No A-Z; either 100% T or 100% F [Archive] - Walter Martin Ministries Forum

Mesenja

04-22-2010, 07:33 AM

I think that everyone would like to think that they are right about every issue concerning Jesus but this may not be possible especially in areas that are not revealed to us in the scriptures. But there are core beliefs about Jesus that distinguish Christians from non Christians and these beliefs are clearly laid out by God in his word.

Jim never even entertained the thought that "everyone would like to think that they are right about every issue concerning Jesus but this may not be possible". Oh no in Jim's world everything is measured in absolutes. It is either the truth or a lie.

Sorry but there is no entering your truth scale unless the condition I stated are met first. Unless you want to say A is absolute truth and Z is absolute lie. In which case there is no letter between then. If you back away from truth you fall immediately into LIES. All truth or all lies. There is no half way. A half truth is still nothing more than a lie. If I took a gl*** half full of pure water and mixed in half a gl*** of untreated water before it enters the treatment plant what I have is a full gl*** of filth. IHS Jim

Where in this quote is there room to agree on "core beliefs about Jesus that distinguish Christians from non Christians" and disagree on other issues that are not "clearly laid out by God in his word"? According to Jim this is like drinking "a full gl*** of filth". Remember he said that "There is no half way".

Vlad III

04-22-2010, 08:07 AM

I find Joseph Smith jr is a cheap-con-man skirt chasing lying wantabe prophet with a trail of fraud, boasting, dodging, Zig-Zagging, vicious, with a xanthic personality.
I think this just about covers it from A2Z.

Please address the issue of this thread and stop trying to derail every thread with your blanket shotgun blast attacks on irrelevant issues.

Thanks in advance.

Billyray

04-22-2010, 09:23 AM

Jim never even entertained the thought that "everyone would like to think that they are right about every issue concerning Jesus but this may not be possible". Oh no in Jim's world everything is measured in absolutes. It is either the truth or a lie.

False religions usually have bits of truth mixed with the falsehood. If this were not the case then very few people would be caught up within it's grasp. As I have noted before there is slight variation within each group (i.e. Mormonism and Christianity). I see that each group as a circle instead of a dot. However, I see these two circle as not overlapping.

Vlad III

04-22-2010, 09:36 AM

False religions usually have bits of truth mixed with the falsehood. If this were not the case then very few people would be caught up within it's grasp. As I have noted before there is slight variation within each group (i.e. Mormonism and Christianity). I see that each group as a circle instead of a dot. However, I see these two circle as not overlapping.

You say false religions have truth and falsehoods. But the issue is whether or not there is a religion that is 100% true WITHOUT any falsehoods. And falsehoods can be simple opinions on doctrine that are not true, not necessarily blatent false teachings. So James is saying that the church is either 100% true or 100% false.

So how do you reconcile a church where there are varying degrees of opinions that may or may not be actual truth? Are those churches now 100% FALSE or is there room for speculation, conjecture, and opinions on issues?

Billyray

04-22-2010, 10:40 AM

And falsehoods can be simple opinions on doctrine that are not true, not necessarily blatant false teachings.

The key to answering your question is in your own statement above. The LDS church HAS "blatant false teachings" about Jesus, God the Father, and the gospel. So in this sense it is easy to spot truth from fiction.

urloony

04-22-2010, 10:46 AM

Billyray

04-22-2010, 10:47 AM

False compared to what? Your dogma?

The Bible.

Vlad III

04-22-2010, 10:54 AM

The Bible.

LDS can reconcile thei belief about Jesus with the Bible quite easily. So it appears your argument is about whose interpretation of the Bible is the one that is 100% inerrant. Anything else and you have a 100% false belief about Jesus according to at least one LDS-critic.

Billyray

04-22-2010, 10:56 AM

LDS can reconcile their belief about Jesus with the Bible quite easily.
Lets start with these two.

Where can you read that Jesus was born to a Heavenly Mother in the pre earth life?

Where can you read the Jesus has not always been God but became one of many gods during his progression?

Vlad III

04-22-2010, 11:25 AM

Lets start with these two.

Where can you read that Jesus was born to a Heavenly Mother in the pre earth life?

Where can you read the Jesus has not always been God but became one of many gods during his progression?

Oh, you are looking for specific verses.

No, there isn't a specific verse that states what you are looking for above. Just like there's no specific verse that says Jesus is the creator of Satan. But we look at the teaching as a whole and we can reasonably and logically make conclusions.

For example, we can rightfully conclude that Jesus is a spiritual child of the Father, since Jesus even refers to the Father as HIS father. And we also can conlude that eternal unions of man and woman are of God (Adam & Eve) and we know that it is a law of God to be married in order to have offspring. So again a logical conclusion can be made that the Father also has an eternal companion.

Now the question is, can you show a LDS person BIBLICALLY that these things cannot be understood as the LDS see them?

Billyray

04-22-2010, 11:39 AM

Oh, you are looking for specific verses.

No, there isn't a specific verse that states what you are looking for above.

Vlad, that is the problem, there is no Biblical support for your position. You simply make it up and label it theology and you believe it.

Christians don't believe in a Heavenly Mother because there is no Biblical verses that say there is a Heavenly Mother. Christians don't believe that God the Father and his wife had spiritual children in heaven because the Bible does not teach this. The problem is that Mormons make up these concepts that simply are not there.

Billyray

04-22-2010, 11:43 AM

Just like there's no specific verse that says Jesus is the creator of Satan.

Vlad, your statement above is completely false.

Colossians 1:16 For by him (Jesus) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Vlad III

04-22-2010, 11:53 AM

Vlad, that is the problem, there is no Biblical support for your position. You simply make it up and label it theology and you believe it.

You seem to be missing the point. But we'll use YOURlogic in a second and see if it helps or hurts your accusation.

Christians don't believe in a Heavenly Mother because there is no Biblical verses that say there is a Heavenly Mother.

There is no biblical verse that says thare is a "Trinity", yet you believe it exists.

Atomic handgrenade diffused.

Christians don't believe that God the Father and his wife had spiritual children in heaven because the Bible does not teach this. The problem is that Mormons make up these concepts that simply are not there.

Again, we take the Bible as a whole, and along with other scriptures/ modern revelation, understand a bigger picture than the one you non-LDS see in regards to our existence and purpose. Yet these do not CONFLICT with the biblical accounts.

Vlad III

04-22-2010, 11:57 AM

Vlad, your statement above is completely false.

Colossians 1:16 For by him (Jesus) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Again...when you don't have a valid defense, call the opponent a liar. Oh well.

But is what I said REALLY 'completely false'? I said there is no verse that specifically states that Jesus created Satan. And the verse you provided ALSO does not specifically state that Jesus created Satan.

I can also look at verses that say Jesus will forgive ALL sins. And yet there is at least one sin he will NOT forgive. So I am quite content in understanding the verse you posted above that states 'ALL' as being 'ALL' but with at least one exception ie. our spirits.

Again, you show that the Bible does not SPECIFICALLY refute LDS doctrine, and I have shown that the Bible SUPPORTS LDS doctrine as we understand it.

nrajeff

04-22-2010, 11:59 AM

The Bible.

The Bible isn't a religion, although some people seem to worship it. News flash. The question for you to answer was whether ANY religion on the planet is 100% free from incorrect teachings.

Billyray

04-22-2010, 12:00 PM

There is no biblical verse that says thare is a "Trinity", yet you believe it exists.

Atomic handgrenade diffused.

Vlad, the word "Trinity" is not is the Bible but the teaching about the "Trinity" is clearly present. That is the difference between LDS and Christians. LDS simply add theology that clearly is not there. For example it does not say "Heavenly Mother" but if it said God was married then that would cons***ute that God had a wife. But you and I both know that there is not any evidence in the Bible that God has a wife.

James Banta

04-22-2010, 12:11 PM

[Vlad III;53980]So says James Banta:

"Unless you want to say A is absolute truth and z is absolute lie.. In which case there is no letter between then.. If you back away fro truth you fall immediately into LIES.. All truth or all lies.. There is no half way.. IHS jim "

So now the big question is, if others agree that you are either 100% true or 100% false, how do you reconcile people that hold a belief about Jesus that might not be held by others? Are they therefore in 100% error?

There are Christian that hold a different belief about the nature of Jesus as other have? I can't wait to see what that woud be..

If a Baptist person believes that Jesus might've been married on earth, does that make him 100% in error about Jesus, on every issue, so as to merit God sending him to Hell for eternity?

YES!

How do LDS-critics like James Banta justify having such extremist views and not see how such extremism might very well destroy their own theological paradigm if applied logically to all religions, not just Mormons.

You have yet to show that anywhere there are Christians that hold a different Jesus.. There are many who call themselves Christians That do.. The JW hold that Jesus is a lessor God than Jehovah God and, like mormonism, they teach that Jesus is a mere creation.. You know that Mormonism teaches that Jesus is a spirit child of God the same as all angelic creation including ourselves, Lucifer, and Jesus. We are all spiritual siblings, creations of the same God..

But both mormons and JWs call themselves Christian. Neither of you teaches a God who is One Being. That that one God is from everlasting to everlasting, I include Jesus as being that God so as to take away the JW's concept that Jehovah God is eternal. So tell me what other "Christians" deny the Biblical concept of the nature of God? Which of these deny that Jesus is that eternal God? I can tell you right now... NONE, no true Christian denies that Jesus is God and that there is One and only ONE GOD.. IHS jim

Vlad III

04-22-2010, 12:19 PM

Vlad, the word "Trinity" is not is the Bible but the teaching about the "Trinity" is clearly present. That is the difference between LDS and Christians. LDS simply add theology that clearly is not there. For example it does not say "Heavenly Mother" but if it said God was married then that would cons***ute that God had a wife. But you and I both know that there is not any evidence in the Bible that God has a wife.

You seem agree with me now!

One can 'see' a teaching 'clearly' to justify their beliefs.

Now, can you tell us which church/ religion is 100% perfect in doctrine?

Billyray

04-22-2010, 12:25 PM

You seem agree with me now!

One can 'see' a teaching 'clearly' to justify their beliefs.

Now, can you tell us which church/ religion is 100% perfect in doctrine?

I don't agree with you at all. The word Trinity is not in the Bible but the teaching about the Trinity is. For the unique concepts of Mormonism there is not these teachings to support your theology.

Vlad III

04-22-2010, 12:33 PM

I don't agree with you at all. The word Trinity is not in the Bible but the teaching about the Trinity is. For the unique concepts of Mormonism there is not these teachings to support your theology.

LOL...you DO agree with me, since that is what I've been saying all along. Nothing in the Bible REFUTES LDS doctrine.

For example, baptism for the dead is mentioned in the Bible, but only the LDS understand it in its true context. The verse in the Bible about it SUPPORTS the LDS concept, not REFUTES it.

Billyray

04-22-2010, 12:37 PM

Nothing in the Bible REFUTES LDS doctrine.

Vlad, are you kidding me?

Here are just two examples.

The Bible teaches that God has been God from everlasting to everlasting. LDS teach that God was not always God but was a man.

The Bible teaches that the Aaronic priesthood is restricted exclusively to the tribe of Levi. If you check your Patriarchal blessing you are likely from the line of Joseph via one of his two sons.

nrajeff

04-22-2010, 12:47 PM

Billyray

04-22-2010, 12:52 PM

The Old Testament teaches that a child would be born of a virgin, and that the child would be called the mighty God, among other things.

The New Testament teaches that the Great I am became a mortal baby who became a man when He grew into manhood.

What Bible are YOU using, that has those parts deleted?
Jesus never ceased to be God when he came down to this earth. Jesus has been God from everlasting to everlasting. This conflicts with the LDS concept that both God the Father and Jesus were not always God. The verses that you provided do not support your claim.

Vlad III

04-22-2010, 12:54 PM

Quote:
If a Baptist person believes that Jesus might've been married on earth, does that make him 100% in error about Jesus, on every issue, so as to merit God sending him to Hell for eternity?

James Banta's reply:

YES!

---So really nothing more needs be said. Unless a person believes only that which is stated in the Bible and does so in full agreement with people like James, God will punishthem eternally in a vat of boiling lava for eternity.

How sad to have such an unmerciful and unjust God, James. Definitely not worthy of my worship.

nrajeff

04-22-2010, 01:08 PM

The word Trinity is not in the Bible but the teaching about the Trinity is.

