apostles and prophets?
>
> Where they are supposed to be, with Jesus (the Cornerstone) IN HEAVEN.
> IN THE BIBLE.
So they left us to fend for ourselves huh? Looks like it worked. You have
strayed so far from the truth you wouldn't know it if it hit you in the
face.
> > Christ is your cornerstone to what? The cornerstone is related to the
other
> > foundation of his church. Christ is alive and living, he is not dead.
He
> > speaks to HIS CHURCH as he always has, through his apostles and
prophets.
> > Prove otherwise.
>
> So are our prophets and prophets. And HE SPEAKS TO HIS CHURCH AS HE
> HAS EVER SINCE HE FOUNDED IT, THROUGH _SCRIPTURE_ and THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Oh my gosh, you contradict yourself. Our prophets and apostles are alive,
but He speaks like he ever has through scripture and the Holy Spirit. It is
true that the scriptures and the Holy Spirit talk to us, but the church is
and was set up with living apostles and prophets to lead. Always has,
always will. Get over it.
>
> Hebrews 1:1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the
> prophets in many portions and in many ways,
> 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He
> appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
>
> WHEN did God speak to the fathers in the prophets? LONG AGO (VS 1)
>
> Does He do so now?
>
> NO. CONTRASTING SENTENCE.
>
> HOW DOES GOD SPEAK TO US NOW? IN HIS SON (VS 2).
>
> Your theory sinks into a hole.
>
My theory stinks? When Christ was not on the earth, he spoke to his
prophets. When he was here, he spoke himself. When he was gone again you
want me to believe that he quit talking to us? Yeah Right! He continues to
speak to the prophets in many portions and in many ways.
snip
>
> Sorry you don't have such superior guidance as we do and that you must
> rely on senile old men in SLC.
> >
Once again you have no idea what you are talking about. Your ignorance and
christian zeal speaks for itself.
> > Then there is the subject of temples. Houses of the Lord. You are an
> > absolute idiot if you believe God has never and will never command his
> > people to build a temple.
>
> SHOW ME ONE VERSE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT WHERE JESUS' FOLLOWERS _EVER_
> built a temple! You CANNOT.
>
I never said that it did.
> HIS TEMPLE IS _NOT_ BUILT BY HANDS.
>
> Acts 17: 24 "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He
> is Lord
> of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;
> 25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed
> anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all
> things;
>
> OUR BODIES ARE HIS TEMPLE NOW
No stupid. It says that our body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in
you. Not that our bodies are HIS temple to perform ordinances in.
>
> 1 Corinthians 6: 18 Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man
> commits is outside
> the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body.
> 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit
> who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your
> own?
> 20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in
> your body.
>
> If you think we are idiots because we believe what GOD HAS SAID, you
> are welcome to do so. It reflects your thinking though.
>
>
> > When God wanted to speak to his servants and
> > there was not a temple to be found, he commanded them to get up into a
high
> > mountain.
>
> He didn't speak down at the river when Jesus was baptized?
> Or through David out in the desert?
>
> Or any of a HUNDRED other places where there were no temples or
> mountains?
>
Of course he talked there. You entirely missed the point.
> Hahahahaaaaaaaa!
>
> > Did God tell his church in the meridian of time to build temples?
> > I haven't read where he did. What does that mean? It means he didn't
tell
> > them to build one then. Period. Times change. Prove to me that
building a
> > temple is an abomination.
>
> I didn't say it was an abomination. I just said it was not of God,
> not part of Jesus Christ's church.
>
Oh, so the Jews were not God's people and they built a temple to perform
ordinances to the devil? That would be your typical response to anything
that can't sink into your brick head. It must be of the devil.
James you don't understand squat about God, his religion and it's history
during this earth's life. Do you think it all started when Christ came?
Holy crap man! Get a grip!
> Farting is not an abomination. But it is not something to consider
> part of Jesus Christ's church. It is just something you do.
> >
Kind of like calling things that you don't comprehend evil.
> > Are we trying to become Gods of our own little worlds? We are trying to
> > become joint heirs with Christ to receive all that our Father has.
