I did read all of the comments but haven't had time to respond.. My grandson has been taking over the computer and commenting on my youtube account. I hope people don't get the wrong idea, he's only 6.. I don't believe joint heirs is saying that men will be given thrones. It is Jesus who will be praised and given the crowns of kings.
@awolLDSasap Well again awol, if you don't agree with the definition of "hiers and joint-heirs" then your argument is not with me, but with the original writer Paul. Unfortunately for you and your fellow critics, a review of Christian history illustrates that this doctrine was and is a common belief of many Christians; modern critics are perhaps the exception, rather than the rule. Saint Irenaeus, who may justly be called the first Biblical theologian
@awolLDSasap (cont.) among the ancient Christians, was a disciple of the great Polycarp, who was a direct disciple of John the Revelator. Would you listen to him? After all, he learned directly from one of the Twelve. Irenaeus is not a heretic or unorthodox in traditional Christian circles, yet he shares a belief in theosis: While man gradually advances and mounts towards perfection; that is, he approaches the eternal.
@awolLDSasap (cont.) The eternal is perfect; and this is God. Man has first to come into being, then to progress, and by progressing come to manhood, and having reached manhood to increase, and thus increasing to persevere, and persevering to be glorified, and thus see his Lord.
We will be joint heirs, not exalted to Godly thrones. Josephs exaltation of man doctrine is assumption. There are no Biblical verse saying that men will become Gods. 1Cr 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
@awolLDSasap My reply to your previous comment demonstrates that theosis has been taught by many Christians through the centuries. They pulled these beliefs from the Bible itself. I can provide much more than this along with references for each quote if you would like. Sorry awol, but your own people taught the same things we teach now. Unfortunately, the reformationists decided on political correctness over true doctrine. Another important reason for the Restoration.
Isa 14:4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased! 15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. 16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, [and] consider thee, [saying, Is] this the Man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
@awolLDSasap You need to read the entire reply I made, not just the parts you agree with. Further, if you wish to debate the points made, you will have to debate those whom I quoted, not me.
@M424Filmcast You said you were Christian. What changed your mind to believe that God the father was once a man? That the fall was a good thing? That Jesus wasn't God? That baptism for the remission of sins gave men the power to remove sin? That the trinity is rejected because it isn't in the Bible? The last 3 were taught in Alexander Campbells Church of Christ long before Josephs restoration. I don't see a restoration. What I see is a counterfeit.
@awolLDSasap I still am a christian awol. To say anything else is silly. In re: your questions here, which would you like answered first? I will answer any questions you have, because I respect you, but one at a time please. Thanks.
@M424Filmcast OK. How did God, "the holy, infinite, uncreated being" become a created being? Creation demands a beginning. Where did it begin? With an infinite spirit, "the force" and universal law? That is not Biblical, it's Smithlical.
@awolLDSasap Come on awol....you are really going to quote the King Follett Discourses and expect me to take you seriously? You should know better than that. You know this is not, and has never been doctrine. It has only speculation, and fodder for the antimormon crowd. You know as well as I do, that nothing has been revealed at all about any subject even remotely similar to this that is considered doctrine.
@M424Filmcast There are many problems. What about Lucifer? This name is incorrectly used for Satan. Isaiah 14:3–20 is a king of Babylon. The Latin word lucifer is used to refer to the Morning Star, with no relation to Satan. In Revelation 22:16, Jesus himself is called the Morning Star, but not "Lucifer", even in Latin. Joseph Smith misused the name lucifer calling him the spirit brother of Jesus. In the New Testament the "adversary-Satan" has other names, but "Lucifer" is not among them.
@awolLDSasap Actually, Lucifer is first mentioned (under that name) in the writings of Origen (end of the second century) some two hundred years before Jerome puts it into his Latin text. Tertullian and others of the early fathers of the church also discuss Lucifer, so the connection between Lucifer and Satan was established some time prior to the end of the second century. Before the Latin text becomes widespread,
@awolLDSasap (cont.) however, the name Lucifer had a much more specific meaning. It was the name of Satan prior to his fall from glory. Origen explains that this is because prior to his fall, he was a being of light and thus it was an appropriate description of him. After his fall, Origen continues, he was no longer a being of light and became known as Satan. The second point is that
@awolLDSasap (cont.) the scholarly community almost universally rejects the being identified as helel ben shahar in Isaiah 14 as being the king of Babylon directly. There is a figure in contemporary Canaanite religion which resembles Helel in Isaiah 14. That figure is ‘Athtar. At one point in Canaanite myth, ‘Athtar attempts to sit in the throne of Ba’al, the king of the gods. He fails in his attempt, and instead descends to the earth to rule there.
@awolLDSasap (cont.) ‘Athtar is known in southern Arabian inscriptions as Venus, or the Day Star. More than this though, is the account in Isaiah. The “stars of God” is a reference to the divine assembly–all of the divinities of heaven. The mount of the congregation in the sides of the north (in the original Hebrew) is equivalent to Canaanite phrases describing the dwelling place of Ba’al.
@awolLDSasap (cont.) So, in effect, we have in Isaiah a description of a divinity who wants to seize the throne of Ba’al and rule the heavens. Of course there are differences as well as similarities, but I find this argument to be fairly convincing myself. (For bibliographic references and a description of the related scholarly arguments I recommend this article (the most recent on the subject that I am aware of):
@awolLDSasap (cont.) “The Mythological Provenance of Isa. XIV 12-15: A Reconsideration of the Ugaritic Material” by Michael S. Heiser, in Vetus Testamentum, 51/3 [2001], p. 354-369). This concept is, interestingly enough, seen in the New Testament. Jesus claims that he saw Satan “fall like lightning from heaven” and in John and Paul we find Satan described as the “God of this world.”
@awolLDSasap (cont.) It was these references (among others) that led the early fathers of the Christian church to conclude that Helel in Isaiah 14 was Lucifer and also Satan. The similarities between their beliefs, and what they saw in the Old Testament texts came together to form a lasting opinion. And when the Latin text named the being in Isaiah 14 as Lucifer, that tradition has been followed ever since.
@awolLDSasap (cont.) It is debatable whether or not Joseph’s use of the term for the devil is based on his reading of the KJV of the Bible, or on the widespread use of the name in his time.There are dozens of early 19th century religious texts, and while Satan is by far the most popular term for the devil, Lucifer is used frequently. Having said that, as long as Joseph was referring to the devil in his writings when he used the name
@awolLDSasap (cont.) Lucifer, he was conforming to a standard and accepted definition of a word. And the question of whether or not it was appropriate has to be overshadowed by the fact that everyone who read the material he produced would have had no problems at all understanding exactly what he meant.
@M424Filmcast Next question. How did the fall become a good thing? How could men have joy in murder, cruelty, bondage, adultery, racism and disease that would be repaid with a wage of death? Sin was never a good thing..
@awolLDSasap It is not that we take joy in murder, etc., and of course sin was never a good thing in the sense that it removes us from the ability to be in God's presence. However, if the fall had never occured, none of us ever would have been born, and only Adam and Eve would still exist alone in the Garden of Eden. The whole point is that we have the opportunity to come to Earth and live in a body that Jesus made the Ultimate Sacrifice for in order to gain all that God has.
@awolLDSasap So we become heirs and joint heirs with Christ (Rom. 8:17), receiving all that He received. An amazing blessing that would not be possible had the fall never occured.
@M424Filmcast 2 Nephi 2:25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy. The fall of Adam was a good thing? They day they ate the fruit, Adam and Eve died spritually and faced the wages of sin.
@awolLDSasap There is a definite answer to Heb. 7:3. It refers to the Priesthood. Not only is the priesthood "without beginning of days and end of life," it "remains forever" (menei eis to diênekes, 7:3). In this context "remaining" must refer to future immortality, imperishability and eternity inasmuch as it is contrasted with what "perishes," "changes" and "ends."
@awolLDSasap At some point, you asked the following question, but I can't find it, so I am reposting it in order to answer you:
You asked: So the priesthood is infinite but Jesus isn't? The Aaronic priesthood ended. Our prophet and infinite high priest is Jesus Christ who is without beginning or end.
My answer: Both are infinite. The priesthood never ended. That is not scriptural.
@awolLDSasap It is very important. To believe that the priesthood is irrelevant, or dead in our time, is to deny that God's authority is dead, or irrelevant. To believe that these things are true, requires that one believes that God is changeable. So it is something that is critical to know.
@M424Filmcast Yes, the lds priesthood is irrelevant. All of Gods authority is in Jesus Christ. Before Moses there was no Aaronic priesthood. There was an intertestament period of 400 years with no prophets.
@awolLDSasap Well you just negated Christ's ability to delegate that authority. Funny, he did it in the Bible. It continued on after His time on Earth. There is nothing in scripture that says He could not delegate it again later. His priesthood, as previously stated is eternal.
Heavenly Father said - Hbr 1:8 But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: And compared to the King of Salem, "who was the king of righteousness and peace" Hbr 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; And He said.. Isa 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else.
@awolLDSasap The reason I asked you to think carefully awol, is that this is a common answer. However, Jesus was not without father, without mother, without descent. He is without beginning of days, nor end of life. But this scripture does not refer to Jesus.
@M424Filmcast It doesn't say Jesus, but who is the King of peace & righteousness? Before mortality he was without father or mother, the Creator and Word of God. Phl 2:6. Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: Phl 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: (Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world) No premortal men.
@awolLDSasap But see, this takes us right back to the trinity concept. This is why that doctrine is so problematic. This verse in Heb. does not refer to Jesus, as He did have a Father even before mortality.
I was lds and temple married in 1975. It seems odd that you would trade Gods grace for obedience to law and ordinance that even his chosen failed to obey. These 2 are opposites... (Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life) (3rd We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel)
The baptism referred to in Mark 16 that saves is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I've already listed the verses that describe what baptism of water is but you neglected to address that.
Paradise indeed is the same as Heaven. Read 2 Cor. 12:3, 1 Cor 2:9, Rev. 2:7, Rev. 22:1.
You take all these passages as a whole and it is quite clear that Paradise refers to the Heavenly realms, the final destination of all Christians.
@M424Filmcast As a Christian we can only point you to the Truth. But only the Holy Spirit can illuminate one's eyes so that you can Rightly divide the Word.
This has nothing to do with my personal interpretation. Paradise equating to Heaven has been accepted by Believers for a long time.