Although the WORD "Arianism" is not in the Bible, Arian Christians claimed that it contains teachings that SUPPORT Arianism. They believed that so strongly, that they got into fights with Trinitarian Christians, and the emperor got so fed up with the fighting between the 2 groups of Christians that he ordered a meeting of its bishops (Christianity had abandoned the apostles as leaders by then) and told them to settle on one offical theology/Christology, so that the fighting in his empire would end.

nrajeff

04-22-2010, 01:11 PM

Jesus never ceased to be God when he came down to this earth.

---According to the Bible, Jesus was not a candidate for inheriting His Father's kingdom until AFTER He had become a man and had the experiences He experienced on this planet. That probably contradicts what your preacher told you, so you need to decide whether you're gonna believe your preacher, or the Bible.

Billyray

04-22-2010, 01:16 PM

Although the WORD "Arianism" is not in the Bible, Arian Christians claimed that it contains teachings that SUPPORT Arianism.

Right, so you take their beliefs and compare them with the Bible and find out which side is correct. For example that is what we are trying to show you. You make a theological claim, the Christians make a claim and then we go to the word of God to sort it out. You believe that God and Jesus have not always been God but became separate gods during their progression. Interesting enough that you brought up "Arianism" because LDS beliefs are similar to the Arian heresy,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
"Arius taught that God the Father and the Son did not exist together eternally."

nrajeff

04-22-2010, 01:24 PM

Right, so you take their beliefs and compare them with the Bible and find out which side is correct.

---Many people have done that to Trinitarianism and found out that it's not correct. And found out that neither is Arianism. You BOTH blew it. That's what happens when a group of Christians runs out of apostles and prophets. Remember what Williams and Wesley and Fos**** said about the state of mainstream Christendom.

Mesenja

04-22-2010, 01:27 PM

Billyray

04-22-2010, 01:28 PM

---Many people have done that to Trinitarianism and found out that it's not correct. And found out that neither is Arianism. You BOTH blew it. That's what happens when a group of Christians runs out of apostles and prophets. Remember what Williams and Wesley and Fos**** said about the state of mainstream Christendom.
Here is the basis for the Trinity. What part do you take issue with?

1) The Father is diety;
2) The Son is deity;
3) The Holy Spirit is deity;
4) The Father is distinct from the Son and Holy Spirit;
5) The Son is distinct from the Father and Holy Spirit;
6) The Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father and Son;

7) There exists only one deity/god

Billyray

04-22-2010, 01:31 PM

Tell me if I am supposed to be aiming for the Protestant or Catholic bullseye.

You are aiming for the Biblical bullseye. Remember that the LDS have many unique beliefs that are extra-Biblical.

So when the Bible speaks about one God, you don't believe heretical beliefs that there are many gods. When the Bible speaks about salvation by faith you don't make an endless list of things to do so that you might be saved (LDS exaltation).

Mesenja

04-22-2010, 01:35 PM

You are aiming for the Biblical bullseye. Remember that the Latter-day Saints have many unique beliefs that are extra-Biblical.

So when the Bible speaks about one God,you don't believe heretical beliefs that there are many gods. When the Bible speaks about salvation by faith you don't make an endless list of things to do so that you might be saved (LDS exaltation).

Both Protestantism and Catholicism claim to be Christian. Which of these circles overlap more with the Biblical bullseye? And if it is Protestantism then is Calvinism or Arminianism that most overlaps this circle? Just to set the record straight I have never been considered a heretic. To be a heretic one once have had to have been a Christian.

Billyray

04-22-2010, 01:40 PM

Both Protestantism and Catholicism claim to be Christian.

As does Mormonism.

I have to have once been a Christian to have beliefs that are heretical to Christianity.

No you don't.

Mesenja

04-22-2010, 01:45 PM

No you don't.

A heretic was once a professed believer who now maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.

As does Mormonism.

This doesn't answer my question BillRay. Care to try again?

Billyray

04-22-2010, 01:53 PM

A heretic was once a professed believer who now maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.

Always trying to twist things to get some kind of small win, don't you. Note that I did not say heretic but "heretical beliefs". A heretic and a heretical belief are not the same thing.

Even a heretic does not require you to have been a member at one time as you seem to insist.

Main Entry: her·e·tic
Pronunciation: \ˈher-ə-ˌtik, ˈhe-rə-\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : a dissenter from established religious dogma; especially : a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who disavows a revealed truth
2 : one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine : nonconformist

Just to set the record straight I have never been considered a heretic. To be a heretic one once have had to have been a Christian.

Number 2 from definition above.
2 : one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine

nrajeff

04-22-2010, 03:22 PM

Here is the basis for the Trinity. What part do you take issue with?

1) The Father is diety;
2) The Son is deity;
3) The Holy Spirit is deity;
4) The Father is distinct from the Son and Holy Spirit;
5) The Son is distinct from the Father and Holy Spirit;
6) The Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father and Son;

7) There exists only one deity/god

---Which parts did YOU take issue with when you were a TBM RM?

Billyray

04-22-2010, 04:12 PM

---Which parts did YOU take issue with when you were a TBM RM?

As an LDS member I bought it hook line and sinker.

James Banta

04-22-2010, 05:33 PM

James Banta's reply:

YES!

---So really nothing more needs be said. Unless a person believes only that which is stated in the Bible and does so in full agreement with people like James, God will punishthem eternally in a vat of boiling lava for eternity.

How sad to have such an unmerciful and unjust God, James. Definitely not worthy of my worship.

This is the word of God

Acts 4:12
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
No other way Only by Jesus the one true God..

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
There is only one true and living God

Isaiah 43:10
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
You want to point the finger at me for having a closed mind on who can come to God and who God is take it up with Him not me.. If such a Being is not worthy of you, I praise Him for not having to witness your judgment and ***ignment to your place in His wrath.. This was sever blasphemy but you made these statements against the Father and the Son. You can still be forgiven of such evil. But it will require you to come to know who He is.. IHS jim

Mesenja

04-24-2010, 09:40 AM

You still haven't answered this question. There are two big targets in the Christian world. There is the Protestant target and the Catholic target. It does no good to say just aim for the Christian target. Both targets in this ****ogy have radically different bullseyes as there is major theological differences in their soteriology. I will leave aside pursuing your rabbit trail of debating this distinction without a difference at a latter time.

Billyray

05-04-2010, 12:24 AM

Which bullseye Billy_Ray?
You still haven't answered this question. There are two big targets in the Christian world. There is the Protestant target and the Catholic target. It does no good to say just aim for the Christian target. Both targets in this ****ogy have radically different bullseyes as there is major theological differences in their soteriology. I will leave aside pursuing your rabbit trail of debating this distinction without a difference at a latter time.
You are aiming for the Biblical bullseye Mesenja--I have already answered this one but you must of missed it. BTW Catholicism and Protestant have overlap in their beliefs. LDS and Protestants have very little overlap in their beliefs--LDS are way out there. But since you know that I am Protestant it wouldn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that I think that the bullseye is closer to the Protestant position.

Mesenja

05-04-2010, 01:27 AM

You are aiming for the Biblical bullseye Mesenja-I have already answered this one but you must of missed it. By the way Catholicism and Protestant have overlap in their beliefs. LDS and Protestants have very little overlap in their beliefs--LDS are way out there. But since you know that I am Protestant it wouldn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that I think that the bullseye is closer to the Protestant position.

Is this the same as almost hitting the target,we almost hit the bullseye?

Blueskies

05-04-2010, 07:02 AM

Vlad:
I am new here but I must put in my two cents. As I see things from a Born Again Christian stand point, there is NOT any religion existing today that is correct. No church can or should call themselves correct or "TRUE" which is the case with Mormonism and the Catholics. Each claiming they were given this right by either God, who supposedly appeared to Joseph Smith and the Pope saying they have their authority straight from the Apostle Peter. Sorry, but the only way to judge any church is by the things that they teach. Any church that does not hold the Bible up to be the word of God and teach Christ's birth, death and resurrection and that we can ONLY be saved through his grace and NOTHING else, is NOT a church to ever consider.
Mormonism teaches a false Jesus, for what your faith teaches is that your Jesus is the brother of Satan and not God. Your faith teaches that he sweat for your sins and that hanging on a cross was nothing. Your Jesus is a weak want to be but until you accept the "TRUE" Jesus of the Bible, you eternal destiny WILL be the Lake of Fire. I am only warning you, for you can read this for yourself in Revelations. As for the way you speak to other members here, it is atrocious for if you were trying to convince me to join your church, from what I've read from you, I am already turning my back and running as far as I can. What a poor example you have shown here.

Billyray

05-04-2010, 07:45 AM

Is this the same as almost hitting the target,we almost hit the bullseye?

Mesenja, the bullseye is the Bible This seems so clear to me, I can't understand how you are missing this. You are getting it backwards. You are aiming for a church such as the LDS church and then going to the Bible to get proof texts to support your church, rather that going to the Bible to get your doctrine and then comparing the church to that standard. You are trying to focus between variations within the Protestant faith OR between Protestants and Catholicism yet your religion is clear to the right of norm. Instead of quibbling between A and B you should focus your attention to why your beliefs are completely outside of Biblical Christianity. That should be your focus.

A (Biblical Standard)
----->Church B
------------->Church C
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>P (Mormonism)

Vlad III

05-04-2010, 08:12 AM

Vlad:
I am new here but I must put in my two cents. As I see things from a Born Again Christian stand point, there is NOT any religion existing today that is correct. No church can or should call themselves correct or "TRUE" which is the case with Mormonism and the Catholics. Each claiming they were given this right by either God, who supposedly appeared to Joseph Smith and the Pope saying they have their authority straight from the Apostle Peter. Sorry, but the only way to judge any church is by the things that they teach. Any church that does not hold the Bible up to be the word of God and teach Christ's birth, death and resurrection and that we can ONLY be saved through his grace and NOTHING else, is NOT a church to ever consider.

Thanks for your opinion. LDS believe in the Bible and also look to Jesus for our salvation.

Mormonism teaches a false Jesus, for what your faith teaches is that your Jesus is the brother of Satan and not God.

Not entirely true, but I understand your need as a critic to TELL me what LDS believe.

faith teaches that he sweat of your sins and that hanging on a cross was nothing.

Again, not accurate but again, I understand your need to misrepresent my faith.

Your Jesus is a weak want to be but until you accept the "TRUE" Jesus of the Bible, you eternal destiny WILL be the Lake of Fire.

I think you mean "wannabe". But nonetheless you are still incorrect in your ***essment of LDS

As for the way you speak to other members here, it is atrocious for if you were trying to convince me to join your church, from what I've read from you, I am already turning my back and running as far as I can. What a poor example you have shown here.

mod edit

Mesenja

05-04-2010, 08:17 AM

Mesenja, the bullseye is the Bible This seems so clear to me,I can't understand how you are missing this. You are getting it backwards. You are aiming for a church such as the LDS church and then going to the Bible to get proof texts to support your church,rather that going to the Bible to get your doctrine and then comparing the church to that standard. You are trying to focus between variations within the Protestant faith OR between Protestants and Catholicism yet your religion is clear to the right of norm. Instead of quibbling between A and B you should focus your attention to why your beliefs are completely outside of Biblical Christianity. That should be your focus.

A (Biblical Standard)
----->Church B
------------->Church C
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>P (Mormonism)

If you aim for Church B which I ***ume is any one of the myriad Protestant churches or Church C which I ***ume is the Catholic church then you wont hit the biblical bullseye on the Christian target.

Billyray

05-04-2010, 08:26 AM

If you aim for Church B which I ***ume is any one of the myriad Protestant churches or Church C which I ***ume is the Catholic church then you wont hit the biblical bullseye on the Christian target.

You are absolutely correct. The good news is that if A is the standard then B (Protestant) is a aweful lot better than P (Mormonism), wouldn't you agree?

Mesenja

05-04-2010, 08:34 AM

False religions usually have bits of truth mixed with the falsehood. If this were not the case then very few people would be caught up within it's grasp. As I have noted before there is slight variation within each group (i.e. Mormonism and Christianity). I see that each group as a circle instead of a dot. However,I see these two circle as not overlapping.

Jim said that "Sorry but there is no entering your truth scale unless the condition I stated are met first. Unless you want to say A is absolute truth and Z is absolute lie. In which case there is no letter between then. If you back away from truth you fall immediately into LIES. All truth or all lies. There is no half way. A half truth is still nothing more than a lie." You contradicted this by saying that "everyone would like to think that they are right about every issue concerning Jesus but this may not be possible." This is a bit more than agreeing on the essentials and having the freedom to disagree on the non essentials is it not?