>
> Better read section 129 of your d&c to find out.
> The Bible does NOT say you will be Gods.
> YOUR religion does though.
> YOUR religion lies.
> >
Oh boy. So now you are going to start preaching to me about what my
religion is? I know exactly what my religion is.
Just what does your little pea size brain think that becomeing joint heirs
with Christ is? I know that Christ is going to receive all that his Father
and my Father have to give him. If I can become a joint heir with Christ
and receive all that he has, then I am going to receive all that the Father
has to give me. What do you think we are going to receive? We are going to
receive exaltation and eternal life idiot! DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS?
EXALTATION AND ETERNAL LIFE. Through the grace of Christ we can become
perfect like our Father in Heaven is perfect. When we become perfect, we
will become as he is. An exalted glorified being. Another work for that is
a GOD, not the god but a god, like our Father.
You will be left sucking hind tit like you are now. You must like your
station in life. Me, I'm goin for it.
> >
> > (Romans 8:16-17.) 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit,
that
> > we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of
God,
> > and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we
may
> > be also glorified together.
>
> Being glorified does not mean becoming gods.
> Being heirs (inhereting things that BELONG TO God) does not make us
> gods either.
> >
Nice analogy, wrong answer.
> > (Revelation 1:5-6.) 5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful
witness,
> > and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the
> > earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own
blood,
> > 6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be
> > glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen
>
> Kings & priests in heaven? No problem. Gods? Problem. Makes God a
> liar if you could become one.
> 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.
> >
That is a great scripture and once again you have come to the wrong
conclusion. Figures.
That is why we must do it here on this earth by the authority of God. And
that scripture from Romans? You telling me that the law of the land
supercedes the law of god? God gave Peter the Priesthood and the power
to...now listen really carefully...bind on earth and bind in heaven. That
means, marriage for time and eternity under the priesthood of God lasts
forever. FOREVER. Do you understand what that means?
> > Baptisms for the dead. Now this one really baffles me. I know this
> > scripture is in the bible that you read.
> >
> > (1 Corinthians 15:29.) 29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for
the
> > dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the
dead?
> >
> > So you claim that from reading this that no one was practices baptisms
for
> > the dead? What are the people going to do which are baptized for the
dead,
> > if the dead rise not at all? Why are they doing it? Have another drink
> > man. If this is not plain to you, god help you. Prove your point.
>
> EASILY DONE. LOOK AT THE _PERSONAL_PRONOUNS_ Paul uses here. THEY.
> THEM. NOT ONE SINGLE "We," or "Us."
>
> Paul was talking about the UNBELIEVING (THEY DIDN"T BELIEVE IN THE
> RESURRECTION OF JESUS OR ANYONE ELSE) Jews, not of Christians.
>
> Case made clearly.
> >
Clear as mud. You don't get it and you never will.
> > As far as your slurs against Smith and Hinkley, whatever. Each to his
own.
> > Get a life.
>
>
> I have a very fine life, thank you. Smith, hinkley, and the rest had
> better enjoy their lives now though; when they die they will have to
> face God. They had better invest in some good fireproof clothing!
>
> dennis
Dennis,
I wish you a good life. I know that you will not believe anything that I
tell you so I will bid you adieu. Let me close by saying that there is more
out there than what you have. You can say whatever you want and call
everything evil but it will not change a thing. It is true that we will all
meet God face to face at the judgement bar. What are you going to say, "I
spent a lot of time on arm bashing the mormons?" Let me in please? I'm
here because I am mormon, you are here because you want to spread hate. Do
us all a favor and go join the anit-abortion militants. Same difference.
Jeff Shirton
news:aasef1$lh5$1...@news.xmission.com...
> Where do you think that the abominable doctrine of the trinity came from?
First of all, the Trinity is not "abominable",
and second of all, it came from the *BIBLE*.
The beliefs which encompass and describe the Trinity are (with one
exception)
also accepted and believed by LDS, namely that the Father, Jesus, and the
Holy
Spirit are all God, and that the three are distinct from each other.