Luke 23:43, “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.”
2 Corinthians 12:4, “How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.”
Revelation 2:7, “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
It doesn't get any clearer than this. So when Jesus said to the Thief "Today you will be with me in Paradise", that is Heaven bro.
@Exodus314IAM "John 4:24 says God is a spirit without a body? Contradiction!"
No.God is a spirit is not defining His physical state or being.If you take this literally instead of metaphorically, then you MUST take 1 John 1:5 literally:"God is light" or Deutoronomy 4:24: "God is a devouring fire".According to your absolute logic, God is nothing but light,or God is nothing but fire.BTW, there is no "a" in greek and "is" is italisized, meaning it was inserted in the translation. -->"God spirit".
Most members aren't aware their church is a dilapidated house that sits on a foundation of sand. It was Joseph, not God who introduced a whole host of doctrines that placed a wedge between his new religion and Christianity. Joseph didn't want unity. He wanted separatism
@awolLDSasap That's an ad hominem. Come on awol, you're arguments are usually more intellectual than that. We may not agree, but usually you provide interesting viewpoints rather than simple fallacy arguments.
@M424Filmcast Ad hom? I was rushed.. Seriously though, was Jesus enough? Was his sacrifice and atonement, "on the Cross" sufficient? Can obedience to a religious organization guarantee salvation? No. Men will fail.
@awolLDSasap No prob awol. This good question is more what I expect from you. So in answer to your question, yes. Of course His sacrifice and atonement was and is sufficient. We do not teach that obedience to an organisation will guarantee salvation. That is not doctrine. We teach that obedience to the Saviour is essential, however. I don't think you would disagree with that, would you? After all, there are numerous scriptures in both OT and NT writings that testify to this.
@M424Filmcast Obedience has a different meaning to Christians. The law is written upon the heart. Obedience to the law and commandments are fulfilled by faith in Jesus Christ, "who is the Word and Creator". Rom 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the Prophets, according to the Commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations For The Obedience of Faith: Rom 1:17 For therein is the Righteousness of God revealed from Faith to Faith: Faith is everything.
@awolLDSasap Obedience has a different meaning to a lot of people. And I agree with everything you said here. This is what we teach as doctrine. I know, I've been teaching and learning it in the church for almost 20 years.
@M424Filmcast Christ-like and being "in Christ" are 2 different things. Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. ( they that are in the flesh cannot please God ) For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. ( By faith and rebirth we are adopted as children of God )
@M424Filmcast "In Christ" we fulfill the law. Is faith enough, or, is temple ordinance necessary to live with God? Performing mortal ordinance becomes righteousness? Everyone is born a child of God and most people are saved? Not 100%.
@awolLDSasap Faith is enough for salvation. Ordinances do not create righteousness. But what we are doing in the temple is providing those who died without accepting the gospel the opportunity to accept or reject it while providing the ordinances that they did not receive that are necessary for exaltation. There is a difference between exaltation and salvation. All people can receive salvation by faith and grace alone. Exaltation requires more. It's in the scriptures.
@M424Filmcast At death comes judgement,, to be out of the body is to be with Christ. It is by faith we live with God..Hbr 11:6 But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is,. There are thousands of NDE witnesses have testified of being removed from the clutches of darkness by God. Salvation & exaltation are the same. Neither can be merited. Neither can be achieved by ordinance performed by men. Jesus said - With men [it is] impossible.
@awolLDSasap I agree on everything except one...Salvation and exhaltation are not the same. The only place in the Bible that I know of that uses the words "faith" and "alone" together is James 2:24, which has the Greek phrase "ouk ek pisteos monon" (English "not by faith alone" - or "not by faith only" in the KJV). This verse teaches that man is justified by works and not by faith alone. I hope you'll think about this.
@M424Filmcast Try to understand who Jesus is. Isa 9:6 The mighty God,.Isa 45:22 I [am] God, and [there is] none else. Rev 4:11 Thou hast created All Things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Jhn 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee (Granville Sharp rule- same same) the only true God, and Jesus Christ, Faith in Christ leads us unto good works described as love, charity, kindness. After the cross works of a mortal priesthood and temple ended. Jesus was victorious.
To every Christian salvation is eternal life with God. There is one God, one faith and one grace that leads to eternal life. To climb up another way is theft and robbery.
@awolLDSasap I understand what you are saying. And, I agree to a point. Again, part of this lies in the understanding of the origins of the trinity doctrine, and whether you believe that God is literally Jesus and the Holy Ghost, or whether, as originally taught in historical christianity, or whether they are three seperate, distinct beings that are "without substance", and "one, yet not one, three yet not three".
@awolLDSasap If you would like to continue this conversation, please be so kind as to start a new thread at the top of the page. It's a lot easier to find your comments that way. Thank you awol.
@awolLDSasap Your confusion awol, lies in not being clear on the difference between the various names and titles used in the OT and NT to describe Deity. I understand, the confusion, because as you know, I once was a "mainstream" chrisitian like you. I can send you some very detailed information through PM if you would like, if for any reason, just to show my point of view. I will only do so by invitation. In re: "Faith in Christ leads us to..." I agree. (cont.)
@Exodus314IAM Jesus showed us how to be born again of the water. Wasn't Jesus asked "what do I have to do - go back into my mother's womb"? You're as confused as Nicodemus - it had nothing to do with natural birth. It had to do with being born again. You keep on saying to follow jesus and not man - good idea - go inside - the waters great!!. ha ha.
Some 2009 statistics of deliveries and people helped by the LDS church: 500,000 hygiene kits; 430,000 school kits; 93,000 newborn kits; 55,000 quilts (4,000 a month); 56,017 wheelchairs; 223,242 people received vision care; 5,660,780 immunizations were given; 27,242 people trained to use neonatal kits; 989,571 people provided with clean drinking water (town pumps); 8,400 people trained in better farming techniques; 102 disasters were responded to in 48 countries.
@JediLDS The Catholic Church has been doing the same thing for centuries but their Doctrines of Works for Salvation follows the same path as the LDS. Our works are as filthy rags said Jesus.
Salvation is by Grace alone and not of works, Ephesians 2:8-9
@sentry221 Good works are proof of our true faith in Jesus Christ, which faith we MUST have if we hope to be saved. And not all works are as filthy rags. "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 5:16) Our good works glorify God, according to the Bible.
@JediLDS As I have said many times CONTEXT! Matthew 5:16 is in the context of the beatitudes (Matt. 5:1 - 7:29) where Jesus is teaching proper, good, and moral behavior. Disciples of Jesus are to be lights; that is, doers of good. 1 Peter 2:12 is where Peter is admonishing the Christians to live godly and holy lives before the unbelievers.
@Exodus314IAM I HAVE sought the truth, on my knees in prayer. Moroni's promise WORKS! Drag out all the so-called evidence you want, but I can tell you right now that NOTHING tops a witness from the Holy Ghost, which is the same as a witness from God Himself.Naysayers have been trying ever since the early days of the LDS church to disprove the Book of Mormon and "open Mormons eyes", but it hasn't worked.Some have left, but the church keeps growing, and will continue to do so. That's my testimony.
@rainbowpride76 Seen enough antimormon vids in my time. So full of lies, twisted reasoning, and half-truths....Funny how critics love to tell us what we believe, yet won't listen to those of us who are MEMBERS. If you want to believe those vids, go right ahead. But my guess is, you wouldn't go to Toyota to get information on Honda.
@rainbowpride76 We can only point them to the Truth. There can only be 1 truth. They fall into the same pattern as so many other cults that cropped up over the last 200 years, adding to the Word, changing the Word or replacing the Word. It's all the same, if a Church does not adhere 100% to God's Word as it has been accepted for 200 years as the Living Word of God then it is not Christianity.
@sentry221 Antimormon videos do not portray the truth. I've seen them. And 20,000+ differing versions of christianity is not truth. Would you like to see the changes made by "historical" christianity? I can point them out to you. You cannot claim 100% adherence to the word of God. Just because the majority believes they are right, does not make them right. Ask the majority of Jesus' time. They thought they were right too.
@M424Filmcast It wasn't me who said anything about Antimormon videos. You must be referring to someone else on here. There are different versions/revisions of the bible but the original Hebrew & Greek texts are available and the translations today are about as accurate as 1 can get considering those forms of Hebrew/Greek are not spoken today. Your Mormon bible has had over 20,000 changes.
@sentry221 I was referring to Exodus314Iam about the anti vids. Must have replied to the wrong comment.
In re: 20,000 changes, that is an argument by Sandra and Jerald Tanner. Even they abandoned that argument when they realised they couldn't substantiate it. There are no original texts of the Biblical writings. There are translations of translations. If you want to get into Bible Inerrancy, that's fine. I will gladly go there. Just be ready to face the truth.
@M424Filmcast I have truth on my side so I fear not the subject of Bible inerrancy. Bible translations issues are another thing, but whether the K. James uses the word oblations and the NIV/NAS calls it offerings for example does not mean anything other than changes in words over the centuries to describe the same action. Mainly, the meaning of the original manuscripts has not really changed through all the various translations.
@sentry221 As Blake Ostler observed of the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy":[1]
The doctrine of inerrancy is internally incoherent. In my opinion, numerous insuperable problems dictate the rejection of inerrancy in general and inerrancy as promulgated in the Chicago Statement in particular. First, the Chicago Statement is self-referentially incoherent. One cannot consistently assert that the Bible is the basis of his or her beliefs
@sentry221 (cont.) and then assert that one must nevertheless accept biblical inerrancy as asserted in the Chicago Statement...This statement contains a number of assertions, propositions if you will, that are not biblical. Inerrancy, at least as recently asserted by evangelicals, is not spelled out in the Bible. Nowhere do the words inerrant or infallible appear in the Bible.
@sentry221 (cont.) Such theoretical views are quite alien to the biblical writers. Further, inerrancy is not included in any of the major creeds. Such a notion is of rather recent vintage and rather peculiar to American evangelicalism. Throughout the history of Christian thought, the Bible has been a source rather than an object of beliefs. The assertion that the Bible is inerrant goes well beyond the scriptural statements that all scripture is inspired or "God-breathed."
@sentry221 (cont.) Thus inerrancy, as a faith commitment, is inconsistent with the assertion that one's beliefs are based on what the Bible says. The doctrine of inerrancy is an extrabiblical doctrine about the Bible based on nonscriptural considerations. It should be accepted only if it is reasonable and if it squares with what we know from scripture itself, and not as an article of faith... However, it is not and it does not.