Billyray

05-04-2010, 08:37 AM

Jim said that "Sorry but there is no entering your truth scale unless the condition I stated are met first. Unless you want to say A is absolute truth and Z is absolute lie. In which case there is no letter between then. If you back away from truth you fall immediately into LIES. All truth or all lies. There is no half way. A half truth is still nothing more than a lie." You contradicted this by saying that "everyone would like to think that they are right about every issue concerning Jesus but this may not be possible." This is a bit more than agreeing on the essentials and having the freedom to disagree on the non essentials is it not?

Can you restate your point--it came across to me as rambling and I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

Mesenja

05-04-2010, 08:51 AM

You are absolutely correct. The good news is that if A is the standard then B (Protestant) is a awfully lot better than P (Mormonism), wouldn't you agree?

It's not a matter of my disagreeing or agreeing with you on this point. Either there is one way for salvation or conflicting and contradictory doctrines are acceptable. Either the ordinances are a specific channel of divine grace or they are important but not essential. Either Christ established one church which is visible and where doctrines matter or he established an invisible church in which all believers,regardless of denomination,are members and doctrines are not important.

Billyray

05-04-2010, 09:03 AM

It's not a matter of my disagreeing or agreeing with you on this point. Either there is one way for salvation or conflicting and contradictory doctrines are acceptable.

This is an excellent point on your point because it shows your error. Mainstream Christianity with rare exceptions is in agreement on salvation. So your statement "conflicting and contradictory doctrines are acceptable" is completely a straw man argument and is completely false. The Bible is clear on the doctrine of salvation. Within scripture some doctrine are extremely clear and some doctrine are more vague, we may differ somewhat in the vague areas.

Either the ordinances are a specific channel of divine grace or they are important but not essential.

You are inferring in priesthood authority here. Show me anywhere in the NT where any of the NT members held the Aaronic or Melchezedek priesthood besides Christ.

James Banta

05-04-2010, 09:32 AM

So says James Banta:

"Unless you want to say A is absolute truth and z is absolute lie.. In which case there is no letter between then.. If you back away fro truth you fall immediately into LIES.. All truth or all lies.. There is no half way.. IHS jim "

So now the big question is, if others agree that you are either 100% true or 100% false, how do you reconcile people that hold a belief about Jesus that might not be held by others? Are they therefore in 100% error?

If a Baptist person believes that Jesus might've been married on earth, does that make him 100% in error about Jesus, on every issue, so as to merit God sending him to Hell for eternity?

How do LDS-critics like James Banta justify having such extremist views and not see how such extremism might very well destroy their own theological paradigm if applied logically to all religions, not just Mormons.

If aBaptist hold false doctrine about the nature and Person of God they are 100% in error YES.. There is no salvation in any thing or any one other that Jesus.. For instance if you believe thatthere is anything you can do that makes you acceptable to God you are in error and will be ****ed.. This is justifed in the Bible..

Acts 4:12
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
And from Jesus Himself:

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
And who does the Bible say that Jesus is

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Anything that teaches Jesus is less than this in any way is 100% in error.. Joseph Smith and all who follow his teachings are in serious error!!! IHS jim

James Banta

05-04-2010, 09:37 AM

I don't think it is "clearly laid out" that Jesus CREATED Satan.

So does that mean if someone believed the Father created Satan, yest believed all the other things about Jesus as found in scripture, that God would send him to everlasting Hell and torment?

Seems kind of harsh, donchathink?

It is so clearly spelled out that a person must close his eyes and ears not to know ablot it:

Col 1:16
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him
All things, all powers, all dominions.. What is there about all things you can't understand? You are so filled with the teachings of a prophet who spoke in the name of false gods that you can't hear God's truth from the Bible.. All things means Satan as will as a families pet dog..

I have explained the suffering of Jesus to you before and you rejected it. Here your own quote agrees with what I have been saying about the nature of God all alone and all you can think of doing with it is to try to belittle the Bible.. And you said you believe it.. That sound like you are not being truthful, again! Jesus is the Only Person who ever lived who could make an eternal sacrifice for sin.. He is God and by nature Omnipresent.. But your mind can't or won't believe Him.. That is your failing not His..
IHS jim

James Banta

05-04-2010, 09:46 AM

Jim never even entertained the thought that "everyone would like to think that they are right about every issue concerning Jesus but this may not be possible". Oh no in Jim's world everything is measured in absolutes. It is either the truth or a lie.

Where in this quote is there room to agree on "core beliefs about Jesus that distinguish Christians from non Christians" and disagree on other issues that are not "clearly laid out by God in his word"? According to Jim this is like drinking "a full gl*** of filth". Remember he said that "There is no half way".

So what doctrines does the Church disagree on? List them and I will show you thatyou are again way off base.. IHS jim

Vlad III

05-04-2010, 09:54 AM

It is so clearly spelled out that a person must close his eyes and ears not to know ablot it:

Col 1:16
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him
All things, all powers, all dominions.. What is there about all things you can't understand? You are so filled with the teachings of a prophet who spoke in the name of false gods that you can't hear God's truth from the Bible.. All things means Satan as will as a families pet dog..

I have explained the suffering of Jesus to you before and you rejected it. Here your own quote agrees with what I have been saying about the nature of God all alone and all you can think of doing with it is to try to belittle the Bible.. And you said you believe it.. That sound like you are not being truthful, again! Jesus is the Only Person who ever lived who could make an eternal sacrifice for sin.. He is God and by nature Omnipresent.. But your mind can't or won't believe Him.. That is your failing not His..
IHS jim

What are you talking about? You always throw in 12 false arguments when trying to defend one. Too much time to try and refute all of your false attacks here. Just suffice it to say we believe Jesus and all he said and did.

Blueskies

05-04-2010, 09:54 AM

Vlad: According to what I know of Mormonism, you DO NOT turn to Jesus for your salvation. Your church teaches works for you to gain it, not depending upon our Savior at all. NO amount of good works will save a soul. God could care less about you claiming, "I attended all my meetings, I did my temple work, I paid a full ***he, I helped my neighbor, I lived a good life!"
Can you see what I do? It is ALL about you, I, I, I; a real "I" problem. "For by grace ye are saved, and not of yourselves, it is the GIFT of God, lest any man should boast." Now tell me how works can save you? There is one God, and He is the only one which we need to concern ourselves with. Putting down someone, to make yourself look good, only shows you have an inferiority complex. Believe me, I've taken many cl***es in psychology to know. Are you so afraid of researching your faith or are you going to remain in the dark and allow others to think for you. Nothing wrong in learning new things, we're never to old to learn. It's when we stop that our minds begin to decline.

James Banta

05-04-2010, 09:55 AM

The key to answering your question is in your own statement above. The LDS church HAS "blatant false teachings" about Jesus, God the Father, and the gospel. So in this sense it is easy to spot truth from fiction.

Vlad has no idea of differences between the Church and a church.. The Church is 100% true. Not one error is held in Her teachings. While a church often teaches many false doctrines. These are NOT the TRUE CHURCH. There are often members of the Church that worship God in them but all these churches are in error in some doctrines... If you would, because they will never believe me tell these cultists what the doctrines of the Church are.. Just as a hint: I see them as the nature of the true God and holding the laws of Love and Faith.. Other churches have much more involved in being members.. Because of that they will never be considered THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE CHURCH.. IHS jim

James Banta

05-04-2010, 10:05 AM

What are you talking about? You always throw in 12 false arguments when trying to defend one. Too much time to try and refute all of your false attacks here. Just suffice it to say we believe Jesus and all he said and did.

I know you can't understand statements like Jesus created ALL things.. That is too hard for you to understand.. "All" is a word that is inclusive of everything.. If it exists Jesus created it.. You either don't believe Satan exists or you doubt the word of God on the subject PROVING that at least one mormon who calls himself Vlad on forums that question his church as not being truthful. He denies the Jesus of the Bible.. The Bible says that Jesus created all things even to the point of creating the spirits of all men, and doing that within them.. You are contradicting yourself as all with eyes to see with can see..
IHS jim

James Banta

05-04-2010, 10:10 AM

You say false religions have truth and falsehoods. But the issue is whether or not there is a religion that is 100% true WITHOUT any falsehoods. And falsehoods can be simple opinions on doctrine that are not true, not necessarily blatent false teachings. So James is saying that the church is either 100% true or 100% false.

So how do you reconcile a church where there are varying degrees of opinions that may or may not be actual truth? Are those churches now 100% FALSE or is there room for speculation, conjecture, and opinions on issues?

Foolish idea about what THE TRUE CHURCH is.. It's not the Baptists, not the Lutherans, It's not a nondenominational church.. The true Church is the body of Jesus. This is the Church that ONLY JESUS can add you to as he saves you (Acts 2:47).. Good heavens you have no idea what the Church even is! IHS jim

James Banta

05-04-2010, 10:11 AM

False compared to what? Your dogma?

Yes, because that dogma in the Bible.. IHS jim

Mesenja

05-04-2010, 10:26 AM

I will paraphrase it for clarity and convenience. The Bible is clear on the doctrine of salvation except for the doctrines that are vague. Here is the translation of what you just said. The doctrine of salvation is one of the inessentials that we can disagree on. You have also just contradicted yourself in the same sentence. First you said that it is false that there is any "conflicting and contradictory doctrines" then you reverse yourself and say "some doctrine are more vague,we may differ somewhat in the vague areas." Either the Bible is clear or it is vague on this subject.

This is an excellent point on your part because it shows your error. Mainstream Christianity with rare exceptions is in agreement on salvation. So your statement "conflicting and contradictory doctrines are acceptable" is completely a straw man argument and is completely false. The Bible is clear on the doctrine of salvation. Within scripture some doctrine are extremely clear and some doctrine are more vague,we may differ somewhat in the vague areas.

No BillyRay I am not alluding to priesthood authority here. I am making the argument that the Bible teaches us thhat certain ordinances are essential for our salvation.

You are inferring in priesthood authority here. Show me anywhere in the NT where any of the New Testament members held the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood besides Christ.

Mark Beesley

05-04-2010, 10:40 AM

Mesenja

05-04-2010, 10:42 AM

So what doctrines does the Church disagree on? List them and I will show you that you are again way off base. IHS Jim

What you can show me is how you agree with Billy. Billy said that "everyone would like to think that they are right about every issue concerning Jesus but this may not be possible." while you said that this was ****ogous to drinking "a full gl*** of filth."

Billy said that there are "core beliefs about Jesus that distinguish Christians from non Christians" and we agree on the essentials we claim the right to disagree on other issues that are not "clearly laid out by God in his word" while you took the diametrically opposite view and argued that "If you back away from truth you fall immediately into LIES. All truth or all lies. There is no half way. A half truth is still nothing more than a lie."

James Banta

05-04-2010, 10:54 AM

LDS can reconcile thei belief about Jesus with the Bible quite easily. So it appears your argument is about whose interpretation of the Bible is the one that is 100% inerrant. Anything else and you have a 100% false belief about Jesus according to at least one LDS-critic.

Oh yes I have seen how well mormon doctrine lines up with the Bible..
1. Mormonism teaches that Jesus is a creation of a created god. The Bible says that He is God and create all things..
2. Mormonism teaches that Joseph Smith is a prophet but he taught in the name of other gods :

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit, and these three cons***ute
three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it? (History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 474)
How does this fit in what Jesus said about the nature of God?

Mark 12:29
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord
It is clear that if Smith was a prophet, he wasn't a prophet of YHWH.. IHS jim

Vlad III

05-04-2010, 10:57 AM

Oh yes I have seen how well mormon doctrine lines up with the Bible..
1. Mormonism teaches that Jesus is a creation of a created god. The Bible says that He is God and create all things..
2. Mormonism teaches that Joseph Smith is a prophet but he taught in the name of other gods :

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit, and these three cons***ute
three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it? (History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 474)
How does this fit in what Jesus said about the nature of God?

Mark 12:29
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord
It is clear that if Smith was a prophet, he wasn't a prophet of YHWH.. IHS jim

as I said, LDS can reconcile all our beliefs about Jesus with the Bible. So it becomes a matter of interpretation of the Bible.

James Banta

05-04-2010, 11:04 AM

Oh, you are looking for specific verses.