The only difference is that the Trinity includes the belief that there
exists only
*one* God, and therefore the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God, not
three.
Deu 4:35 All this you were allowed to see that you
might know the LORD is God and there is no other.
2Sa 22:32 "For who is God except the LORD?
Who is a rock save our God?
2Ki 19:15 he prayed in the LORD'S presence: "O LORD,
God of Israel, enthroned upon the cherubim!
You alone are God over all the kingdoms of
the earth. You have made the heavens and
the earth.
2Ki 19:19 Therefore, O LORD, our God, save us from
the power of this man, that all the kingdoms
of the earth may know that you alone,
O LORD, are God."
Psa 18:31 Truly, who is God except the LORD?
Who but our God is the rock?
Psa 86:10 For you are great and do wondrous deeds;
and you alone are God.
Isa 37:16 "O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, enthroned
upon the cherubim! You alone are God over
all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made
the heavens and the earth.
Isa 37:20 Therefore, O LORD, our God, save us from
his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth
may know that you, O LORD, alone are God."
Isa 44:6 Thus says the LORD, Israel's King and redeemer,
the LORD of hosts: I am the first and I am
the last; there is no God but me.
Isa 44:8 Fear not, be not troubled: did I not announce
and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses!
Is there a God or any Rock besides me?
Isa 45:5 I am the LORD and there is no other, there
is no God besides me. It is I who arm you,
though you know me not,
Isa 45:21 Come here and declare in counsel together:
Who announced this from the beginning and
foretold it from of old? Was it not I, the
LORD, besides whom there is no other God?
There is no just and saving God but me.
Isa 45:22 Turn to me and be safe, all you ends of
the earth, for I am God; there is no other!
Isa 46:9 I am God, there is no other; I am God,
there is none like me.
Joh 17:3 Now this is eternal life, that they should
know you, the only true God, and the one
whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God. There is also one mediator
between God and the human race, Christ Jesus,
himself human,
> You have no comprehension about the nature of the Father, the Son and the
> Holy Ghost
Just because he disagrees with *your* beliefs doesn't mean that he has
"no comprehension". His perspective is likewise that *you* have "no
comprehension". Of course, it serves no constructive purpose for
either of you to simply make that hollow claim.
> > Hebrews 1:1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the
> > prophets in many portions and in many ways,
> > 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He
> > appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
> >
> > WHEN did God speak to the fathers in the prophets? LONG AGO (VS 1)
> >
> > Does He do so now?
> >
> > NO. CONTRASTING SENTENCE.
> >
> > HOW DOES GOD SPEAK TO US NOW? IN HIS SON (VS 2).
> >
> > Your theory sinks into a hole.
>
> My theory stinks? When Christ was not on the earth, he spoke to his
> prophets. When he was here, he spoke himself. When he was gone again you
> want me to believe that he quit talking to us? Yeah Right! He continues
to
> speak to the prophets in many portions and in many ways.
Hebrews was written *after* the death of Christ, so according to *your*
theory,
it should have said, "and know we're back to the prophets". Of course, it
doesn't say that, does it?
Do you know what happened during Christ's crucifixion?
"The veil was rent".
The curtain in the temple which separated everyone (except the high priest)
from
God was removed. The barrier between God and man has been removed.
Before, man could only speak to God through the mediator of priests, and God
only spoke to man through the mediator of prophets.
Between the renting of the veil at the crucifixion, and the gift of the Holy
Spirit
from the time of Pentacost (fulfilling Moses' prophecy in Num. 11:29), God
has made every believer a prophet and a member of the "royal priesthood"
(1 Pet. 2:5,9 Rev. 1:6)
Dennis is *right*.
We already have an original "cornerstone", and an original "foundation",
the original OT prophets don't need to be "replaced", nor do Christ's
apostles need to be "replaced".
The LDS method of having new "apostles and prophet" every generation is
akin to building a new "foundation" by adding a basement every time you
build a new floor in a 100-story buliding.
> Once again you have no idea what you are talking about. Your ignorance
and
> christian zeal speaks for itself.
Do you realize how petty your name-calling sounds?