@sentry221 (cont.) The current evidence of Biblical manuscripts demonstrates unequivocally that corruption and tampering with Biblical texts is the rule, not the exception. Emmanuel Tov, J. L. Magnes Professor of Bible at Jerusalem's Hebrew University, and editor-in-chief of the Dead Sea Scrolls publication project wrote: "All of [the] textual witnesses [of the OT] differ from each other to a greater or lesser extent."
@sentry221 (cont.) He further stated: "There does not exist any one edition [of the OT] which agrees in all of its details with another." "Most of the texts—ancient and modern—which have been transmitted from one generation to the next have been corrupted in one way or another." (emphasis in original) "A second phenomenon pertains to corrections and changes inserted in the biblical text. . . . Such tampering with the text is evidenced in all textual witnesses."
@sentry221 (cont.) Going on, he said: "Therefore, paradoxically, the soferim [scribes] and Masoretes carefully preserved a text that was already corrupted." "One of the postulates of biblical research is that the text preserved in the various representatives (manuscripts, editions) of what is commonly called the Masoretic Text, does not reflect the 'original text' of the biblical books in many details."
@sentry221 (cont.) And: "These parallel sources [from Kings, Isaiah, Psalms, Samuel, etc.] are based on ancient texts which already differed from each other before they were incorporated into the biblical books, and which underwent changes after they were transmitted from one generation to the next as part of the biblical books."
"S[eptuagint] is a Jewish translation which was made mainly in Alexandria. (cont.)
@sentry221 (cont.) Its Hebrew source differed greatly from the other textual witnesses (M[asoretic], T[argums], S[amaritan], V[ulgate, and many of the Qumran texts]). . . . Moreover, S[eptuagint] is important as a source for early exegesis, and this translation also forms the basis for many elements in the NT." "The importance of S[eptuagint] is based on the fact that it reflects a greater variety of important variants than all the other translations put together."
@sentry221 (cont.) "Textual recensions bear recognizable textual characteristics, such as an expansionistic, abbreviating, harmonizing, Judaizing, or Christianizing tendency." "The theory of the division of the biblical witnesses into three recensions [Masoretic, Septuagint, and Samaritan] cannot be maintained . . . to such an extent that one can almost speak in terms of an unlimited number of texts."
@sentry221 (cont.) "The question of the original text of the biblical books cannot be resolved unequivocally, since there is no solid evidence to help us to decide in either direction." "We still have no knowledge of copies of biblical books that were written in the first stage of their textual transmission, nor even of texts which are close to that time. . . . Since the centuries preceding the extant evidence presumably were marked by great textual fluidity,
@sentry221 (cont.) everything that is said about the pristine state of the biblical text must necessarily remain hypothetical."
"M[asoretic] is but one witness of the biblical text, and its original form was far from identical with the original text of the Bible as a whole." "As a rule they [concepts of the nature of the original biblical text] are formulated as 'beliefs,' that is, a scholar, as it were, believes,
@sentry221 (cont.) or does not believe, in a single original text, and such views are almost always dogmatic."
"During the textual transmission many complicated changes occurred, making it now almost impossible for us to reconstruct the original form of the text." "many of the pervasive changes in the biblical text, pertaining to whole sentences, sections and books, should not . . . be ascribed to copyists, but to earlier generations of editors who allowed themselves
@sentry221 (cont.) such massive changes in the formative stage of the biblical literature."
"It is not that M[asoretic text] triumphed over the other texts, but rather, that those who fostered it probably constituted the only organized group which survived the destruction of the Second Temple [i.e., the rabbinic schools derived from the Pharisees]."
Would you like me to go on? That's just the OT, I have more on the NT.
My guess is you will ignore all this or make an excuse....
@M424Filmcast But I notice you didn't reply to the Central & Main issue and that is the Doctrine of Salvation. It is by Grace alone. Your Leaders throughout the decades have put forth that Salvation is not by Grace alone.
@sentry221 Because Mormons consider works separate from faith, many Evangelicals assume that Mormons don't believe faith is important for salvation. The implication here is that the atonement is not necessary since a "righteous" enough person can make it to heaven without it. This misconception does not take into account Latter-day Saint scripture which emphatically states this is not true:
@sentry221 (cont.) They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given — Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s. (DC 76:51,59)
@M424Filmcast There are also Numerous books detailing the False doctrines of LDS, the Falseness of the book of Mormon, etc. Why do you call yourselves Mormons? Praise always should go to Jesus, not any man or prophet. I'm a Christian, no matter what denomination I go to. The Basic tenets of Christianity have always been the same and never changed. Only False teachers tried to change the Basic tenets and doctrines and some fell for those changes.
@sentry221 1. There are numerous books by atheists about the Bible being false. 2. We do not call ourselves "mormons". 3. Praise does go to Jesus in our church, and to God. 4. Denominations all teach something different. Who's teaching truth? 5. The basic tenets have changed more than you would ever want to admit. Need examples?
So the LDS got Nahom out of a stone that has NHM on it? actually the stone is not a city name but a tribal name and it is NIHM so please stop twisting things to fit the false teaching of Mormonism. Please seek the truth, seek the only true God of the Bible and not the gods of Mormonism!
@Exodus314IAM It is a tribal name, it's also a burial ground, on the frankincense trail, after the most fertile parts, when you turn eastward from it you run into the other place that wasn't supposed to exist - a garden spot on the Arabian Peninsula. there's a site called the "Nephi Project" that you should check out. It has Lehi's entire journey mapped.
@Dalessiokiller That is so funny, you see it is like me writing a book about a trail is south america where people ran into jungles. You see on the Arabian Peninsula there are scattered oasis's all over the place and this is a well known fact to anyone who could read a book in Joseph Smiths time like the "View of the Hebrews". Please seek the truth from God and not from man. I know you have questions, stop asking the Elders of your church and seek it for yourself!
@Exodus314IAM There are scattered oasis's all over? not according to the experts who stated that such a place described "did not exist". There's also way ramps for launching ships on the beach of that garden spot. I read View of the Hebrews. I read Spalding too. "view" was boring, the directions mentioned were all off when compared to the BOM, in short there's too much not in common. I was born Catholic, converted as a Born again, converted to LDS. I've asked questions, not angry - just saying
@Dalessiokiller First I am not sure you want to get into the "boat" in the Book of Mormon because that in itself is impossible. As for the "oasis" I am refuring to just look up the Arabian Peninsula and you will see what I am refuring to. Then you "say" you were "born again" but it is obviouse you did not have a relationship with Jesus or you would still be. You see there are a lot who "say" they are Christian then throw in Religion and then it becomes something else. Seek God!
@Exodus314IAM I love when people assume I didn't have or currently have a relationship with Jesus. The thing is if Jesus did something then I want to know about it. Like visit the Americas. Funny that you mention boats, ever see "Lost Civilizations". Turns out the people known as the Olmec got there in "Boats without paddles" - kind of like how the Jaredites got there. Actually - compare the whole Olmec/ Jaredite timeline and enjoy cause that info was not in Spalding or "View".
@Dalessiokiller It's amazing isn't it? They always want to tell us what we believe. Then they start with the whole, "Well, the Jounal of Discourses says...", and then start with the typical rhetoric that we've all heard 10,000 times. LOL....Yeah, tell me what I believe after I've been where they are now. I used to be mainstream. I would never take the Nephite boat back to them, hahaha....I will stay with the Lord's Restored Gospel, thank you very much.
@Dalessiokiller Yeah, the name calling and self-righteous judgements really make me want to go back to the mainstream confusion. I also like it when they send me to antimormon websites or videos. Okayyyyyy...sure. Let me go there to learn about my church. Right.
@Exodus314IAM pleads: "Please seek the truth from God and not from man."
My friend, that is EXACTLY how millions of Mormons get their testimony of the Book of Mormon--by seeking the truth from God and not from men like yourself who do EVERYTHING THEY CAN to discourage folks from going to God in prayer about the matter. That's how I got my testimony of the truth of the Book of Mormon. You folks reveal a serious double standard when you encourage people NOT to pray about the Book of Mormon.
@JediLDS Well said. You see, to them, God is this distant, undefined, mysterious, entity that lives "somewhere up there", everywhere and nowhere. Funny, how to us, He is our Father. Knowable, and close to us. But we don't know anything. I always find it amusing how they do exactly what you just stated. They tell us not to ask God, while telling us to get to know Him. Then they wonder why they are split into over 20,000 denominations that can't agree.
@M424Filmcast A true Christian will never tell someone not to ask God, that is not what we are saying at all. You see Mormonism teaches that God was not alway God (Psalm 90:2) God has always been God not once a man like us "flesh and bone". How can you even trust the Bible since it contradicts the Mormon Teachings? Mormons use the Bible to pull people in then slam the door behind you and take the Bible away! Satan knows the Bible is our greatest weapon against him!
@Exodus314IAM "A true Christian will never tell someone not to ask God."
There are a lot of "untrue" christians then. I have been told by many not to pray to know truth, but to just simply read scripture.
"You see Mormonism teaches that God was not alway God."
LOL...another example of why you should ASK what we believe instead of relying on the information you are relying on. We teach nothing of the sort. God is, was, and always will be God. (cont.)
@M424Filmcast First, bull, a true Christian will not discredit prayer but we do not use it to test what is true or not. Read the true way of test by the berans in Acts 17.
Second you must be clear on who God is? Is God the Father, the Son or Holy Spirit? Christians know they are all the same GOD! Mormons teach all separate. Now that said D&C 130:22 is clear, the Father and Son have bodies the Holy Spirit does not? John 4:24 says God is Spirit without a body? Contradiction!
@Exodus314IAM (cont.) "How can you even trust the Bible since it contradicts the Mormon Teachings?"
Again, you don't get it. We trust the Bible because it does NOT contradict LDS teachings.
"Mormons use the Bible to pull people in then slam the door behind you and take the Bible away!"
That is a ridiculous statement. Every Mormon has a copy of the Bible. We use it extensively. I can't take you seriously after a dumb statement like that. That was totally weak...anemic in fact. haha
@M424Filmcast Which translation is without errors? The KJV? or maybe the JSV? can you show me a error in any translation? The eighth article of faith states, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly."