No, there isn't a specific verse that states what you are looking for above. Just like there's no specific verse that says Jesus is the creator of Satan. But we look at the teaching as a whole and we can reasonably and logically make conclusions.

For example, we can rightfully conclude that Jesus is a spiritual child of the Father, since Jesus even refers to the Father as HIS father. And we also can conlude that eternal unions of man and woman are of God (Adam & Eve) and we know that it is a law of God to be married in order to have offspring. So again a logical conclusion can be made that the Father also has an eternal companion.

Now the question is, can you show a LDS person BIBLICALLY that these things cannot be understood as the LDS see them?

The logical thing to do here is to beleive what God says in the Bible.. It says:

Isaiah 44:8
Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.\
Is not a female God still a God besides YHWH? See you miss the fact that in the scripture only the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are called God.. Any other is a false god and an idol.. Mormons worship and idol created in the mind of Joseph Smith.. Tis is not the God of the Bible but only one Smith made up ex nihilo.. IHS jim

Vlad III

05-04-2010, 11:13 AM

...Smith made up ex nihilo.. IHS jim

lol...."ex nihilo"...:p

James Banta

05-04-2010, 11:17 AM

LOL...you DO agree with me, since that is what I've been saying all along. Nothing in the Bible REFUTES LDS doctrine.

For example, baptism for the dead is mentioned in the Bible, but only the LDS understand it in its true context. The verse in the Bible about it SUPPORTS the LDS concept, not REFUTES it.

I will agree that some group in the New Testament era were conducting baptisms for the dead.. Paul used that practice to teach the doctrine of the resurrection.. By He never admitted that such a baptism was a Church doctrine.. Rather he separated the Church from the practice. It is like James in chapter 2 verse 19 that the Devils even believe that God is one. That doesn't mean that those that believe that are devils.. Mormon doctrine such as Baptism for the dead are stu.pidly snatched out of their context and made to mean something they have never taught..

I have already shown you that the Bible REFUTES the most important of all mormon teachings.. That God is a creation of yet an other god who is also a creation of yet another god.. I have shown you that God (Jesus) created ALL things.. Not just a few but ALL, even is those things are invisible.. Humm would that include any other universe or dimensions that some people say are real? YES! The Bible doesn't support these ridiculous false doctrines of mormonism! IHS jim

James Banta

05-04-2010, 11:27 AM

---According to the Bible, Jesus was not a candidate for inheriting His Father's kingdom until AFTER He had become a man and had the experiences He experienced on this planet. That probably contradicts what your preacher told you, so you need to decide whether you're gonna believe your preacher, or the Bible.

That is strange because He is said to be the God that created it all (Col 1:16). That would mean that He owns it by right of creation.. If There is only one God as Moses taught and Jesus confirmed, and Jesus is God then He is the owner of ALL things.. He is not a creation but the one and only creator.. You are the one who needs to decide whether to believe the teaching of Joseph Smith or the WORD OF GOD.. IHS jim

James Banta

05-04-2010, 11:28 AM

The Old Testament teaches that a child would be born of a virgin, and that the child would be called the mighty God, among other things.

The New Testament teaches that the Great I am became a mortal baby who became a man when He grew into manhood, and that He even referred to Himself as the son of man whose father was the only true God.

What Bible are YOU using, that has those parts deleted?

I guess we read one that you don't like because we see that verse calling Jesus the Mighty God, The everlasting FATHER.. But you didn't want to use the whole verse because it contradicted your whole POV.. You real should try to believe all the Bible not just the part you can rip out of context to make them sound like you believe in the Bible message.. IHS jim

James Banta

05-04-2010, 11:42 AM

Again...when you don't have a valid defense, call the opponent a liar. Oh well.

But is what I said REALLY 'completely false'? I said there is no verse that specifically states that Jesus created Satan. And the verse you provided ALSO does not specifically state that Jesus created Satan.

I can also look at verses that say Jesus will forgive ALL sins. And yet there is at least one sin he will NOT forgive. So I am quite content in understanding the verse you posted above that states 'ALL' as being 'ALL' but with at least one exception ie. our spirits.

Again, you show that the Bible does not SPECIFICALLY refute LDS doctrine, and I have shown that the Bible SUPPORTS LDS doctrine as we understand it.

I see when you run into a verse you have no answer in mormonism for you pull a Chubby Checkers and really get down doing the twist.. Jesus is credited in the Bible for the creation of ALL things, all principalities, all powers. Are telling me that Satan isn't a power? Yes of course he is and here he is being said to be a creation of Jesus.. COMPLETELY BIBLICAL. Mormon doctrine that calls Satan the spirit brother of Jesus would then be COMPLETELY wrong!

Jesus is said to forgive all sin but one..

Matthew 12:31
Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
It is therefore my Biblical contention that all the evil you have ever done or will ever do will not charged against you only that you treated the promoting of the Holy Spirit with contempt as He tried to bring you to Jesus.. That is indeed blasphemy.. IHS jim

James Banta

05-04-2010, 11:44 AM

lol...."ex nihilo"...:p

Yes out of nothing.. Not even a thought that was based in the Bible.. Just Poof.. A new god created out of nothing.. IHS jim

James Banta

05-04-2010, 11:49 AM

as I said, LDS can reconcile all our beliefs about Jesus with the Bible. So it becomes a matter of interpretation of the Bible.

Those two statements can't be reconciled just because you say so.. Show how you would do that.. How is it that the Lord our God is One Lord and yet we have three Gods and no one can contradict it.. That I have to see.. It's nothing bit another Pipe dream or pretzel thinking.. That is having to twist the Bible way out of it's real meaning.. Without doing one or the other you can't reconcile these statements.. IHS jim

Vlad III

05-04-2010, 11:49 AM

Yes out of nothing.. Not even a thought that was based in the Bible.. Just Poof.. A new god created out of nothing.. IHS jim

Whatever you wanna believe I guess.

James Banta

05-04-2010, 11:52 AM

Whatever you wanna believe I guess.

Ok I'll believe the Bible and you can believe a man.. That's the way it is here all the time.. The Bible (the word of God) vs Joseph Smith.. They conflict! IHS jim

Billyray

05-04-2010, 03:52 PM

So, did Jesus create God the Father?

Is this a serious question Mark? Of course Jesus did not create God the Father. Remember that Christians believe in ONE God not many gods, so this may be the reason for your confusion. Please explain this verse from a LDS point of view.

Colossians 1:16 For by him (Jesus) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Billyray

05-04-2010, 04:01 PM

I will paraphrase it clarity and convenience. The Bible is clear on the doctrine of salvation except for the doctrines that are vague.

This is completely false. I never said that. Either you can't read or you have misrepresented my post. Here is my post again. Notice the underlined portion is NOT, I repeat NOT speaking about salvation and this should be clear given the preceding sentences.

This is an excellent point on your point because it shows your error. Mainstream Christianity with rare exceptions is in agreement on salvation. So your statement "conflicting and contradictory doctrines are acceptable" is completely a straw man argument and is completely false. The Bible is clear on the doctrine of salvation. Within scripture some doctrine are extremely clear and some doctrine are more vague, we may differ somewhat in the vague areas.

Billyray

05-04-2010, 04:06 PM

No BillyRay I am not alluding to priesthood authority here. I am making the argument that the Bible teaches us thhat certain ordinances are essential for our salvation.

And what ordinances are absolutely required to live with God again? Please include your explanation of the thief of the cross into your explanation.

Mesenja

05-04-2010, 04:07 PM

You said that " if you believe that there is anything you can do that makes you acceptable to God you are in error and will be ****ed." Correct theology therefore is requisite to our salvation.

If a Baptist hold false doctrine about the nature and Person of God they are 100% in error YES. There is no salvation in any thing or any one other that Jesus. For instance if you believe that there is anything you can do that makes you acceptable to God you are in error and will be ****ed. IHS Jim

Father_JD said that "Correct 'theology' ATTENDS THE SAVED,IT IS NOT THE CAUSE OF SALVATION".

Correct "theology" ATTENDS THE SAVED,IT IS NOT THE CAUSE OF SALVATION."

Blueskies

05-04-2010, 04:11 PM

Mes: Then I can take that you believe there's gray areas and that there's no absolute truths or absolute lies? That is very interesting. So, what do you do when a criminal who is caught in the act of stealing says, it wasn't me, you've got the wrong man? Or, how about this one, for I'm sure you're guilty of this, the phone rings, you're busy or just not in the mood to talk so you tell your kids or spouse to tell whomever is on the phone that you're not at home. Now, is this not a lie?? Maybe a white lie, but a lie none the less. You see, in God's eyes. even a white lie is still a lie and a sin. He doesn't see gray areas. "For ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

Mesenja

05-04-2010, 04:15 PM

This is completely false. I never said that. Either you can't read or you have misrepresented my post. Here is my post again. Notice the underlined portion is NOT,I repeat NOT speaking about salvation and this should be clear given the preceding sentences.

You started out by saying that the Bible is clear on the doctrine of salvation. Then in the next sentence you are not speaking about the doctrine of salvation.

The Bible is clear on the doctrine of salvation. Within scripture some doctrine are extremely clear and some doctrine are more vague,we may differ somewhat in the vague areas.

Billyray

05-04-2010, 04:27 PM

You started out by saying that the Bible is clear on the doctrine of salvation. Then in the next sentence you are not speaking about the doctrine of salvation.

OK lets break this down for you into 3 separate statements.

1. Mainstream Christianity with rare exceptions is in agreement on salvation.
2. The Bible is clear on the doctrine of salvation.

3. Within scripture some doctrine are extremely clear and some doctrine are more vague, we may differ somewhat in the vague areas.

(I think that these statements are pretty clear, and by the first two statements you would know my position.)
Now put all three statements together. Is the doctrine of salvation clear OR is the doctrine of salvation more vague by using statements 1 and 2?

Mark Beesley

05-04-2010, 04:51 PM

Is this a serious question Mark? Of course Jesus did not create God the Father. Remember that Christians believe in ONE God not many gods, so this may be the reason for your confusion. Please explain this verse from a LDS point of view.

Colossians 1:16 For by him (Jesus) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
It's only a serious question if you insist on using Colossians 1:16 as proof-text for your argument that Jesus created Lucifer, because it is just as easy to read Lucifer out of the set of all things created as it is to read the Father out of that set.

Blueskies

05-04-2010, 04:53 PM

Billy: I agree with you 100%. My question to Vlad would be, if these doctrines were so important to ones salvation, i.e. temple marriage, why isn't it ever mentioned in the Bible? Why wouldn't Jesus have preached this doctrine as he traveled? Why wouldn't he have taught this to his disciples?

Jill

05-04-2010, 04:58 PM

I find Joseph Smith jr is a cheap-con-man skirt chasing lying wantabe prophet with a trail of fraud, boasting, dodging, Zig-Zagging, vicious, with a xanthic personality.
I think this just about covers it from A2Z.

If you're going to approach this issue in this way, (which is a very poor way to do it), than cite your sources or I will delete this.

Billyray

05-04-2010, 05:02 PM

It's only a serious question if you insist on using Colossians 1:16 as proof-text for your argument that Jesus created Lucifer, because it is just as easy to read Lucifer out of the set of all things created as it is to read the Father out of that set.

Because of your view of the Godhead which consists of separate and distinct gods that create (or organize) other gods. But if your view of the Trinity was of ONE God you would not have that misunderstanding.

Can you give us your take of that verse? Here it is again.
Colossians 1:16 For by him (Jesus) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Mesenja

05-04-2010, 05:05 PM

OK lets break this down for you into 3 separate statements.

1. Mainstream Christianity with rare exceptions is in agreement on salvation.
2. The Bible is clear on the doctrine of salvation.
3. Within scripture some doctrine are extremely clear and some doctrine are more vague, we may differ somewhat in the vague areas.

(I think that these statements are pretty clear,and by the first two statements you would know my position.)

Now put all three statements together. Is the doctrine of salvation clear OR is the doctrine of salvation more vague by using statements 1 and 2?

Apparently those disputed doctrines on which there is disagreement are not important enough to affect your salvation. And we know this to be a 100% fact. Give me a break.

Billyray

05-04-2010, 05:15 PM

What are those rare exceptions?

I used the term "rare exceptions" simply as a stipulation because after the many years of dialogue with LDS if I did not include this stipulation you would search out crazy churches for the exception and thus conclude that my statement was false.