Disagreement over your doctrines because their unBiblical is not the
same as "ignorance" of them.
> > OUR BODIES ARE HIS TEMPLE NOW
>
> No stupid.
Let's see..
You call Dennis "stupid";
You call his brain, "pea sized";
You call him "ignorant".
Should I guess whether you've read Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends
and Influence People"?
For that matter, should I guess whether you've read the following?:
Col 4:6 Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt,
so that you know how you should respond to each one.
1Pe 3:15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts. Always
be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks
you for a reason for your hope,
1Pe 3:16 but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your
conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those
who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put
to shame.
Mat 5:22 But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother
will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother,
'Raqa,' will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says,
'You fool,' will be liable to fiery Gehenna.
> It says that our body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in
> you. Not that our bodies are HIS temple to perform ordinances in.
Who says we're supposed to do "ordinances"?!
Joh 4:20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain; but you
people say that the place to worship is in Jerusalem."
Joh 4:21 Jesus said to her, "Believe me, woman, the hour is coming
when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor
in Jerusalem.
Joh 4:22 You people worship what you do not understand;
we worship what we understand, because salvation is from the
Jews.
Joh 4:23 But the hour is coming, and is now here, when true worshipers
will worship the Father in Spirit and truth; and indeed the
Father
seeks such people to worship him.
Joh 4:24 God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and
truth."
Heb 8:3 Now every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices;
thus the necessity for this one also to have something to offer.
Heb 8:4 If then he were on earth, he would not be a priest, since there
are those who offer gifts according to the law.
Heb 8:5 They worship in a copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary,
as Moses was warned when he was about to erect the tabernacle.
For he says, "See that you make everything according to the
pattern
shown you on the mountain."
Heb 8:6 Now he has obtained so much more excellent a ministry as he is
mediator of a better covenant, enacted on better promises.
> > I didn't say it was an abomination. I just said it was not of God,
> > not part of Jesus Christ's church.
>
> Oh, so the Jews were not God's people
No, they simply missed the point.
As do LDS.
> Just what does your little pea size brain think that becomeing joint heirs
> with Christ is?
Inheriting what He has, not becoming what He *is*.
If I inherit from my mother, I don't become female.
And if we inherit from God, we don't become "gods".
> It is true that we will all meet God face to face at the judgement bar.
> What are you going to say, "I spent a lot of time on arm bashing
> the mormons?" Let me in please?
Nope, he'll say, "I shared your truth to the Mormons, and I shared your
greatness and the reason to praise You and You alone."
> I'm here because I am mormon, you are here because you want to spread
hate.
You probably think that when you were a child and your parents grounded you,
it was because they "hated" you. You don't seem to be able to see the
difference
between "hate" and tough love.
If critics "hated" you, we'd simply go on our way and leave you to your
beliefs,
and to your eternal destiny.
--
Jeff Shirton
jshirton at cogeco dot ca
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
He didn't sound like a baseball player... He said things like,
"Nevertheless", and "if, in fact." - Dan Quisenberry on Ted Simmons
cswaters-...@newsguy.com
"fmhlaw" <fmh...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3CCD7FAE...@attbi.com...
You get tribalness from your mother which makes Christ a Levite.
--
Adieu,
Charles - (remove -no-spam-number to reply)
"A computer is like an Old Testament god, with a lot of rules and no
mercy." --Joseph Campbell
BigSlurrp
> First of all, the Trinity is not "abominable",
> and second of all, it came from the *BIBLE*.
>
The closes thing to your trinity in the bible is Peter, James and John
> The beliefs which encompass and describe the Trinity are (with one
> exception)
> also accepted and believed by LDS, namely that the Father, Jesus, and the
> Holy
> Spirit are all God, and that the three are distinct from each other.
>
> The only difference is that the Trinity includes the belief that there
> exists only
> *one* God, and therefore the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God, not
> three.
ZZZZZ....weve been down this road before. We beleive they are one god.
>
snip all your bible quotes.>
> > You have no comprehension about the nature of the Father, the Son and
the
> > Holy Ghost
>
Still stands.
snip
>
> Do you know what happened during Christ's crucifixion?