As for the second that is just my view from experiance with Mormon Missionaries, they try to use having a Bible to justify thier claim they are Christian like me.
@TheSkepticChristian You know how it is my friend. They can't help themselves. I mean look at all the ridiculous statements Exodus made. Just silly ASSumptions and an attempt to make us look bad. Too bad for exodus it backfired....
1) Yes I can by how God has changed me, people around me see this change and know.
2) According to the Bible you are not Christian, so yes it is fact! Whi is your Jesus (created brother of satan) vs my Jesus (The eternal God).
3) Where you will end up is not up to me sorry to say, but according to the Bible it does not look good. Are you saved? if you died right now where will you end up?
1) Then why don't you go preach about the Bible instead? Why waste your time
with your anti-mormon nonsense?
2) According to the Bible we are not Christian?? LOL
Did you know that many different interpretations can fit in the Bible? People interpret the Bible however they want, and the Bible is a big book.
3) I will never leave my church, so you can laugh when you see us burn in Hell. Seriously, some rationality please. We are no longer in the 14th century.
1) The Bible is all I preach, I bring the truth of the Bible to the lost.
2) There is only one translation that is Gods translation, If you read the Bible in context (who, what, when, where, and why) there is only one answer to get. The Bible is alive today and bring the truth of who Jesus is and why He came.
3) I would NEVER laugh because someone ended up in Hell, that is why I am here, if I did not care I would just let you go!
1) You uploaded anti-Mormon propaganda, that had nothing to do with the Bible. Archaeology is not in the Bible.
2) Tell me what any Old Testament scripture says, then I will ask a Jewish Rabbi to give me the proper context, and vice versa.
3) Then cry for me and the billions of good people, that I will burn in hell for all eternity, for failing to become a "true" Christian, according to you.
@Exodus314IAM claims: "Mormonism teaches that God was not alway God."
Not true. Sometimes it's been speculated, but it's not doctrinal. "By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them;" (D&C 20:17) Now, THAT is LDS doctrine. Of course, anti-Mormons will ignore that completely, preferring the untruths they've been dishing out.
@JediLDS “We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see...and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did, and I will show it from the Bible” Joseph Smith not me.
@Exodus314IAM Apparently you are going to ignore DOCTRINE and quote OPINION. Just as JediLDS said. You prefer non-doctrinal answers as opposed to DOCTRINAL answers. You are quoting discourses. He quoted SCRIPTURE. Funny....
@Exodus314IAM claims: " A true Christian will never tell someone not to ask God".
If that's the case, then I've met many self-professed born again Christians who are not true Christian. And many times those same people have told me that it's wrong to pray about the truth of the Book of Mormon--which tells me that you folks need to get your stories straight.Secondly, we don't take the Bible away, as you very well know.That charge is just not true.All LDS have bibles. (What lies will come next?)
@JediLDS I will tell you right now pray is not how to prove or disprove anything, we are to go to the (proven) Bible like Jesus did and the noted Bereans. If someone brings something to you that contradicts the Bible then RUN!
@M424Filmcast No, we do not believe God is undefined that lives "somewhere up there". We believe that God is the creator, ruler and sovereign authority over all the universe. We believe that he is our Father and as far as where he is, he is not limited to time and space as we are. He dwells in the heavens but he also lives within our hearts as believers and he can be anywhere at any time he chooses.
@JediLDS First and formost I have never tried to discourage you or anyone else. If the truth is discouraging then maybe you need to figure out why? If anything I have said is not correct please show me and not through feelings. I pray everyday many times a day and I seek God all the time and praise Him for all the paths He has lead me down, even the hard ones. You say Mormons get their testimony from truth? how do you know it is true or not?
A- Both the Old Testament & New Testament scriptures were validated by the Jewish Leaders & Church Leaders. The Book of Mormon was not validated by the Christian Church- EVER!
B- Every Book of the Bible was written by a man that others (Jews in the Old, Christians in the New) confirmed was of the Faith. Joseph Smith was never confirmed of the Faith by the Christian Church
C- The various church councils all agreed that the scriptures were complete with the 66 books
@sentry221 Funny enough, you have actually just proven to me again why the Book of Mormon is true. I used to be mainstream "christian", so I know all about your "historical church" and why the councils were not led by revelation. The fact that the BoM was not validated by the CC, and that Joseph wasn't, also prove to me more about the truth of the BoM. So thank you for strengthening my testimony. It is highly appreciated.
@M424Filmcast When you're blinded by False Doctrine you will easily deny what has just been proven to you. It was not only the Councils but the individual believers that tested what scriptures said compared to New Scriptures. Acts 17:11 tells us that the Bereans were of noble character because they “searched the scriptures daily” to see if what Paul was preaching was the truth.
But when Joseph Smith's book was produced the Christian community searched the scriptures and found it to be false
I did read all of the comments but haven't had time to respond.. My grandson has been taking over the computer and commenting on my youtube account. I hope people don't get the wrong idea, he's only 6.. I don't believe joint heirs is saying that men will be given thrones. It is Jesus who will be praised and given the crowns of kings.
awolLDSasap 1 week ago
@awolLDSasap Well again awol, if you don't agree with the definition of "hiers and joint-heirs" then your argument is not with me, but with the original writer Paul. Unfortunately for you and your fellow critics, a review of Christian history illustrates that this doctrine was and is a common belief of many Christians; modern critics are perhaps the exception, rather than the rule. Saint Irenaeus, who may justly be called the first Biblical theologian
(cont.)
M424Filmcast 6 days ago
@awolLDSasap (cont.) among the ancient Christians, was a disciple of the great Polycarp, who was a direct disciple of John the Revelator. Would you listen to him? After all, he learned directly from one of the Twelve. Irenaeus is not a heretic or unorthodox in traditional Christian circles, yet he shares a belief in theosis: While man gradually advances and mounts towards perfection; that is, he approaches the eternal.
(cont.)
M424Filmcast 6 days ago
@awolLDSasap (cont.) The eternal is perfect; and this is God. Man has first to come into being, then to progress, and by progressing come to manhood, and having reached manhood to increase, and thus increasing to persevere, and persevering to be glorified, and thus see his Lord.
M424Filmcast 6 days ago
We will be joint heirs, not exalted to Godly thrones. Josephs exaltation of man doctrine is assumption. There are no Biblical verse saying that men will become Gods. 1Cr 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
awolLDSasap 1 week ago
@awolLDSasap Heirs, and Joint-heirs, not sub-heirs. We gain all that Jesus gained from His Father, who is our Father.
Second, you are using that scripture out of context.
M424Filmcast 1 week ago
@awolLDSasap My reply to your previous comment demonstrates that theosis has been taught by many Christians through the centuries. They pulled these beliefs from the Bible itself. I can provide much more than this along with references for each quote if you would like. Sorry awol, but your own people taught the same things we teach now. Unfortunately, the reformationists decided on political correctness over true doctrine. Another important reason for the Restoration.
M424Filmcast 6 days ago
Isa 14:4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased! 15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. 16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, [and] consider thee, [saying, Is] this the Man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
Lucifer is a mortal, not an angel.
awolLDSasap 1 week ago
@awolLDSasap You need to read the entire reply I made, not just the parts you agree with. Further, if you wish to debate the points made, you will have to debate those whom I quoted, not me.
M424Filmcast 1 week ago
@M424Filmcast You said you were Christian. What changed your mind to believe that God the father was once a man? That the fall was a good thing? That Jesus wasn't God? That baptism for the remission of sins gave men the power to remove sin? That the trinity is rejected because it isn't in the Bible? The last 3 were taught in Alexander Campbells Church of Christ long before Josephs restoration. I don't see a restoration. What I see is a counterfeit.
awolLDSasap 1 week ago
@awolLDSasap I still am a christian awol. To say anything else is silly. In re: your questions here, which would you like answered first? I will answer any questions you have, because I respect you, but one at a time please. Thanks.
M424Filmcast 1 week ago
@M424Filmcast OK. How did God, "the holy, infinite, uncreated being" become a created being? Creation demands a beginning. Where did it begin? With an infinite spirit, "the force" and universal law? That is not Biblical, it's Smithlical.
awolLDSasap 1 week ago
@awolLDSasap You just told me in another video, that my church only has 5 million members, but there are 1 billion Christians.
Well, let me tell you that there are about 600 million evangelical "born again" Christians, That's less than 10% of the world's population.
(World population is 6,400,000,000,000)
I wonder how many of them are active, or really "born again"??
But anyways, the number of evangelical followers is now going down.
TheSkepticChristian 1 week ago
@awolLDSasap We do not teach that God is created.
M424Filmcast 1 week ago
@M424Filmcast Mormonism no longer teaches that God was raised on a planet in the Kolob system? Have the doctrines changed or the apologetics?
awolLDSasap 1 week ago
@awolLDSasap Come on awol....you are really going to quote the King Follett Discourses and expect me to take you seriously? You should know better than that. You know this is not, and has never been doctrine. It has only speculation, and fodder for the antimormon crowd. You know as well as I do, that nothing has been revealed at all about any subject even remotely similar to this that is considered doctrine.
M424Filmcast 1 week ago
@M424Filmcast There are many problems. What about Lucifer? This name is incorrectly used for Satan. Isaiah 14:3–20 is a king of Babylon. The Latin word lucifer is used to refer to the Morning Star, with no relation to Satan. In Revelation 22:16, Jesus himself is called the Morning Star, but not "Lucifer", even in Latin. Joseph Smith misused the name lucifer calling him the spirit brother of Jesus. In the New Testament the "adversary-Satan" has other names, but "Lucifer" is not among them.
awolLDSasap 1 week ago
@awolLDSasap Actually, Lucifer is first mentioned (under that name) in the writings of Origen (end of the second century) some two hundred years before Jerome puts it into his Latin text. Tertullian and others of the early fathers of the church also discuss Lucifer, so the connection between Lucifer and Satan was established some time prior to the end of the second century. Before the Latin text becomes widespread,
(cont.)
M424Filmcast 1 week ago
@M424Filmcast In Isaiah, the name lucifer is a Babylonian king.
awolLDSasap 1 week ago
@awolLDSasap Well, then you need to debate the scholars awol, not me.
M424Filmcast 1 week ago
@awolLDSasap Anyway, at least read all of my reply, because I cover this.