Apparently those disputed doctrines on which there is disagreement are not important enough to affect your salvation. And we know this to be a 100% fact. Give me a break.

The disputed doctrine that I was speaking about was not about salvation but other doctrine. The definition of doctrine is "something that is taught". Thus there are many things that are taught that are not very clear and there are many things that are taught that are very clear from the Bible. Let me give you some examples of doctrine (something that is taught) and see if you can guess which ones are clear and which ones are not so clear.

1. Jesus died for our sins
2. Role of dinosaurs in creation and age of the earth.

James Banta

05-04-2010, 05:23 PM

You said that " if you believe that there is anything you can do that makes you acceptable to God you are in error and will be ****ed." Correct theology therefore is requisite to our salvation.

Father_JD said that "Correct 'theology' ATTENDS THE SAVED,IT IS NOT THE CAUSE OF SALVATION".

You can't be saved believing Jesus is a scare crow in your back yard.. IHS jim

James Banta

05-06-2010, 03:14 PM

What you can show me is how you agree with Billy. Billy said that "everyone would like to think that they are right about every issue concerning Jesus but this may not be possible." while you said that this was ****ogous to drinking "a full gl*** of filth."

Billy said that there are "core beliefs about Jesus that distinguish Christians from non Christians" and we agree on the essentials we claim the right to disagree on other issues that are not "clearly laid out by God in his word" while you took the diametrically opposite view and argued that "If you back away from truth you fall immediately into LIES. All truth or all lies. There is no half way. A half truth is still nothing more than a lie."

Yes I believe that many people that believe in a false god believe their faith is based in the true God.. So I agree with Bill on that count.. While doing so I stand by my statement that if you believe that your God is a creation of some other god in total disagreement with God's word you are 100% wrong. Even if some of your doctrines contain truth.. You have mixed purity with filth and the result is filth.. Think about a gl*** half filled with pure water and then the other half is fill with sewer water.. Isn't the whole gl*** now sewer water? So it is with half truths. They are nothing more that 100% lies.. IHS jim

Mesenja

05-06-2010, 09:17 PM

Yes I believe that many people that believe in a false god believe their faith is based in the true God. So I agree with Bill on that count. While doing so I stand by my statement that if you believe that your God is a creation of some other god in total disagreement with God's word you are 100% wrong. Even if some of your doctrines contain truth. You have mixed purity with filth and the result is filth. Think about a gl*** half filled with pure water and then the other half is fill with sewer water. Isn't the whole gl*** now sewer water? So it is with half truths. They are nothing more that 100% lies. IHS Jim

I asked you do you agree that if Billy believes that "everyone would like to think that they are right about every issue concerning Jesus but this may not be possible" or is believing in half truths still ****ogous to "a gl*** half filled with pure water and then the other half is fill with sewer water. So it is with half truths. They are nothing more that 100% lies." Oh and James are you using the New Math?

Mesenja

05-06-2010, 09:24 PM

Mes:Then I can take that you believe there's gray areas and that there's no absolute truths or absolute lies? That is very interesting. So, what do you do when a criminal who is caught in the act of stealing says, it wasn't me,you've got the wrong man? Or,how about this one,for I'm sure you're guilty of this,the phone rings,you're busy or just not in the mood to talk so you tell your kids or spouse to tell whomever is on the phone that you're not at home. Now,is this not a lie? Maybe a white lie,but a lie none the less. You see,in God's eyes. even a white lie is still a lie and a sin. He doesn't see gray areas. "For ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

How did you ever come to that conclusion? I never said that everything is ethically ambiguous. What I am asking James is to resolve the conflict between what he said and the position that Billy took.

Billyray

05-06-2010, 10:59 PM

I asked you do you agree that if Billy believes that "everyone would like to think that they are right about every issue concerning Jesus but this may not be possible". . .

Mesenja, reading your post above it seems like you are misrepresenting my position, but what else is new, so I would like clarification from you.

Here is my quote in your post "everyone would like to think that they are right about every issue concerning Jesus but this may not be possible". You follow my quote with YOUR words "is believing in half truths". Are you equating my quote with half truths?

Vlad III

05-07-2010, 08:25 AM

Mesenja, reading your post above it seems like you are misrepresenting my position, but what else is new, so I would like clarification from you.

Here is my quote in your post "everyone would like to think that they are right about every issue concerning Jesus but this may not be possible". You follow my quote with YOUR words "is believing in half truths". Are you equating my quote with half truths?

Billy,

I think the point being made is you agree that it may not even be possible that someone can be right on every issue about Jesus. But people like James Banta have said that if you have one thing wrong then you have tainted the whole picture, basically. That's the OP of this thread.

So it boils down to this question: What % of things can a person have wrong about the Biblical Jesus that would make them no longer worshipping that Jesus?

James Banta

05-07-2010, 08:54 AM

I asked you do you agree that if Billy believes that "everyone would like to think that they are right about every issue concerning Jesus but this may not be possible" or is believing in half truths still ****ogous to "a gl*** half filled with pure water and then the other half is fill with sewer water. So it is with half truths. They are nothing more that 100% lies." Oh and James are you using the New Math?

What is so hard about this.. 1/2 + 1/2 = 1 100% of the water in the gl***es become sewer water.. Unless you know of a way to separate the clear from the impure? IHS jim

Vlad III

05-07-2010, 09:05 AM

What is so hard about this.. 1/2 + 1/2 = 1 100% of the water in the gl***es become sewer water.. Unless you know of a way to separate the clear from the impure? IHS jim

What about 98% pure and 2% impure?

What happens in your opinion?

James Banta

05-07-2010, 09:09 AM

Billy,

I think the point being made is you agree that it may not even be possible that someone can be right on every issue about Jesus. But people like James Banta have said that if you have one thing wrong then you have tainted the whole picture, basically. That's the OP of this thread.

So it boils down to this question: What % of things can a person have wrong about the Biblical Jesus that would make them no longer worshipping that Jesus?

Why is it so hard just to believe that the scripture teaches about Jesus..
1. That He is God and that He is man..
2. That He created ALL things..
3. That He is the I AM
4. That He is Wonderful
5. The Counclior
6. The mighty God
7. The everlasting Father
8. The Prince of peace
9. That He is from Everlasting to Everlasting
10. The Savior and Redeamer of the world.
11. That He created our spirits within us
12. That He, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are the one true God
13. That no other God was or ever will be formed, He is unique..

I am sure there are other attributes the the Bible teaches about Him and I acept them all.. How many do mormons accept as the truth about Him? How many false statemets like He is our heavenly brother and the brother of Satan as well, or that He didn't create our spirits at all do you add to the list. How many do you remove?

I would say that a Christian holds ALL that the Bible teaches of Jesus to be true.. If they don't they are not Christians, and not children of God.. 100% true or 100% false! It is not 50% BY 50%.. IHS jim

James Banta

05-07-2010, 09:18 AM

What about 98% pure and 2% impure?

What happens in your opinion?

If what you believe about God is 98% true congrats! You only have to swallow a gl*** with 98% pure water and only 2% sewer water.. That's much better don't you think? YUCK!!! Sorry 100% pure or 100% filth. There is no middle.. IHS jim

Vlad III

05-07-2010, 10:00 AM

If what you believe about God is 98% true congrats! You only have to swallow a gl*** with 98% pure water and only 2% sewer water.. That's much better don't you think? YUCK!!! Sorry 100% pure or 100% filth. There is no middle.. IHS jim

And that's where you and your buddy Billyray are at odds, since he is of the opinion that nobody has 100% perfect beliefs about Jesus.

But we are glad to see that you do. :)

James Banta

05-07-2010, 10:10 AM

And that's where you and your buddy Billyray are at odds, since he is of the opinion that nobody has 100% perfect beliefs about Jesus.

But we are glad to see that you do. :)

Ask him again only ask if he holds to what the Bible teaches about Jesus 100%.. You will find that He is saying there is no way for the human finite mind to understand the perfecttion of God but we an believe and understand what the Bible tell us, and we can do that 100%.. You are just taking up the twist again so that you can win a argument.. Sorry but it is not in you to win an argument about he purity of faith in God's word as compared to the pick and choose agreement to it found in mormonism.. IHS jim

Mesenja

05-07-2010, 10:16 AM

What is so hard about this.. 1/2 + 1/2 = 1 100% of the water in the gl***es become sewer water.. Unless you know of a way to separate the clear from the impure? IHS jim

What is so hard about explaining why Billy believes that "everyone would like to think that they are right about every issue concerning Jesus but this may not be possible" and your belief in half truths added to truth being ****ogous to "a gl*** half filled with pure water and then the other half is fill with sewer water. So it is with half truths. They are nothing more that 100% lies." Oh and James are you using the New Math?

Vlad III

05-07-2010, 10:17 AM

Ask him again only ask if he holds to what the Bible teaches about Jesus 100%.. You will find that He is saying there is no way for the human finite mind to understand the perfecttion of God but we an believe and understand what the Bible tell us, and we can do that 100%.. You are just taking up the twist again so that you can win a argument.. Sorry but it is not in you to win an argument about he purity of faith in God's word as compared to the pick and choose agreement to it found in mormonism.. IHS jim

Sorry, nothing about winning an argument. Sounds like you are projecting.

You say that someone cannot have even 1% of a belief about Jesus that is incorrect. I hope that God doesn't judge you with the same criteria. :)

Mesenja

05-07-2010, 10:26 AM

Ask him again only ask if he holds to what the Bible teaches about Jesus 100%. You will find that He is saying there is no way for the human finite mind to understand the perfection of God but we [c]an believe and understand what the Bible tell us,and we can do that 100%. You are just taking up the twist again so that you can win a argument. Sorry but it is not in you to win an argument about he purity of faith in God's word as compared to the pick and choose agreement to it found in Mormonism. IHS Jim

What he said was "everyone would like to think that they are right about every issue concerning Jesus but this may not be possible" which is diametrically opposed to your statement that half truths "They are nothing more that 100% lies." You seem to keep forgetting your ****ogy of "a gl*** half filled with pure water and then the other half is fill with sewer water" is still drinking sewer water.

Mesenja

05-07-2010, 10:48 AM

The disputed doctrine that I was speaking about was not about salvation but other doctrine. The definition of doctrine is "something that is taught". Thus there are many things that are taught that are not very clear and there are many things that are taught that are very clear from the Bible. Let me give you some examples of doctrine (something that is taught) and see if you can guess which ones are clear and which ones are not so clear.

1. Jesus died for our sins

2. Role of dinosaurs in creation and age of the earth.

Which of these things is not like the other things Billy? I want to make it clear at the onset that I am not an authority on Catholic doctrine and will gladly accept and welcome any correction. It is just that I am trying to make a point.

1. Catholics believe that the sacrament of baptism is the way we receive God's grace and how justification is given to us. Our agency in accepting or rejecting this ordinance is the beginning of our faith in Christ and our cooperation with the grace of the Holy Spirit.

2. Protestants believe that the ordinance of baptism is not a requirement for salvation.

Vlad III

05-07-2010, 10:59 AM

What he said was "everyone would like to think that they are right about every issue concerning Jesus but this may not be possible" which is diametrically opposed to your statement that half truths "They are nothing more that 100% lies." You seem to keep forgetting your ****ogy of "a gl*** half filled with pure water and then the other half is fill with sewer water" is still drinking sewer water.

For James it isn't even just 50/50. If the ratio is 98/2 then it is still completely corrupt and flase according to James.

James Banta

05-07-2010, 11:05 AM

Sorry, nothing about winning an argument. Sounds like you are projecting.

You say that someone cannot have even 1% of a belief about Jesus that is incorrect. I hope that God doesn't judge you with the same criteria. :)

What is it your don't understand about having to believe God 100%. That seems to me a bit hard for you to understand.. Would a few quotes fro His word help?

James 2:10
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Matthew 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Unless you are 100% right about how salvation (perfection) come to a man about if you offend God in just one way you are GUILTY before Him of all unrighteousness. How can you not see that it is required that you believe Him and His word 100%? 99.99999% isn't good enough.. It must be 100% IHS jim

Mesenja

05-07-2010, 11:05 AM

And what ordinances are absolutely required to live with God again? Please include your explanation of the thief of the cross into your explanation.

Mark 16:16 believeth and is baptized shall be saved.
John 3:5 Except a man be born of water.

John 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh,and drinketh my blood,hath eternal life.

Luke 23:43 To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
John 20:17 touch me not,for I am not yet ascended.