> "The veil was rent".
Yes this is in the bible.
> The curtain in the temple which separated everyone (except the high
priest)
> from
> God was removed. The barrier between God and man has been removed.
>
> Before, man could only speak to God through the mediator of priests, and
God
> only spoke to man through the mediator of prophets.
>
> Between the renting of the veil at the crucifixion, and the gift of the
Holy
> Spirit
> from the time of Pentacost (fulfilling Moses' prophecy in Num. 11:29), God
> has made every believer a prophet and a member of the "royal priesthood"
> (1 Pet. 2:5,9 Rev. 1:6)
>
This is typical born again we don't have the proper ordinations and
apostolic succession so we are going to say that just because we 'believe'
we are going to be priesthood holders and prophets. What a load of crap.
> Dennis is *right*.
> We already have an original "cornerstone", and an original "foundation",
> the original OT prophets don't need to be "replaced", nor do Christ's
> apostles need to be "replaced".
>
Once again, born again rationalizations for lack of authority.
> The LDS method of having new "apostles and prophet" every generation is
> akin to building a new "foundation" by adding a basement every time you
> build a new floor in a 100-story buliding.
>
So why did they call new apostles to replace those who were killed back
then? They were only going to have an acting quorum for a limited number of
years? Once again, born again rationalizations.
> > Once again you have no idea what you are talking about. Your ignorance
> and
> > christian zeal speaks for itself.
>
This still stands.
> Do you realize how petty your name-calling sounds?
> Disagreement over your doctrines because their unBiblical is not the
> same as "ignorance" of them.
>
The truth is out there. Wake up.
> > > OUR BODIES ARE HIS TEMPLE NOW
> >
> > No stupid.
>
> Let's see..
>
> You call Dennis "stupid";
> You call his brain, "pea sized";
> You call him "ignorant".
>
Yup. Are you trying to join him?
> Should I guess whether you've read Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends
> and Influence People"?
>
> For that matter, should I guess whether you've read the following?:
>
> Col 4:6 Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt,
> so that you know how you should respond to each one.
>
> 1Pe 3:15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts. Always
> be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks
> you for a reason for your hope,
> 1Pe 3:16 but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your
> conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those
> who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put
> to shame.
>
> Mat 5:22 But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother
> will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother,
> 'Raqa,' will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever
says,
> 'You fool,' will be liable to fiery Gehenna.
>
Oh, so now I am not being nice to the poor bastard? Don't give me this I am
going to hide behine my Christian title crap and claim that I am only here
doing God's work. What a load. You and Dennie boy are here to spread hate
and lies and put to evil things that you do not comprehend. So kiss my ass
if I give it back to you. Don't like it? Tuff.
Do I think that testifying to you in the name of God is going to make a
difference? Let me clue you in on something. A.R.M. is a battleground and
no one here is going to be converted to anything by God's spirit. It does
not reside where there is contention. And that is all that you and Dennie
and all the other anti's are here for. So don't give me this spread the
love of Christ crap.
Am I angry? That is obvious. I'll have to repent for it later. Until
then, kiss my ass.
> > It says that our body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in
> > you. Not that our bodies are HIS temple to perform ordinances in.
>
> Who says we're supposed to do "ordinances"?!
>
He does.
snip
>
> > > I didn't say it was an abomination. I just said it was not of God,
> > > not part of Jesus Christ's church.
> >
> > Oh, so the Jews were not God's people
>
> No, they simply missed the point.
> As do LDS.
>
> > Just what does your little pea size brain think that becomeing joint
heirs
> > with Christ is?
>
> Inheriting what He has, not becoming what He *is*.
> If I inherit from my mother, I don't become female.
> And if we inherit from God, we don't become "gods".
>
> > It is true that we will all meet God face to face at the judgement bar.
> > What are you going to say, "I spent a lot of time on arm bashing
> > the mormons?" Let me in please?
>
> Nope, he'll say, "I shared your truth to the Mormons, and I shared your
> greatness and the reason to praise You and You alone."