M424Filmcast 1 week ago
@awolLDSasap (cont.) however, the name Lucifer had a much more specific meaning. It was the name of Satan prior to his fall from glory. Origen explains that this is because prior to his fall, he was a being of light and thus it was an appropriate description of him. After his fall, Origen continues, he was no longer a being of light and became known as Satan. The second point is that
(cont.)
M424Filmcast 1 week ago
@awolLDSasap (cont.) the scholarly community almost universally rejects the being identified as helel ben shahar in Isaiah 14 as being the king of Babylon directly. There is a figure in contemporary Canaanite religion which resembles Helel in Isaiah 14. That figure is ‘Athtar. At one point in Canaanite myth, ‘Athtar attempts to sit in the throne of Ba’al, the king of the gods. He fails in his attempt, and instead descends to the earth to rule there.
(cont.)
M424Filmcast 1 week ago
@awolLDSasap (cont.) ‘Athtar is known in southern Arabian inscriptions as Venus, or the Day Star. More than this though, is the account in Isaiah. The “stars of God” is a reference to the divine assembly–all of the divinities of heaven. The mount of the congregation in the sides of the north (in the original Hebrew) is equivalent to Canaanite phrases describing the dwelling place of Ba’al.
(cont.)
M424Filmcast 1 week ago
@awolLDSasap (cont.) So, in effect, we have in Isaiah a description of a divinity who wants to seize the throne of Ba’al and rule the heavens. Of course there are differences as well as similarities, but I find this argument to be fairly convincing myself. (For bibliographic references and a description of the related scholarly arguments I recommend this article (the most recent on the subject that I am aware of):
(cont.)
M424Filmcast 1 week ago
@awolLDSasap (cont.) “The Mythological Provenance of Isa. XIV 12-15: A Reconsideration of the Ugaritic Material” by Michael S. Heiser, in Vetus Testamentum, 51/3 [2001], p. 354-369). This concept is, interestingly enough, seen in the New Testament. Jesus claims that he saw Satan “fall like lightning from heaven” and in John and Paul we find Satan described as the “God of this world.”
(cont.)
M424Filmcast 1 week ago
@awolLDSasap (cont.) It was these references (among others) that led the early fathers of the Christian church to conclude that Helel in Isaiah 14 was Lucifer and also Satan. The similarities between their beliefs, and what they saw in the Old Testament texts came together to form a lasting opinion. And when the Latin text named the being in Isaiah 14 as Lucifer, that tradition has been followed ever since.
(cont.)
M424Filmcast 1 week ago
@awolLDSasap (cont.) It is debatable whether or not Joseph’s use of the term for the devil is based on his reading of the KJV of the Bible, or on the widespread use of the name in his time.There are dozens of early 19th century religious texts, and while Satan is by far the most popular term for the devil, Lucifer is used frequently. Having said that, as long as Joseph was referring to the devil in his writings when he used the name
(cont.).
M424Filmcast 1 week ago
@awolLDSasap (cont.) Lucifer, he was conforming to a standard and accepted definition of a word. And the question of whether or not it was appropriate has to be overshadowed by the fact that everyone who read the material he produced would have had no problems at all understanding exactly what he meant.
M424Filmcast 1 week ago
@M424Filmcast Next question. How did the fall become a good thing? How could men have joy in murder, cruelty, bondage, adultery, racism and disease that would be repaid with a wage of death? Sin was never a good thing..
awolLDSasap 1 week ago
@awolLDSasap It is not that we take joy in murder, etc., and of course sin was never a good thing in the sense that it removes us from the ability to be in God's presence. However, if the fall had never occured, none of us ever would have been born, and only Adam and Eve would still exist alone in the Garden of Eden. The whole point is that we have the opportunity to come to Earth and live in a body that Jesus made the Ultimate Sacrifice for in order to gain all that God has.
M424Filmcast 1 week ago
@awolLDSasap So we become heirs and joint heirs with Christ (Rom. 8:17), receiving all that He received. An amazing blessing that would not be possible had the fall never occured.
M424Filmcast 1 week ago
@M424Filmcast 2 Nephi 2:25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy. The fall of Adam was a good thing? They day they ate the fruit, Adam and Eve died spritually and faced the wages of sin.
awolLDSasap 1 week ago
There are no definate answers to Hbr 7:3. I don't think it's something to die on.
awolLDSasap 1 week ago
@awolLDSasap There is a definite answer to Heb. 7:3. It refers to the Priesthood. Not only is the priesthood "without beginning of days and end of life," it "remains forever" (menei eis to diênekes, 7:3). In this context "remaining" must refer to future immortality, imperishability and eternity inasmuch as it is contrasted with what "perishes," "changes" and "ends."
M424Filmcast 1 week ago
@M424Filmcast You capitalized Priesthood? In the progression of man the title "God" would be like a priesthood position? That's so wrong.
awolLDSasap 1 week ago
@awolLDSasap Don't read too much into things awol. The capitalisation was not on purpose.
M424Filmcast 1 week ago
@awolLDSasap At some point, you asked the following question, but I can't find it, so I am reposting it in order to answer you:
You asked: So the priesthood is infinite but Jesus isn't? The Aaronic priesthood ended. Our prophet and infinite high priest is Jesus Christ who is without beginning or end.
My answer: Both are infinite. The priesthood never ended. That is not scriptural.
M424Filmcast 1 week ago
@awolLDSasap It is very important. To believe that the priesthood is irrelevant, or dead in our time, is to deny that God's authority is dead, or irrelevant. To believe that these things are true, requires that one believes that God is changeable. So it is something that is critical to know.
M424Filmcast 1 week ago
@M424Filmcast Yes, the lds priesthood is irrelevant. All of Gods authority is in Jesus Christ. Before Moses there was no Aaronic priesthood. There was an intertestament period of 400 years with no prophets.
awolLDSasap 1 week ago
@awolLDSasap Well you just negated Christ's ability to delegate that authority. Funny, he did it in the Bible. It continued on after His time on Earth. There is nothing in scripture that says He could not delegate it again later. His priesthood, as previously stated is eternal.
M424Filmcast 1 week ago
Heavenly Father said - Hbr 1:8 But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: And compared to the King of Salem, "who was the king of righteousness and peace" Hbr 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; And He said.. Isa 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else.
awolLDSasap 1 week ago
@awolLDSasap I would like to ask you awol, please think carefully. What is Hbr 7:3 about?
M424Filmcast 1 week ago
@M424Filmcast Hbr 7:3 It is referring to Melchizedec, the king of righteousness and peace. This is Jesus.
awolLDSasap 1 week ago
@awolLDSasap The reason I asked you to think carefully awol, is that this is a common answer. However, Jesus was not without father, without mother, without descent. He is without beginning of days, nor end of life. But this scripture does not refer to Jesus.
M424Filmcast 1 week ago
@M424Filmcast It doesn't say Jesus, but who is the King of peace & righteousness? Before mortality he was without father or mother, the Creator and Word of God. Phl 2:6. Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: Phl 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: (Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world) No premortal men.
awolLDSasap 1 week ago
@awolLDSasap But see, this takes us right back to the trinity concept. This is why that doctrine is so problematic. This verse in Heb. does not refer to Jesus, as He did have a Father even before mortality.
M424Filmcast 1 week ago
@M424Filmcast Before mortality, Jesus was the Word and Creator, he wasn't a son.
awolLDSasap 1 week ago
@awolLDSasap He has always been the Son of God. The Only Begotten Son of God from the beginning. What scripture says He was not?
M424Filmcast 1 week ago
Like I said, set the trinity aside. Jesus is not a lower god, He is the Creator
awolLDSasap 1 week ago
@awolLDSasap That is 100% correct, and exactly what we teach.
M424Filmcast 1 week ago
I was lds and temple married in 1975. It seems odd that you would trade Gods grace for obedience to law and ordinance that even his chosen failed to obey. These 2 are opposites... (Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life) (3rd We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel)
awolLDSasap 1 week ago
@awolLDSasap We don't make the trade at all. It seems to me my friend that you are discounting our actual teaching on this subject.
Thank you for starting a new thread, btw.
M424Filmcast 1 week ago
@TheSkepticChristian LMFBOOOOOOO!!!!! BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH! THATS NOT WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS! XD XD XD
blackmamba54321 2 weeks ago
@blackmamba54321 I just saw that too....HILARIOUS!!! Sounds EXACTLY like the AnTi-Mormon crowd...ROFL
M424Filmcast 2 weeks ago
The baptism referred to in Mark 16 that saves is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I've already listed the verses that describe what baptism of water is but you neglected to address that.
Paradise indeed is the same as Heaven. Read 2 Cor. 12:3, 1 Cor 2:9, Rev. 2:7, Rev. 22:1.
You take all these passages as a whole and it is quite clear that Paradise refers to the Heavenly realms, the final destination of all Christians.
sentry221 2 weeks ago
@sentry221 It is quite clear that you have some nice personal interpretations. Good luck with those.
M424Filmcast 2 weeks ago
@M424Filmcast As a Christian we can only point you to the Truth. But only the Holy Spirit can illuminate one's eyes so that you can Rightly divide the Word.
This has nothing to do with my personal interpretation. Paradise equating to Heaven has been accepted by Believers for a long time.
Luke 23:43, “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.”
2 Corinthians 12:4
Revelation 2:7
sentry221 2 weeks ago
@M424Filmcast
2 Corinthians 12:4, “How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.”
Revelation 2:7, “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
It doesn't get any clearer than this. So when Jesus said to the Thief "Today you will be with me in Paradise", that is Heaven bro.
sentry221 2 weeks ago
@Exodus314IAM "John 4:24 says God is a spirit without a body? Contradiction!"
No.God is a spirit is not defining His physical state or being.If you take this literally instead of metaphorically, then you MUST take 1 John 1:5 literally:"God is light" or Deutoronomy 4:24: "God is a devouring fire".According to your absolute logic, God is nothing but light,or God is nothing but fire.BTW, there is no "a" in greek and "is" is italisized, meaning it was inserted in the translation. -->"God spirit".
blackmamba54321 3 weeks ago
@blackmamba54321 This anti-mormons remind me of Kent Hovind LOL
Exactly the same
watch?v=ajULH6dNihI
LOL
TheSkepticChristian 3 weeks ago
nobody knows.. i thinks it its untrue..