James Banta

05-07-2010, 11:12 AM

What he said was "everyone would like to think that they are right about every issue concerning Jesus but this may not be possible" which is diametrically opposed to your statement that half truths "They are nothing more that 100% lies." You seem to keep forgetting your ****ogy of "a gl*** half filled with pure water and then the other half is fill with sewer water" is still drinking sewer water.

And I said ask him again and see that he will agree that we can be 100% correct on believing what the Bible says about Jesus.. IHS jim

James Banta

05-07-2010, 11:14 AM

For James it isn't even just 50/50. If the ratio is 98/2 then it is still completely corrupt and flase according to James.

100% or nothing.. Mormonism teaches NOTHING! IHS jim

Mesenja

05-07-2010, 12:46 PM

100% or nothing.. Mormonism teaches NOTHING! IHS jim

Billy said that ""everyone would like to think that they are right about every issue concerning Jesus but this may not be possible."

Mesenja

05-07-2010, 12:53 PM

And I said ask him again and see that he will agree that we can be 100% correct on believing what the Bible says about Jesus. IHS Jim

What he said was that "everyone would like to think that they are right about every issue concerning Jesus but this may not be possible."

Mark Beesley

05-07-2010, 06:07 PM

Because of your view of the Godhead which consists of separate and distinct gods that create (or organize) other gods. But if your view of the Trinity was of ONE God you would not have that misunderstanding.

Can you give us your take of that verse? Here it is again.
Colossians 1:16 For by him (Jesus) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

:D That's a good one. So, if I understand correctly, if I create a false god and call it The Trinity, then I can reconcile Colossians 1:16 by having Jesus create everything without creating Himself . . . :confused:

Maybe Colossians 1:16 is simply meant to be be understood in contrast to the false gods of the Romans and Greeks rather than being a statement of the nature of God and His relationship to His children and Lucifer.

Incidentally, it is incorrect to say that my view of God is of one who creates or organizes other gods. That's just weird.

Billyray

05-07-2010, 09:08 PM

Which of these things is not like the other things Billy? I want to make it clear at the onset that I am not an authority on Catholic doctrine and will gladly accept and welcome any correction. It is just that I am trying to make a point.

1. Catholics believe that the sacrament of baptism is the way we receive God's grace and how justification is given to us. Our agency in accepting or rejecting this ordinance is the beginning of our faith in Christ and our cooperation with the grace of the Holy Spirit.

2. Protestants believe that the ordinance of baptism is not a requirement for salvation.

The issue revolves around the question--is salvation by faith alone, or by faith plus works? Although some verses may hint at works the overall message of the NT is one of salvation by faith alone. Faith plus works = salvation by works.

Billyray

05-07-2010, 09:18 PM

Mark 16:16
believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

Again it boils down to either salvation by works OR salvation by faith. Salvation is by faith alone.

Do you agree with the verse below? Notice the difference between the first half and the last half is belief. (Before you answer recall your position with Ted Bundy who was baptized LDS)
Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not (and is baptized) shall be ****ed.

John 3:5 Except a man be born of water.

In context what is born of water?

John 3
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

John 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh,and drinketh my blood,hath eternal life.

Do you eat his flesh and drink his blood?

Luke 23:43To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
John 20:17 touch me not,for I am not yet ascended.

The one verse I asked you to comment on and you did not really comment on it. Please explain the verse that speaks of the thief on the cross, what does it mean to you?

Billyray

05-07-2010, 09:25 PM

That's a good one. So, if I understand correctly, if I create a false god and call it The Trinity, then I can reconcile Colossians 1:16 by having Jesus create everything without creating Himself . . . :confused:

Maybe Colossians 1:16 is simply meant to be be understood in contrast to the false gods of the Romans and Greeks rather than being a statement of the nature of God and His relationship to His children and Lucifer.

I notice that you did not give us your explanation. I would like to hear your understanding of this verse.

Incidentally, it is incorrect to say that my view of God is of one who creates or organizes other gods. That's just weird.

According to Mormonism God the Father is a God. God the Father created Jesus by taking his intelligence and making it into a spirit baby, Jesus then progressed on from there to become a God, i.e. God creates or organizes other gods. The same is true for you--aren't you a god in utero? Don't you recall the Lorenzo Snow couplet? "As man is God once was, as God is man may be."

Mesenja

05-07-2010, 09:25 PM

The issue revolves around the question--is salvation by faith alone,or by faith plus works? Although some verses may hint at works the overall message of the New Testament is one of salvation by faith alone. Faith plus works =salvation by works.

At least not as i see it. The issue is who am I to believe on the vital doctrine of salvation? If it was just a mater of making an appeal to the Bible and in your case that would mean the apostle Paul then understanding would come effortlessly and automatically. If this were so then his fellow apostle Peter would have no need to say "As also in all his letters,speaking in them of these things;in which are some things hard to be understood,which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest,as they do also the other scriptures,to their own destruction."

Billyray

05-07-2010, 09:27 PM

The issue is who am I to believe on the vital doctrine of salvation?
The Bible. If you stick with that you will be OK as long as you don't try to twist it.

Mesenja

05-07-2010, 09:29 PM

The Bible. If you stick with that you will be OK as long as you don't try to twist it.

The Catholics and Protestants both make an appeal to the Bible to support their doctrine.

Billyray

05-07-2010, 09:32 PM

The Catholics and Protestants both make an appeal to the Bible to support their doctrine.
Give us a specific question and we can look through the Bible for your answer.

Mesenja

05-08-2010, 02:00 AM

Give us a specific question and we can look through the Bible for your answer.

Do I ask a Catholic or do I ask a Protestant.

Billyray

05-08-2010, 07:27 AM

Do I ask a Catholic or do I ask a Protestant.

Don't be silly. The Bible is God's revelation to us. The answers to your questions and my questions are in it. Us means you and me. Remember to A-Z scale? A is the true meaning of what God has revealed to us, not B or C or D or P (Mormonism). So why go B or C or D or P source rather than the A source?

Mark Beesley

05-08-2010, 09:40 AM

I notice that you did not give us your explanation. I would like to hear your understanding of this verse.
It means that before Jesus Christ was born into mortality, He (like all the rest of us) lived in the Pre-existence with Heavenly Father, and that it was through Him that Heavenly Father created everything that was created.

According to Mormonism God the Father is a God. God the Father created Jesus by taking his intelligence and making it into a spirit baby, Jesus then progressed on from there to become a God, i.e. God creates or organizes other gods. The same is true for you--aren't you a god in utero? Don't you recall the Lorenzo Snow couplet? "As man is God once was, as God is man may be."
You are talking about stuff here that very, very little has been revealed about. Indeed, way more is speculated than has been revealed. I agree with President Hinckley -- I understant the theological unpinnings for what Lorenzo Snow said, but we don't really know much about those things.

Billyray

05-08-2010, 09:53 AM

It means that before Jesus Christ was born into mortality, He (like all the rest of us) lived in the Pre-existence with Heavenly Father, and that it was through Him that Heavenly Father created everything that was created.

Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:"

So from your LDS perspective you don't really believe this verse as it stands correct?

You are talking about stuff here that very, very little has been revealed about. Indeed, way more is speculated than has been revealed. I agree with President Hinckley -- I understant the theological unpinnings for what Lorenzo Snow said, but we don't really know much about those things.

1. Intelligence----->Spirit child
2. Spirit Child is born to Heavenly parents
3. Jesus is a spiritual child born to Heavenly parents
4. Jesus was not god at his spiritual birth by Heavenly parents
5. Jesus became a god as he progressed.

Do you agree with the above?

Mesenja

05-08-2010, 10:40 AM

Give us a specific question and we can look through the Bible for your answer.

I posed the question about baptism to highlight the issue that you can not make an appeal to the Bible for every answer.

1. Catholics believe that the sacrament of baptism is the way we receive God's grace and how justification is given to us. Our agency in accepting or rejecting this ordinance is the beginning of our faith in Christ and our cooperation with the grace of the Holy Spirit.

2. Protestants believe that the ordinance of baptism is not a requirement for salvation.

The reason for this is simple. Both Catholics and Protestants will make scriptural arguments from the Bible to defend their position on baptism. Both take completely opposite views.

Billyray

05-08-2010, 11:38 AM

The reason for this is simple. Both Catholics and Protestants will make scriptural arguments from the Bible to defend their position on baptism. Both take completely opposite views.

If both take opposite views then one is wrong or they both are wrong. So your question appears to be--"Is baptism required FOR salvation"? We are commanded to be baptized thus we would likely agree on this point and the majority of Christians do get baptized. But the question is not whether or not we should be baptized but rather is it an absolute requirement or a work on our part to be saved. Bottom line--we are either saved by faith OR saved by our works because faith + works = works.

Is there scripture evidence that we are saved by faith and not by works. Absolutely. If this is the case then how can you then say that works are required? You can't. Some verses may be interpreted by some that baptism is required but this would contradict the clear message in the NT that we are saved by our faith not our works.

James Banta

05-08-2010, 12:10 PM

Billy said that ""everyone would like to think that they are right about every issue concerning Jesus but this may not be possible."

I have asked you to have Billy come and tell me how wrong I am and strighten me out.. He hasn't.. I can only beieve that your mind is processing his statements differently than I do and it is your intrputation that is wrong and not a disagreement on this issue between Bill and myself.. IHS jim

Mesenja

05-08-2010, 12:35 PM

I have asked you to have Billy come and tell me how wrong I am and straighten me out. He hasn't. I can only believe that your mind is processing his statements differently than I do and it is your interpretation that is wrong and not a disagreement on this issue between Bill and myself. IHS Jim

If you want to constantly validate yourself and show how infallible you are in every one of your biblical interpretations then you take it up with Billy. You said "100% or nothing" as opposed to Billy who said that this was not possible on "every issue concerning Jesus". If you refuse either see that there is a disagreement or constantly dismiss it and avoid defending your position it wont go away no matter how hard you try.

Billyray

05-08-2010, 01:33 PM

I have asked you to have Billy come and tell me how wrong I am and strighten me out.. He hasn't.. I can only beieve that your mind is processing his statements differently than I do and it is your intrputation that is wrong and not a disagreement on this issue between Bill and myself.. IHS jim

Jim, my guess is that we are pretty close in our beliefs. Mesenja seems to think that if she can show minor differences in our beliefs then this will somehow support her position. But I don't really get it. It is like you and I holding up two sheets of paper of a slightly different shade of white and her holding up a black piece of paper, that is how I view all three of our positions.

James Banta

05-08-2010, 02:18 PM

If you want to constantly validate yourself and show how infallible you are in every one of your biblical interpretations then you take it up with Billy. You said "100% or nothing" as opposed to Billy who said that this was not possible on "every issue concerning Jesus". If you refuse either see that there is a disagreement or constantly dismiss it and avoid defending your position it wont go away no matter how hard you try.

And I still say you either agree with God through His word of your don't.. 100% agreement of it's 100% disagreement.. Mormons do not agree with the Bible 100%.. I know many people that don't.. If they are in such disagreement with God's word they are 100% wrong! A little leaven leavens the whole lump.. It's that simple.. Find any Christian that disagrees with that.. IHS jim

James Banta

05-08-2010, 02:35 PM

Jim, my guess is that we are pretty close in our beliefs. Mesenja seems to think that if she can show minor differences in our beliefs then this will somehow support her position. But I don't really get it. It is like you and I holding up two sheets of paper of a slightly different shade of white and her holding up a black piece of paper, that is how I view all three of our positions.