>
LOL
> > I'm here because I am mormon, you are here because you want to spread
> hate.
>
> You probably think that when you were a child and your parents grounded
you,
> it was because they "hated" you. You don't seem to be able to see the
> difference
> between "hate" and tough love.
>
Oh, you are here to save me? I am touched.
> If critics "hated" you, we'd simply go on our way and leave you to your
> beliefs,
> and to your eternal destiny.
>
Please. I love you too brother.
jamesanderson
beleivers followed Paul, Not Peter, Not John Not James. Paul was the
apostle to the Gentiles. Peter even acknowledges his letters including
Galations
where we are informed of this as scripture and binding. So the Mormon Church
for any who are not Jews is not valid. By the Way, The apostolic tradition
for
Gentile Beleivers comes through the Orthodox and Ethopian tradition. Both of
which
flows from Paul's authority. So enough crap on authority from which you have
none.news:aaua89$a7t$1...@news.xmission.com...
AnthonyPaul
>From: "jamesanderson" jamesa...@cox.net
>Date: 5/9/02 7:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <iFDC8.40570$v32.3...@news1.west.cox.net>
>
>First who says mormon's have proper authority. The authority for all gentile
>beleivers followed Paul, Not Peter, Not John Not James. Paul was the
>apostle to the Gentiles. Peter even acknowledges his letters including
>Galations
>where we are informed of this as scripture and binding. So the Mormon Church
>for any who are not Jews is not valid. By the Way, The apostolic tradition
>for
>Gentile Beleivers comes through the Orthodox and Ethopian tradition. Both of
>which
>flows from Paul's authority. So enough crap on authority from which you have
>none.
So you are of Paul; fair enough.
Anthony
1 Corinthians 1:10-15, "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions
among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the
same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them
which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now
this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I
of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or
were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you,
but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own
name."
1 Corinthians 3:3-7, "For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you
envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For
while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even
as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave
the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that
watereth; but God that giveth the increase."
dennis
<snipped a lot of headers>
> > > > > > > > >> a fake "aaronic priesthood" in His church (or a REAL one
> either)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You realize we are talking about the priesthood of Aaron
> here
> aren't
> > > > > > > > > you? You know, the one that the tribe of Levi got in Moses'
> day?
> The
> > > > > > > > > one that John the Baptist officiated under?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > John the Baptist was an Aaronic priest? Reference, please?
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > He was the son of a priest--Zacharias, who must have been a
> Levite.
> All
> > > > > > > Levites held the Levitical or Aaronic priesthood.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > EXACTLY WHERE in the Bible do you think you see that? It is not
> there.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Luke 1. Don't remember the story of Zacharias being struck dumb?
> > > >
> > > > Zacharias, NOT JOHN, his son.>
> > >
> > > Like Father like son.
> >
> >
> > Nice trite saying, but not true.>
>
> Since John was the forerunner to Jesus, one ought to expect many parallels
> in their lives, including their close relationships with their respective
> fathers, both in terms of relationship and in behavior.
So you are willing to ADD TO SCRIPTURE things it DOES NOT SAY just to
make your theory correct?
I'm sorry, but I will stick to what the Bible actually SAYS. I'm not
interested in your wild theories.
dennis
gary0
> So you are willing to ADD TO SCRIPTURE
> things it DOES NOT SAY just to
> make your theory correct?
>
> I'm sorry, but I will stick to what the
> Bible actually SAYS. I'm not
> interested in your wild theories.
If you're consistent, you'll reject the Old Testament quotes where New
Testament authors ADDED TO SCRIPTURE things it DOES NOT SAY!
New Testament writers ripped Old Testament scriptures COMPLETELY OUT
OF CONTEXT and read into them things they DO NOT SAY to support their
wild theories. For example, if Christ's birth fulfilled Isaiah's
prophecies, then Isaiah was a false prophet!
BTW, Re "adding to scripture things it does not say:" where *does*
the OT say that the Messiah shall be a Nazarene?
One standard for all if you're intellectually honest.
Different standards for you and those you criticize if you're a
hypocrite.
gary0