PAPAEMUSIC 3 weeks ago
Most members aren't aware their church is a dilapidated house that sits on a foundation of sand. It was Joseph, not God who introduced a whole host of doctrines that placed a wedge between his new religion and Christianity. Joseph didn't want unity. He wanted separatism
awolLDSasap 3 weeks ago
@awolLDSasap That's an ad hominem. Come on awol, you're arguments are usually more intellectual than that. We may not agree, but usually you provide interesting viewpoints rather than simple fallacy arguments.
M424Filmcast 3 weeks ago
@M424Filmcast Ad hom? I was rushed.. Seriously though, was Jesus enough? Was his sacrifice and atonement, "on the Cross" sufficient? Can obedience to a religious organization guarantee salvation? No. Men will fail.
awolLDSasap 2 weeks ago
@awolLDSasap No prob awol. This good question is more what I expect from you. So in answer to your question, yes. Of course His sacrifice and atonement was and is sufficient. We do not teach that obedience to an organisation will guarantee salvation. That is not doctrine. We teach that obedience to the Saviour is essential, however. I don't think you would disagree with that, would you? After all, there are numerous scriptures in both OT and NT writings that testify to this.
M424Filmcast 2 weeks ago
@M424Filmcast Obedience has a different meaning to Christians. The law is written upon the heart. Obedience to the law and commandments are fulfilled by faith in Jesus Christ, "who is the Word and Creator". Rom 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the Prophets, according to the Commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations For The Obedience of Faith: Rom 1:17 For therein is the Righteousness of God revealed from Faith to Faith: Faith is everything.
awolLDSasap 2 weeks ago
@awolLDSasap Obedience has a different meaning to a lot of people. And I agree with everything you said here. This is what we teach as doctrine. I know, I've been teaching and learning it in the church for almost 20 years.
M424Filmcast 2 weeks ago
@M424Filmcast Christ-like and being "in Christ" are 2 different things. Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. ( they that are in the flesh cannot please God ) For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. ( By faith and rebirth we are adopted as children of God )
awolLDSasap 2 weeks ago
@awolLDSasap 100% agreed. This is what we teach.
M424Filmcast 2 weeks ago
@M424Filmcast Kind of makes you wonder what all the fuss is about huh? LOL
Dalessiokiller 2 weeks ago
@Dalessiokiller Exactly. It's always amazing how many people think we don't teach what we teach, and how many think we teach what we don't!
Funny anti's....
M424Filmcast 2 weeks ago
@M424Filmcast "In Christ" we fulfill the law. Is faith enough, or, is temple ordinance necessary to live with God? Performing mortal ordinance becomes righteousness? Everyone is born a child of God and most people are saved? Not 100%.
awolLDSasap 2 weeks ago
@awolLDSasap Faith is enough for salvation. Ordinances do not create righteousness. But what we are doing in the temple is providing those who died without accepting the gospel the opportunity to accept or reject it while providing the ordinances that they did not receive that are necessary for exaltation. There is a difference between exaltation and salvation. All people can receive salvation by faith and grace alone. Exaltation requires more. It's in the scriptures.
M424Filmcast 2 weeks ago
@M424Filmcast At death comes judgement,, to be out of the body is to be with Christ. It is by faith we live with God..Hbr 11:6 But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is,. There are thousands of NDE witnesses have testified of being removed from the clutches of darkness by God. Salvation & exaltation are the same. Neither can be merited. Neither can be achieved by ordinance performed by men. Jesus said - With men [it is] impossible.
awolLDSasap 2 weeks ago
@awolLDSasap I agree on everything except one...Salvation and exhaltation are not the same. The only place in the Bible that I know of that uses the words "faith" and "alone" together is James 2:24, which has the Greek phrase "ouk ek pisteos monon" (English "not by faith alone" - or "not by faith only" in the KJV). This verse teaches that man is justified by works and not by faith alone. I hope you'll think about this.
M424Filmcast 2 weeks ago
@M424Filmcast Try to understand who Jesus is. Isa 9:6 The mighty God,.Isa 45:22 I [am] God, and [there is] none else. Rev 4:11 Thou hast created All Things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Jhn 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee (Granville Sharp rule- same same) the only true God, and Jesus Christ, Faith in Christ leads us unto good works described as love, charity, kindness. After the cross works of a mortal priesthood and temple ended. Jesus was victorious.
awolLDSasap 2 weeks ago
To every Christian salvation is eternal life with God. There is one God, one faith and one grace that leads to eternal life. To climb up another way is theft and robbery.
awolLDSasap 2 weeks ago
@awolLDSasap I understand what you are saying. And, I agree to a point. Again, part of this lies in the understanding of the origins of the trinity doctrine, and whether you believe that God is literally Jesus and the Holy Ghost, or whether, as originally taught in historical christianity, or whether they are three seperate, distinct beings that are "without substance", and "one, yet not one, three yet not three".
M424Filmcast 2 weeks ago
@awolLDSasap If you would like to continue this conversation, please be so kind as to start a new thread at the top of the page. It's a lot easier to find your comments that way. Thank you awol.
M424Filmcast 2 weeks ago
@awolLDSasap Your confusion awol, lies in not being clear on the difference between the various names and titles used in the OT and NT to describe Deity. I understand, the confusion, because as you know, I once was a "mainstream" chrisitian like you. I can send you some very detailed information through PM if you would like, if for any reason, just to show my point of view. I will only do so by invitation. In re: "Faith in Christ leads us to..." I agree. (cont.)
M424Filmcast 2 weeks ago
@awolLDSasap (cont.) In re: "After the cross..." I wholeheartedly disagree. That is not in scripture.
On a personal note, I thank you for your continued civility, and for your engaging, research-inducing comments.
M424Filmcast 2 weeks ago
@Exodus314IAM Jesus showed us how to be born again of the water. Wasn't Jesus asked "what do I have to do - go back into my mother's womb"? You're as confused as Nicodemus - it had nothing to do with natural birth. It had to do with being born again. You keep on saying to follow jesus and not man - good idea - go inside - the waters great!!. ha ha.
Dalessiokiller 3 weeks ago
Some 2009 statistics of deliveries and people helped by the LDS church: 500,000 hygiene kits; 430,000 school kits; 93,000 newborn kits; 55,000 quilts (4,000 a month); 56,017 wheelchairs; 223,242 people received vision care; 5,660,780 immunizations were given; 27,242 people trained to use neonatal kits; 989,571 people provided with clean drinking water (town pumps); 8,400 people trained in better farming techniques; 102 disasters were responded to in 48 countries.
Yep...LDS are evil!
JediLDS 3 weeks ago
@JediLDS Exactly. Funny how people decide to ignore those things.
M424Filmcast 3 weeks ago
@JediLDS The Catholic Church has been doing the same thing for centuries but their Doctrines of Works for Salvation follows the same path as the LDS. Our works are as filthy rags said Jesus.
Salvation is by Grace alone and not of works, Ephesians 2:8-9
sentry221 3 weeks ago
@sentry221 Good works are proof of our true faith in Jesus Christ, which faith we MUST have if we hope to be saved. And not all works are as filthy rags. "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 5:16) Our good works glorify God, according to the Bible.
JediLDS 3 weeks ago
@JediLDS As I have said many times CONTEXT! Matthew 5:16 is in the context of the beatitudes (Matt. 5:1 - 7:29) where Jesus is teaching proper, good, and moral behavior. Disciples of Jesus are to be lights; that is, doers of good. 1 Peter 2:12 is where Peter is admonishing the Christians to live godly and holy lives before the unbelievers.
Please seek the truth!
Exodus314IAM 3 weeks ago
@Exodus314IAM I HAVE sought the truth, on my knees in prayer. Moroni's promise WORKS! Drag out all the so-called evidence you want, but I can tell you right now that NOTHING tops a witness from the Holy Ghost, which is the same as a witness from God Himself.Naysayers have been trying ever since the early days of the LDS church to disprove the Book of Mormon and "open Mormons eyes", but it hasn't worked.Some have left, but the church keeps growing, and will continue to do so. That's my testimony.
JediLDS 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
JediLDS 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
JediLDS 3 weeks ago
Have you seen the documentary 'Mormon Madness Exposed: The Bible vs The Book Of Mormon'? Its on here in full. I think you should watch it.
rainbowpride76 3 weeks ago
@rainbowpride76 Seen enough antimormon vids in my time. So full of lies, twisted reasoning, and half-truths....Funny how critics love to tell us what we believe, yet won't listen to those of us who are MEMBERS. If you want to believe those vids, go right ahead. But my guess is, you wouldn't go to Toyota to get information on Honda.
M424Filmcast 3 weeks ago
@M424Filmcast LOL...too true.
JediLDS 3 weeks ago
@rainbowpride76 We can only point them to the Truth. There can only be 1 truth. They fall into the same pattern as so many other cults that cropped up over the last 200 years, adding to the Word, changing the Word or replacing the Word. It's all the same, if a Church does not adhere 100% to God's Word as it has been accepted for 200 years as the Living Word of God then it is not Christianity.
sentry221 3 weeks ago
@sentry221 Antimormon videos do not portray the truth. I've seen them. And 20,000+ differing versions of christianity is not truth. Would you like to see the changes made by "historical" christianity? I can point them out to you. You cannot claim 100% adherence to the word of God. Just because the majority believes they are right, does not make them right. Ask the majority of Jesus' time. They thought they were right too.
M424Filmcast 3 weeks ago
@M424Filmcast It wasn't me who said anything about Antimormon videos. You must be referring to someone else on here. There are different versions/revisions of the bible but the original Hebrew & Greek texts are available and the translations today are about as accurate as 1 can get considering those forms of Hebrew/Greek are not spoken today. Your Mormon bible has had over 20,000 changes.
sentry221 3 weeks ago
@sentry221 I was referring to Exodus314Iam about the anti vids. Must have replied to the wrong comment.
In re: 20,000 changes, that is an argument by Sandra and Jerald Tanner. Even they abandoned that argument when they realised they couldn't substantiate it. There are no original texts of the Biblical writings. There are translations of translations. If you want to get into Bible Inerrancy, that's fine. I will gladly go there. Just be ready to face the truth.