I don't believe for a moment that you and I disagree on a single point of doctrine taught in the Bible.. Not that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the one true God. Not that Jesus is the Son or that He didn't come to rescue us in our sin. Or that He wasn't born of a virgin, lived a perfect life, died for our sin, was buried and raised then third day according to the scripture.. Just what does she think we are going to disagree about? Baptism? The p***age commanding baptism can be translated to say in, or with water.. All it is, is a statement of faith anyway.. It's not like water can wash away sin anyway that takes blood, the blood of the Spotless Lamb.. This is the truth and it is like a gl*** with clean pure water.. If anyone adds to this or changes it only filth can be added. Like saying that Jesus is a creation and not the creator of ALL things. That would be adding a little bit of filth (Sewer water) to the pure. Saying that a man can receive forgiveness of sin by any means other than the blood of Jesus, is another few drops of filth.. How much needs to be added before the gl*** is totally filth? I have news for them. It was filth as soon as the first impure drop was mixed in to the purity.. How could it be less than that.. Jesus told us we must be perfect even as the Father is perfect.. The only way that we can do this is if Jesus gives us His righteousness, our own is way past contaminated. I praise Him for the grace He gives to all who will TURN to Jesus and recieve life. IHS jim

Mesenja

05-08-2010, 03:20 PM

nrajeff

05-08-2010, 03:40 PM

Just what does she think we are going to disagree about? Baptism? The p***age commanding baptism can be translated to say in, or with water.. All it is, is a statement of faith anyway.. It's not like water can wash away sin anyway that takes blood, the blood of the Spotless Lamb.
---Doesn't the Bible say that baptism for the remission of sins is a commandment? If baptism is part of the process by which a person's sins are remitted, and if no one can have eternal life unless his sins get remitted, then baptism is one of the requirements for eternal life. Simple as that. Jesus commanded JTB to baptize Him, so people would know how important baptism is in the fulfilling of all righteousness. If you don't get baptized, then you haven't yet fulfilled all righteousness, and if you haven't fulfilled all righteousness yet, you can't have eternal life yet.

This is the truth and it is like a gl*** with clean pure water.. If anyone adds to this or changes it only filth can be added
---Like adding a "T" "U" "L" "I" and a "P" to the requirements for eternal life. You Calvinists contaminated the gospel.

Billyray

05-08-2010, 04:54 PM

Doesn't the Bible say that baptism . . .is a commandment?

Yes

If baptism is part of the process by which a person's sins are remitted. . .

Salvation is by faith, not a bunch of works like the LDS church teaches.

BTW did Ted Bundy have his sins remitted by being baptized in the LDS church?

James Banta

05-08-2010, 05:16 PM

---Doesn't the Bible say that baptism for the remission of sins is a commandment? If baptism is part of the process by which a person's sins are remitted, and if no one can have eternal life unless his sins get remitted, then baptism is one of the requirements for eternal life. Simple as that. Jesus commanded JTB to baptize Him, so people would know how important baptism is in the fulfilling of all righteousness. If you don't get baptized, then you haven't yet fulfilled all righteousness, and if you haven't fulfilled all righteousness yet, you can't have eternal life yet.

---Like adding a "T" "U" "L" "I" and a "P" to the requirements for eternal life. You Calvinists contaminated the gospel.

Is baptism a requirement of the Law since it was commanded? YES! What does the Bible say about works of the law?

Gal 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Therefore in Baptism, a work of the law, there is no justification.. No remission of sin just because of a short plunge in water.. Sorry dear one but that requires blood, And not just any blood but the blood of a spotless pure sacrifice.. Therefore baptism is no more a requirement for salvation and eternal life than any other good work.. For we are commanded to preform good works that God foreordained we should walk in.. Jeff daily you fail in the commandments of Jesus, don't you? He commanded you to be perfect today.. Where you? That is in thought and deed. Did you fail the Lord even in a very slight way today? Of course you did! So you confirm that living the commandments is NOT the WAY to eternal life. At least that can't be seen by the way we live our lives. Jeff you have heard me and other say this again and again.. Jesus is the Way the only WAY.

Jeff lying is listed in Rev 21:8 with some very evil sins like MURDER. But not being baptized it isn't mentioned there at all.. That would tell me that the sin of neglecting baptism isn't as serious before God as lying is.. But you should know by now that Christians hold that all sin is serious because it will separate us from God.. I praise Jesus for standing in my place, taking the punishment I deserved, and giving me eternal live through faith in Jesus.. I have come to trust Him not some work preformed by me of because of me by men. Jesus fulfilled all righteousness for me in every way.. There is nothing I can do that will make me clean and spotless before a Holy God.. That was all done in the sacrifice of JESUS. There is no other way to get to the Father but by Him..NO WAY; not by temples, ***hes, offering to the poor,or baptism.. It is all complete in and only in Jesus..

You never did tell me what sin one of your children could commit that would cause you to say they are no longer your child and welcome in your home. Once they were born to you they weren't guaranteed a place in your home forever? I know I am not a parent in anyway equal to God but I love my kids.. They have often failed themselves and locked me out of their lives. But I still love them and they are my children. They will remain such as long as God allows me to hold them in my memory.. Why would God be less of a Father? Once a person becomes a child of God, so they are for all time. IHS jim

nrajeff

05-08-2010, 10:29 PM

Yes
---Thank you. (Doesn't the Bible say that baptism for the remission of sins is a commandment?)

Salvation is by faith, not a bunch of works like the LDS church teaches.
---Doesn't the Bible say that remission of sins comes through a process that baptism is part of? I.e., doesn't the Bible say that there is a connection between baptism and the remission of sins?

BTW did Ted Bundy have his sins remitted by being baptized in the LDS church?
---What sins? How should I know? Only the Godhead and the person in question knows, much of the time, whether a person has sincerely repented of a sin, and whether a person's baptism was efficacious. That's why only the Godhead gets to decide who goes where in the afterlife. At least that is what I think is taught in the Bible. I think it would be very arrogant and presumptuous and tacky for someone to go around asking other people "Have Billy Ray's sins been remitted?" As if any of us would actually know the answer. Tell ya what: You feel free to ask God or Ted in the afterlife about the status of Ted's sins, if you run into either God or Ted.

BTW, if you were really an RM, I would have thought you'd already know, and not need to be taught by me, the LDS doctrine that baptism is efficacious in remitting a person's sins if that person has faith in Jesus, has sincerely repented of those sins, and the person is baptized by an authorized person.

Billyray

05-08-2010, 10:41 PM

---Doesn't the Bible say that remission of sins comes through a process that baptism is part of? I.e., doesn't the Bible say that there is a connection between baptism and the remission of sins?

Salvation is clearly by faith and not by works as best noted in the verse in Ephesians 2.
8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Our sins are remitted by the blood of Christ not by dunking in a water bathtub. However we are commanded to be baptized and this symbolizes not only the death burial and resurrection of Christ but also our death burial and resurrection into a new life with Christ. The act of baptism is symbolic--the act itself does not remit sins in and of itself or else Ted Bundy's sins would of been reemitted by his LDS baptism.

Billyray

05-08-2010, 11:02 PM

[COLOR="Purple"]
BTW, if you were really an RM,

You are inferring that I did not serve a LDS mission. Do you really believe that I am making this up?

Mark Beesley

05-08-2010, 11:31 PM

Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:"

So from your LDS perspective you don't really believe this verse as it stands correct?
Of course I believe it. I just told you what it means. Are you saying I have to understand it in exactly the same way you understand it in order to believe it?

1. Intelligence----->Spirit child
2. Spirit Child is born to Heavenly parents
3. Jesus is a spiritual child born to Heavenly parents
4. Jesus was not god at his spiritual birth by Heavenly parents
5. Jesus became a god as he progressed.

Do you agree with the above?
As I said before, very little has been revealed concerning these matters. Most of what a lot of LDS Christians believe concerning these thing is based on what they believe to logically follow from what little has been revealed. I don't fault them for that. They may be right. As for me, I have decided not to believe or disbelieve either way. I simply do not know. For the me, the seminal verse is the following:

8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Isaiah 55
So, when you start using terms like parents, and born, and god, and progressed, I'm uncertain how those terms fit into the eternities where God dwells.

But before you or anyone thinks I am not a Mormon because I do not pay lip-service to everything you want to define as Mormonism, let me reiterate that I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt that Joseph Smith's work was divinely inspired, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is engaged in the work of the Lord in preparing a people for the Second Coming of our Savior. That work includes preaching the gospel, redeeming the dead, and perfecting the saints. It does not include becoming caught up in every wind of doctrine that ****s. There is an eternity to learn and understand those peripheral matters.

Billyray

05-08-2010, 11:42 PM

1. Intelligence----->Spirit child
2. Spirit Child is born to Heavenly parents
3. Jesus is a spiritual child born to Heavenly parents
4. Jesus was not god at his spiritual birth by Heavenly parents
5. Jesus became a god as he progressed.

So, when you start using terms like parents, and born, and god, and progressed, I'm uncertain how those terms fit into the eternities where God dwells.

Mark, these concepts are clearly taught in LDS manuals. For example here is a quote from the Gospel Principles Manual 2009 edition that touches on all the points above except number one.

“Chapter 2: Our Heavenly Family,” Gospel Principles, (2009),8–12
"God is not only our Ruler and Creator; He is also our Heavenly Father. All men and women are literally the sons and daughters of God. “Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 335)."

Mesenja

05-09-2010, 07:08 AM

Don't be silly. The Bible is God's revelation to us. The answers to your questions and my questions are in it. Us means you and me. Remember to A-Z scale? A is the true meaning of what God has revealed to us,not B or C or D or P (Mormonism). So why go B or C or D or P source rather than the A source?

I just gave you an example of where two opposite interpretations are given yet both parties make their arguments from the Bible. Here it is again Billy.

1. Catholics believe that the sacrament of baptism is the way we receive God's grace and how justification is given to us. Our agency in accepting or rejecting this ordinance is the beginning of our faith in Christ and our cooperation with the grace of the Holy Spirit.

2. Protestants believe that the ordinance of baptism is not a requirement for salvation

Mesenja

05-09-2010, 07:14 AM

If both take opposite views then one is wrong or they both are wrong. So your question appears to be--"Is baptism required FOR salvation"? We are commanded to be baptized thus we would likely agree on this point and the majority of Christians do get baptized. But the question is not whether or not we should be baptized but rather is it an absolute requirement or a work on our part to be saved. Bottom line--we are either saved by faith OR saved by our works because faith + works=works.

Is there scripture evidence that we are saved by faith and not by works. Absolutely. If this is the case then how can you then say that works are required? You can't. Some verses may be interpreted by some that baptism is required but this would contradict the clear message in the New Testament that we are saved by our faith not our works.

The Catholic church takes a completely opposite view and yet your position is that the Bible is self interpreting. It appears that you are unwilling to answer this question. All you are doing is running around in circles. Without offering proof that baptism is a work or that we are saved by faith alone you are simply ***erting the conclusion in another form. This is a poor example to prove that the Bible is self intepreting.

James Banta

05-09-2010, 08:51 AM

It has nothing to do with the similarity between your beliefs about Jesus. Jim insists that it's "100% agreement or it's 100% disagreement" and you equate this with it not being possible to agree on "every issue concerning Jesus".

I don't understand your compaint here at all.. Billy never said he disagreed with me about the nature of Jesus in any way. I never said I disagreed wih Billy.. I see a 100% agreement on the divine nature of Jesus.. IHS jim

Mark Beesley

05-09-2010, 08:53 AM

Mark, these concepts are clearly taught in LDS manuals. For example here is a quote from the Gospel Principles Manual 2009 edition that touches on all the points above except number one.

“Chapter 2: Our Heavenly Family,” Gospel Principles, (2009),8–12
"God is not only our Ruler and Creator; He is also our Heavenly Father. All men and women are literally the sons and daughters of God. “Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 335)."
So? I explained that in rest of my post that you did not quote.

Billyray

05-09-2010, 09:59 AM

So? I explained that in rest of my post that you did not quote.

I believe that this is the section of your post that you are referring to, if not then please post the section that you are referring to.

As I said before, very little has been revealed concerning these matters. Most of what a lot of LDS Christians believe concerning these thing is based on what they believe to logically follow from what little has been revealed. I don't fault them for that. They may be right. As for me, I have decided not to believe or disbelieve either way. I simply do not know. For the me, the seminal verse is the following:

I guess I don't understand why you say that very little has been revealed when it is printed in Gospel Principles, which contain the principles of the gospel.

nrajeff

05-09-2010, 09:10 PM

Salvation is clearly by faith and not by works as best noted in the verse in Ephesians 2.
--Are you saying that your answer to my actual question:

Doesn't the Bible say that remission of sins comes through a process that baptism is part of? I.e., doesn't the Bible say that there is a connection between baptism and the remission of sins?

is "NO, the Bible states NO such connection"
???? Really ????

nrajeff

05-09-2010, 09:16 PM

You are inferring that I did not serve a LDS mission. Do you really believe that I am making this up?

---I guess my actual implication is this:

If you really were a missionary, you were a fairly pathetic one, if you didn't even know that the LDS doctrine on baptism is that is is efficacious in remitting a person's sins if that person has faith in Jesus, has sincerely repented of those sins, and the person is baptized by an authorized person.