M424Filmcast 3 weeks ago
@M424Filmcast I have truth on my side so I fear not the subject of Bible inerrancy. Bible translations issues are another thing, but whether the K. James uses the word oblations and the NIV/NAS calls it offerings for example does not mean anything other than changes in words over the centuries to describe the same action. Mainly, the meaning of the original manuscripts has not really changed through all the various translations.
sentry221 2 weeks ago
@sentry221 As Blake Ostler observed of the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy":[1]
The doctrine of inerrancy is internally incoherent. In my opinion, numerous insuperable problems dictate the rejection of inerrancy in general and inerrancy as promulgated in the Chicago Statement in particular. First, the Chicago Statement is self-referentially incoherent. One cannot consistently assert that the Bible is the basis of his or her beliefs
(cont.)
M424Filmcast 2 weeks ago
@sentry221 (cont.) and then assert that one must nevertheless accept biblical inerrancy as asserted in the Chicago Statement...This statement contains a number of assertions, propositions if you will, that are not biblical. Inerrancy, at least as recently asserted by evangelicals, is not spelled out in the Bible. Nowhere do the words inerrant or infallible appear in the Bible.
(cont.)
M424Filmcast 2 weeks ago
@sentry221 (cont.) Such theoretical views are quite alien to the biblical writers. Further, inerrancy is not included in any of the major creeds. Such a notion is of rather recent vintage and rather peculiar to American evangelicalism. Throughout the history of Christian thought, the Bible has been a source rather than an object of beliefs. The assertion that the Bible is inerrant goes well beyond the scriptural statements that all scripture is inspired or "God-breathed."
(cont.)
M424Filmcast 2 weeks ago
@sentry221 (cont.) Thus inerrancy, as a faith commitment, is inconsistent with the assertion that one's beliefs are based on what the Bible says. The doctrine of inerrancy is an extrabiblical doctrine about the Bible based on nonscriptural considerations. It should be accepted only if it is reasonable and if it squares with what we know from scripture itself, and not as an article of faith... However, it is not and it does not.
(cont.)
M424Filmcast 2 weeks ago
@sentry221 (cont.) The current evidence of Biblical manuscripts demonstrates unequivocally that corruption and tampering with Biblical texts is the rule, not the exception. Emmanuel Tov, J. L. Magnes Professor of Bible at Jerusalem's Hebrew University, and editor-in-chief of the Dead Sea Scrolls publication project wrote: "All of [the] textual witnesses [of the OT] differ from each other to a greater or lesser extent."
(cont.)
M424Filmcast 2 weeks ago
@sentry221 (cont.) He further stated: "There does not exist any one edition [of the OT] which agrees in all of its details with another." "Most of the texts—ancient and modern—which have been transmitted from one generation to the next have been corrupted in one way or another." (emphasis in original) "A second phenomenon pertains to corrections and changes inserted in the biblical text. . . . Such tampering with the text is evidenced in all textual witnesses."
(cont.)
M424Filmcast 2 weeks ago
@sentry221 (cont.) Going on, he said: "Therefore, paradoxically, the soferim [scribes] and Masoretes carefully preserved a text that was already corrupted." "One of the postulates of biblical research is that the text preserved in the various representatives (manuscripts, editions) of what is commonly called the Masoretic Text, does not reflect the 'original text' of the biblical books in many details."
(cont.)
M424Filmcast 2 weeks ago
@sentry221 (cont.) And: "These parallel sources [from Kings, Isaiah, Psalms, Samuel, etc.] are based on ancient texts which already differed from each other before they were incorporated into the biblical books, and which underwent changes after they were transmitted from one generation to the next as part of the biblical books."
"S[eptuagint] is a Jewish translation which was made mainly in Alexandria. (cont.)
M424Filmcast 2 weeks ago
@sentry221 (cont.) Its Hebrew source differed greatly from the other textual witnesses (M[asoretic], T[argums], S[amaritan], V[ulgate, and many of the Qumran texts]). . . . Moreover, S[eptuagint] is important as a source for early exegesis, and this translation also forms the basis for many elements in the NT." "The importance of S[eptuagint] is based on the fact that it reflects a greater variety of important variants than all the other translations put together."
(cont.)
M424Filmcast 2 weeks ago
@sentry221 (cont.) "Textual recensions bear recognizable textual characteristics, such as an expansionistic, abbreviating, harmonizing, Judaizing, or Christianizing tendency." "The theory of the division of the biblical witnesses into three recensions [Masoretic, Septuagint, and Samaritan] cannot be maintained . . . to such an extent that one can almost speak in terms of an unlimited number of texts."
(cont.)
M424Filmcast 2 weeks ago
@sentry221 (cont.) "The question of the original text of the biblical books cannot be resolved unequivocally, since there is no solid evidence to help us to decide in either direction." "We still have no knowledge of copies of biblical books that were written in the first stage of their textual transmission, nor even of texts which are close to that time. . . . Since the centuries preceding the extant evidence presumably were marked by great textual fluidity,
(cont.)
M424Filmcast 2 weeks ago
@sentry221 (cont.) everything that is said about the pristine state of the biblical text must necessarily remain hypothetical."
"M[asoretic] is but one witness of the biblical text, and its original form was far from identical with the original text of the Bible as a whole." "As a rule they [concepts of the nature of the original biblical text] are formulated as 'beliefs,' that is, a scholar, as it were, believes,
(cont.)
M424Filmcast 2 weeks ago
@sentry221 (cont.) or does not believe, in a single original text, and such views are almost always dogmatic."
"During the textual transmission many complicated changes occurred, making it now almost impossible for us to reconstruct the original form of the text." "many of the pervasive changes in the biblical text, pertaining to whole sentences, sections and books, should not . . . be ascribed to copyists, but to earlier generations of editors who allowed themselves
(cont.)
M424Filmcast 2 weeks ago
@sentry221 (cont.) such massive changes in the formative stage of the biblical literature."
"It is not that M[asoretic text] triumphed over the other texts, but rather, that those who fostered it probably constituted the only organized group which survived the destruction of the Second Temple [i.e., the rabbinic schools derived from the Pharisees]."
Would you like me to go on? That's just the OT, I have more on the NT.
My guess is you will ignore all this or make an excuse....
M424Filmcast 2 weeks ago
@M424Filmcast But I notice you didn't reply to the Central & Main issue and that is the Doctrine of Salvation. It is by Grace alone. Your Leaders throughout the decades have put forth that Salvation is not by Grace alone.
sentry221 3 weeks ago
@sentry221 Because Mormons consider works separate from faith, many Evangelicals assume that Mormons don't believe faith is important for salvation. The implication here is that the atonement is not necessary since a "righteous" enough person can make it to heaven without it. This misconception does not take into account Latter-day Saint scripture which emphatically states this is not true:
(cont.)
M424Filmcast 3 weeks ago
@sentry221 (cont.) They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given — Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s. (DC 76:51,59)
Your argument is wrong.
M424Filmcast 3 weeks ago
@M424Filmcast I refuse to use any Mormon scriptures to support any doctrine. Stick to the Word of God and not the False book of Joseph Smith.
sentry221 2 weeks ago
@sentry221 That's nice. Too bad you think God no longer speaks to man...I know, false creeds and all....
M424Filmcast 2 weeks ago
@M424Filmcast There are also Numerous books detailing the False doctrines of LDS, the Falseness of the book of Mormon, etc. Why do you call yourselves Mormons? Praise always should go to Jesus, not any man or prophet. I'm a Christian, no matter what denomination I go to. The Basic tenets of Christianity have always been the same and never changed. Only False teachers tried to change the Basic tenets and doctrines and some fell for those changes.
sentry221 2 weeks ago
@sentry221 1. There are numerous books by atheists about the Bible being false. 2. We do not call ourselves "mormons". 3. Praise does go to Jesus in our church, and to God. 4. Denominations all teach something different. Who's teaching truth? 5. The basic tenets have changed more than you would ever want to admit. Need examples?
M424Filmcast 2 weeks ago
So the LDS got Nahom out of a stone that has NHM on it? actually the stone is not a city name but a tribal name and it is NIHM so please stop twisting things to fit the false teaching of Mormonism. Please seek the truth, seek the only true God of the Bible and not the gods of Mormonism!
Exodus314IAM 3 weeks ago
@Exodus314IAM It is a tribal name, it's also a burial ground, on the frankincense trail, after the most fertile parts, when you turn eastward from it you run into the other place that wasn't supposed to exist - a garden spot on the Arabian Peninsula. there's a site called the "Nephi Project" that you should check out. It has Lehi's entire journey mapped.
Dalessiokiller 3 weeks ago
@Dalessiokiller That is so funny, you see it is like me writing a book about a trail is south america where people ran into jungles. You see on the Arabian Peninsula there are scattered oasis's all over the place and this is a well known fact to anyone who could read a book in Joseph Smiths time like the "View of the Hebrews". Please seek the truth from God and not from man. I know you have questions, stop asking the Elders of your church and seek it for yourself!
Exodus314IAM 3 weeks ago
@Exodus314IAM There are scattered oasis's all over? not according to the experts who stated that such a place described "did not exist". There's also way ramps for launching ships on the beach of that garden spot. I read View of the Hebrews. I read Spalding too. "view" was boring, the directions mentioned were all off when compared to the BOM, in short there's too much not in common. I was born Catholic, converted as a Born again, converted to LDS. I've asked questions, not angry - just saying
Dalessiokiller 3 weeks ago
@Dalessiokiller First I am not sure you want to get into the "boat" in the Book of Mormon because that in itself is impossible. As for the "oasis" I am refuring to just look up the Arabian Peninsula and you will see what I am refuring to. Then you "say" you were "born again" but it is obviouse you did not have a relationship with Jesus or you would still be. You see there are a lot who "say" they are Christian then throw in Religion and then it becomes something else. Seek God!
Exodus314IAM 3 weeks ago
@Exodus314IAM I love when people assume I didn't have or currently have a relationship with Jesus. The thing is if Jesus did something then I want to know about it. Like visit the Americas. Funny that you mention boats, ever see "Lost Civilizations". Turns out the people known as the Olmec got there in "Boats without paddles" - kind of like how the Jaredites got there. Actually - compare the whole Olmec/ Jaredite timeline and enjoy cause that info was not in Spalding or "View".
Dalessiokiller 3 weeks ago
@Dalessiokiller It's amazing isn't it? They always want to tell us what we believe. Then they start with the whole, "Well, the Jounal of Discourses says...", and then start with the typical rhetoric that we've all heard 10,000 times. LOL....Yeah, tell me what I believe after I've been where they are now. I used to be mainstream. I would never take the Nephite boat back to them, hahaha....I will stay with the Lord's Restored Gospel, thank you very much.
M424Filmcast 3 weeks ago
@M424Filmcast It really is. My favorite is when they resort to saying I'm going to hell cause they've run out of things to argue about. Unreal. ha ha
Dalessiokiller 3 weeks ago
@Dalessiokiller Yeah, the name calling and self-righteous judgements really make me want to go back to the mainstream confusion. I also like it when they send me to antimormon websites or videos. Okayyyyyy...sure. Let me go there to learn about my church. Right.
God Bless, and thanks for your comments.
M424Filmcast 3 weeks ago
@M424Filmcast God bless you as well.
Dalessiokiller 3 weeks ago
@Exodus314IAM pleads: "Please seek the truth from God and not from man."
My friend, that is EXACTLY how millions of Mormons get their testimony of the Book of Mormon--by seeking the truth from God and not from men like yourself who do EVERYTHING THEY CAN to discourage folks from going to God in prayer about the matter. That's how I got my testimony of the truth of the Book of Mormon. You folks reveal a serious double standard when you encourage people NOT to pray about the Book of Mormon.
JediLDS 3 weeks ago
@cont) Jesus taught men to pray, and he didn't put a limit on what a person could pray for. Anti-Mormonism types do, however.
JediLDS 3 weeks ago
@JediLDS Well said. You see, to them, God is this distant, undefined, mysterious, entity that lives "somewhere up there", everywhere and nowhere. Funny, how to us, He is our Father. Knowable, and close to us. But we don't know anything. I always find it amusing how they do exactly what you just stated. They tell us not to ask God, while telling us to get to know Him. Then they wonder why they are split into over 20,000 denominations that can't agree.
M424Filmcast 3 weeks ago
@M424Filmcast A true Christian will never tell someone not to ask God, that is not what we are saying at all. You see Mormonism teaches that God was not alway God (Psalm 90:2) God has always been God not once a man like us "flesh and bone". How can you even trust the Bible since it contradicts the Mormon Teachings? Mormons use the Bible to pull people in then slam the door behind you and take the Bible away! Satan knows the Bible is our greatest weapon against him!
Exodus314IAM 3 weeks ago
@Exodus314IAM "A true Christian will never tell someone not to ask God."
There are a lot of "untrue" christians then. I have been told by many not to pray to know truth, but to just simply read scripture.
"You see Mormonism teaches that God was not alway God."
LOL...another example of why you should ASK what we believe instead of relying on the information you are relying on. We teach nothing of the sort. God is, was, and always will be God. (cont.)
M424Filmcast 3 weeks ago
@M424Filmcast First, bull, a true Christian will not discredit prayer but we do not use it to test what is true or not. Read the true way of test by the berans in Acts 17.
Second you must be clear on who God is? Is God the Father, the Son or Holy Spirit? Christians know they are all the same GOD! Mormons teach all separate. Now that said D&C 130:22 is clear, the Father and Son have bodies the Holy Spirit does not? John 4:24 says God is Spirit without a body? Contradiction!
Exodus314IAM 3 weeks ago
@Exodus314IAM (cont.) "How can you even trust the Bible since it contradicts the Mormon Teachings?"
Again, you don't get it. We trust the Bible because it does NOT contradict LDS teachings.
"Mormons use the Bible to pull people in then slam the door behind you and take the Bible away!"
That is a ridiculous statement. Every Mormon has a copy of the Bible. We use it extensively. I can't take you seriously after a dumb statement like that. That was totally weak...anemic in fact. haha
M424Filmcast 3 weeks ago
@M424Filmcast Which translation is without errors? The KJV? or maybe the JSV? can you show me a error in any translation? The eighth article of faith states, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly."
As for the second that is just my view from experiance with Mormon Missionaries, they try to use having a Bible to justify thier claim they are Christian like me.
Seek the truth my friend!
Exodus314IAM 3 weeks ago
@Exodus314IAM You are claiming Bible Inerrancy. That is a fallacy.
In re: your experience with missionaries, that is a strawman attack. Again, weak.
In re: seek the truth...I did. Found it. Have it. Thanks.
M424Filmcast 3 weeks ago
@Exodus314IAM
1) Can you prove that you are a "true" Christian?
2) We are Christians according to the Oxford Dictionary, so you can't spread your opinions as facts.
3) Do you believe that we Mormons are going to burn in hell for all eternity??
4) Why are you so obsess in taking crap about my church??
TheSkepticChristian 3 weeks ago
@TheSkepticChristian You know how it is my friend. They can't help themselves. I mean look at all the ridiculous statements Exodus made. Just silly ASSumptions and an attempt to make us look bad. Too bad for exodus it backfired....
M424Filmcast 3 weeks ago
@M424Filmcast I do not have to "attempt" anything you do a great job on your own!
Exodus314IAM 3 weeks ago
@Exodus314IAM Oooh, good comeback.
M424Filmcast 3 weeks ago
@TheSkepticChristian
1) Yes I can by how God has changed me, people around me see this change and know.
2) According to the Bible you are not Christian, so yes it is fact! Whi is your Jesus (created brother of satan) vs my Jesus (The eternal God).
3) Where you will end up is not up to me sorry to say, but according to the Bible it does not look good. Are you saved? if you died right now where will you end up?
4) you say that I say truth you figure it out!
Exodus314IAM 3 weeks ago
@Exodus314IAM
1) Then why don't you go preach about the Bible instead? Why waste your time
with your anti-mormon nonsense?
2) According to the Bible we are not Christian?? LOL
Did you know that many different interpretations can fit in the Bible? People interpret the Bible however they want, and the Bible is a big book.
3) I will never leave my church, so you can laugh when you see us burn in Hell. Seriously, some rationality please. We are no longer in the 14th century.
TheSkepticChristian 3 weeks ago
@TheSkepticChristian
1) The Bible is all I preach, I bring the truth of the Bible to the lost.
2) There is only one translation that is Gods translation, If you read the Bible in context (who, what, when, where, and why) there is only one answer to get. The Bible is alive today and bring the truth of who Jesus is and why He came.
3) I would NEVER laugh because someone ended up in Hell, that is why I am here, if I did not care I would just let you go!
Exodus314IAM 3 weeks ago
@Exodus314IAM
1) You uploaded anti-Mormon propaganda, that had nothing to do with the Bible. Archaeology is not in the Bible.
2) Tell me what any Old Testament scripture says, then I will ask a Jewish Rabbi to give me the proper context, and vice versa.
3) Then cry for me and the billions of good people, that I will burn in hell for all eternity, for failing to become a "true" Christian, according to you.
Watch the video, it will explain what infinity is
watch?v=MwPVoFuWARw
TheSkepticChristian 3 weeks ago
@Exodus314IAM claims: "Mormonism teaches that God was not alway God."
Not true. Sometimes it's been speculated, but it's not doctrinal. "By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them;" (D&C 20:17) Now, THAT is LDS doctrine. Of course, anti-Mormons will ignore that completely, preferring the untruths they've been dishing out.
JediLDS 3 weeks ago
@JediLDS “We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see...and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did, and I will show it from the Bible” Joseph Smith not me.
Exodus314IAM 3 weeks ago
@Exodus314IAM Apparently you are going to ignore DOCTRINE and quote OPINION. Just as JediLDS said. You prefer non-doctrinal answers as opposed to DOCTRINAL answers. You are quoting discourses. He quoted SCRIPTURE. Funny....
M424Filmcast 3 weeks ago
@Exodus314IAM claims: " A true Christian will never tell someone not to ask God".
If that's the case, then I've met many self-professed born again Christians who are not true Christian. And many times those same people have told me that it's wrong to pray about the truth of the Book of Mormon--which tells me that you folks need to get your stories straight.Secondly, we don't take the Bible away, as you very well know.That charge is just not true.All LDS have bibles. (What lies will come next?)
JediLDS 3 weeks ago
@JediLDS I will tell you right now pray is not how to prove or disprove anything, we are to go to the (proven) Bible like Jesus did and the noted Bereans. If someone brings something to you that contradicts the Bible then RUN!
Exodus314IAM 3 weeks ago
@Exodus314IAM James 1:5-6
M424Filmcast 3 weeks ago
@Exodus314IAM The Bible is not proven. Atheists would laugh at your statement.
blackmamba54321 3 weeks ago
@M424Filmcast No, we do not believe God is undefined that lives "somewhere up there". We believe that God is the creator, ruler and sovereign authority over all the universe. We believe that he is our Father and as far as where he is, he is not limited to time and space as we are. He dwells in the heavens but he also lives within our hearts as believers and he can be anywhere at any time he chooses.
sentry221 2 weeks ago
@JediLDS First and formost I have never tried to discourage you or anyone else. If the truth is discouraging then maybe you need to figure out why? If anything I have said is not correct please show me and not through feelings. I pray everyday many times a day and I seek God all the time and praise Him for all the paths He has lead me down, even the hard ones. You say Mormons get their testimony from truth? how do you know it is true or not?
Exodus314IAM 3 weeks ago
@Exodus314IAM Through witness by the Holy Ghost. It's undeniable.
M424Filmcast 3 weeks ago
Many reasons why it's false:
A- Both the Old Testament & New Testament scriptures were validated by the Jewish Leaders & Church Leaders. The Book of Mormon was not validated by the Christian Church- EVER!
B- Every Book of the Bible was written by a man that others (Jews in the Old, Christians in the New) confirmed was of the Faith. Joseph Smith was never confirmed of the Faith by the Christian Church
C- The various church councils all agreed that the scriptures were complete with the 66 books
sentry221 4 weeks ago
@sentry221 Funny enough, you have actually just proven to me again why the Book of Mormon is true. I used to be mainstream "christian", so I know all about your "historical church" and why the councils were not led by revelation. The fact that the BoM was not validated by the CC, and that Joseph wasn't, also prove to me more about the truth of the BoM. So thank you for strengthening my testimony. It is highly appreciated.
M424Filmcast 4 weeks ago
@M424Filmcast When you're blinded by False Doctrine you will easily deny what has just been proven to you. It was not only the Councils but the individual believers that tested what scriptures said compared to New Scriptures. Acts 17:11 tells us that the Bereans were of noble character because they “searched the scriptures daily” to see if what Paul was preaching was the truth.
But when Joseph Smith's book was produced the Christian community searched the scriptures and found it to be false
sentry221 4 weeks ago