Someone that un-knowledgeable about basic LDS doctrines has no business playing critic of said doctrines. Your credibility is the least-important of the casualties in that scenario.

Billyray

05-09-2010, 09:42 PM

---I guess my actual implication is this:

If you really were a missionary, you were a fairly pathetic one, if you didn't even know that the LDS doctrine on baptism is that is is efficacious in remitting a person's sins if that person has faith in Jesus, has sincerely repented of those sins, and the person is baptized by an authorized person.

Someone that un-knowledgeable about basic LDS doctrines has no business playing critic of said doctrines. Your credibility is the least-important of the casualties in that scenario.
So you think that I was indeed a member of the church and that I did serve a mission but that I was not as good of a missionary as say someone like you?

Billyray

05-09-2010, 09:50 PM

BTW, if you were really an RM, I would have thought you'd already know, and not need to be taught by me, the LDS doctrine that baptism is efficacious in remitting a person's sins if that person has faith in Jesus, has sincerely repented of those sins, and the person is baptized by an authorized person.

Jeff, you falsely ***ume by my questions that I do not understand LDS doctrine because of the specific questions that I ask. But my questions are not meant to show off my LDS knowledge but to try and show YOU inconsistencies and falsehoods within Mormon theology.

Mesenja

05-09-2010, 09:58 PM

I don't understand your complaint here at all. Billy never said he disagreed with me about the nature of Jesus in any way. I never said I disagreed with Billy. I see a 100% agreement on the divine nature of Jesus. IHS Jim

Maybe it is because from your responses you show that you have no clue as to the position being put forth let alone any of the arguments used to support it.

Mark Beesley

05-10-2010, 01:53 AM

I guess I don't understand why you say that very little has been revealed when it is printed in Gospel Principles, which contain the principles of the gospel.
Really, you don't understand the sources where revelations are recorded in the Church? I thought you said you were a returned missionary. Oh well. :rolleyes:

Revelations are recorded in the Church in four books. We refer to them as the Standard Works: The Holy Bible, The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. Within the pages of those books you will find very little regarding the topics you raised. You will find more commentary and ****ysis of those revelations in books such as Gospel Principles, but Gospel Principles is not a book of revelations. That is why I say that very little has been revealed. Hope that helps.

Billyray

05-10-2010, 07:34 AM

Really, you don't understand the sources where revelations are recorded in the Church? I thought you said you were a returned missionary. Oh well. :rolleyes:

Revelations are recorded in the Church in four books. We refer to them as the Standard Works: The Holy Bible, The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. Within the pages of those books you will find very little regarding the topics you raised. You will find more commentary and ****ysis of those revelations in books such as Gospel Principles, but Gospel Principles is not a book of revelations. That is why I say that very little has been revealed. Hope that helps.

So you don't trust LDS books such as Gospel Principles?

James Banta

05-10-2010, 08:13 AM

So you don't trust LDS books such as Gospel Principles?

It's strange that modern LDS apostles bother to write books since none of them holds any value for the church or it's members.. They need to do by the SW only.. Why is it that the LDS church teaches that there are many Gods when the BofM teaches that there is one God (2Nephi 31:21). Oh but that's right the BofA teaches that there is more than one God.. How is it again that the SW can contradict and both remain the truth? If your SW can't even agree on something as important as the nature of God, how can we trust them for anything else? It is clear that ONLY JSmith had a hand into the preparation of all these writings. No one else could read through the stone Smith used to get the BofM or the BofA "translated".. It is all the work of one man.. Even the style of the writing in the 1830 betrays Smith as the author of the Book.. IHS jim

Mark Beesley

05-10-2010, 10:49 AM

So you don't trust LDS books such as Gospel Principles?
Sure, that's what I said. Uh huh. Don't trust anything unless it is in the Standard Works. Yep, that is what this discussion was about. Whatever. :rolleyes:

nrajeff

05-10-2010, 02:14 PM

So you think that I was indeed a member of the church and that I did serve a mission but that I was not as good of a missionary as say someone like you?

---You asked:
"BTW did Ted Bundy have his sins remitted by being baptized in the LDS church?"
If you misunderstood, so badly, a basic LDS doctrine such as the one on baptism--what it REALLY is that makes it efficacious--then you had no business teaching investigators about it, since that would cons***ute false teaching of LDS doctrine.

Apparently that is not the only thing you misunderstand, since you reject the Bible's teaching about baptism for the remission of sins.

James Banta

05-10-2010, 02:25 PM

Maybe it is because from your responses you show that you have no clue as to the position being put forth let alone any of the arguments used to support it.

I thought this was your insistence that Billy and I don't agree on a matter concerning Jesus and His place in the Life of the believer and the Church.. But you can tell me I am wrong you normally do.. Billy and I do NOT vary ay all in who we say Jesus is, what Jesus did, where He is now, or ever a tiny bit of His OMNIpresent nature.. Everything about Him is in 100% agreement.. It is that way with every part of the Faith from how creation began to what we will be doing in God's Kingdom for eternity.. We are the same 100% What you believe this is all about is another matter all together. IHS jim

Billyray

05-10-2010, 02:27 PM

---You asked:
"BTW did Ted Bundy have his sins remitted by being baptized in the LDS church?"
If you misunderstood, so badly, a basic LDS doctrine such as the one on baptism--what it REALLY is that makes it efficacious--then you had no business teaching investigators about it, since that would cons***ute false teaching of LDS doctrine.

Apparently that is not the only thing you misunderstand, since you reject the Bible's teaching about baptism for the remission of sins.

I am no longer LDS so it follows that I do not accept LDS teachings as truth. When I ask you questions it is not to show off LDS beliefs but to try and show you that these beliefs are false--which they are. You falsely ***ume that because of my questions that I do not understand LDS theology, which is of course false. On top of this the LDS theology changes over time, what I was taught many years ago is denied today. Different LDS have different beliefs and so I can't understand your belief unless I ask you specifically what you believe. BTW this is a common tactic among LDS to question if a person was ever LDS or ever went on a mission. I think that the LDS mind is in cognitive dissonance and can't fathom why an active LDS person would leave the "only true church", there must be something wrong with the person NOT possibly the teachings.

James Banta

05-10-2010, 02:35 PM

What he said was that "everyone would like to think that they are right about every issue concerning Jesus but this may not be possible."

So? You have a notion about Jesus that is 100% wrong.. Billy and I have a different notion. One derived from the Scripture that says that Jesus is God. He is the only God that exists. That He is God always has been God, always will be God. That is the doctrine of the Christian Church and agree completely that the Father is the only God that exists. That He is God, always has been God, always will be God. and Holy Spirit is the only God that exists. That He is God, always has been God, always will be God. Three persons one God.. No Christian in the world will deny this doctrine of the one true and living God.. Any other concept of God makes such a man who could hold that different doctrine, an idolater.. Mormonism is polytheistic idolatry IHS jim

James Banta

05-10-2010, 02:46 PM

What is so hard about explaining why Billy believes that "everyone would like to think that they are right about every issue concerning Jesus but this may not be possible" and your belief in half truths added to truth being ****ogous to "a gl*** half filled with pure water and then the other half is fill with sewer water. So it is with half truths. They are nothing more that 100% lies." Oh and James are you using the New Math?

Yes that new math that I am using is hard to understand.. Ever third grader in the world knows that 2 halves of the same pie is one full pie.. That is new math.. What you will not admit, I think for honor sake at this point, is that Billy and I don't disagree in the slightest about the nature of God.. Not just the nature of JESUS but the Father, and the Holy Spirit as well.. These person are the one true God as the Bible make clear.. That is solid Biblical theology and all Christian share faith in that One God.. How you can say we differ when you don't even come close to understanding even that much of God's nature is ridiculous.. Heck you state you believe that 1/2+1/2 = 1 is new math.. I am not suprised you can't understand something as deep as the nature of God.. IHS jim

nrajeff

05-10-2010, 02:58 PM

I am no longer LDS so it follows that I do not accept LDS teachings as truth.
---So you're saying that when you were LDS, you ACCEPTED the Bible's teaching about baptism for the remission of sins. And now that you have fallen away, you REJECT the Bible's teaching about baptism for the remission of sins?

Where is the sense in that?

James Banta

05-10-2010, 03:05 PM

---So you're saying that when you were LDS, you ACCEPTED the Bible's teaching about baptism for the remission of sins. And now that you have fallen away, you REJECT the Bible's teaching about baptism for the remission of sins?

Where is the sense in that?

His knowledge of the meaning and purpose of Baptism has been set straight. His faith in Jesus and His power to give salvation to those He wills has been ignited.. He has put away the false tales of a false teachers and turned directly to Jesus.. IHS jim

nrajeff

05-10-2010, 03:58 PM

His knowledge of the meaning and purpose of Baptism has been set straight.

---So to you, "being set straight" means "rejecting the Bible's teachings about baptism for the remission of sins" ??

When Billy defected from LDS and became whatever he is now, did he also get set straight about Jesus being the God of the Christ? Is Billy on board with you, on that idea?

Billyray

05-10-2010, 04:44 PM

---So you're saying that when you were LDS, you ACCEPTED the Bible's teaching about baptism for the remission of sins. And now that you have fallen away, you REJECT the Bible's teaching about baptism for the remission of sins?

Where is the sense in that?

I accepted the LDS teachings that Baptism is required along with a laundry list of other things (works) that must be done in order to live with God the Father in the Celestial Kingdom. I believed the LDS teachings but I was clearly wrong even though at the time I thought that I was right.

Mesenja

05-10-2010, 06:18 PM

I accepted the LDS teachings that Baptism is required along with a laundry list of other things (works) that must be done in order to live with God the Father in the Celestial Kingdom. I believed the LDS teachings but I was clearly wrong even though at the time I thought that I was right.

Colossians 2:12 and you were buried with him in baptism in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God,who raised him from the dead.

Mesenja

05-10-2010, 06:28 PM

So? You have a notion about Jesus that is 100% wrong. Billy and I have a different notion. One derived from the Scripture that says that Jesus is God. He is the only God that exists. That He is God always has been God,always will be God. That is the doctrine of the Christian Church and agree completely that the Father is the only God that exists. That He is God,always has been God,always will be God. and Holy Spirit is the only God that exists. That He is God,always has been God,always will be God. Three persons one God. No Christian in the world will deny this doctrine of the one true and living God. Any other concept of God makes such a man who could hold that different doctrine, an idolater. Mormonism is polytheistic idolatry. IHS Jim

You think that it's "100% agreement or it's 100% disagreement" and Billy says that it is not possible to agree on "every issue concerning Jesus."

Billyray

05-10-2010, 06:35 PM

Colossians 2:12 and you were buried with him in baptism in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God,who raised him from the dead.

I am not sure the point you were trying to make by posting that verse.

Billyray

05-10-2010, 06:37 PM

You think that it's "100% agreement or it's 100% disagreement" and Billy says that it is not being possible to agree on "every issue concerning Jesus."

Mesenja, I think that you underestimate how close Jim and I really are and how far you are from us.

Mesenja

05-10-2010, 06:47 PM

Mesenja,I think that you underestimate how close Jim and I really are and how far you are from us.

What both of you refuse to admit is that each of you made contradictory statements.

Billyray

05-10-2010, 06:55 PM

What both of you refuse to admit is that each of you made contradictory statements.

My statement "it may not be possible to agree on every issue" is a stipulation simply because I have dealt with LDS and they almost always dig to find an exception. Because of this twisting and digging for the exception I will usually use terms other than always, never, or 100% because then it becomes a game for LDS to find the exception rather than go with the general intention of my post.

Lets test the LDS game. Jim and I agree 100% about Jesus.

James Banta

05-10-2010, 07:12 PM

---So to you, "being set straight" means "rejecting the Bible's teachings about baptism for the remission of sins" ??

When Billy defected from LDS and became whatever he is now, did he also get set straight about Jesus being the God of the Christ? Is Billy on board with you, on that idea?

When I was a TBM I held the same belief about baptism you are putting forth now.. I can tell you because of the cost involved in paying for sin baptism doesn't come close to meetings the requirements for the payment.. Therefore the meaning of baptism for the remission of sin MUST mean "because of"..

Baptism can NOT bring remission of sin to anyone and you know it.. You know in your heart that Jesus had to die to make remission of sins a possibility.. That was the picture of the Law of Moses. The sacrifice died and it's blood was used to cleanse the tabernacle, the garments of the priests, and be offered on the mercy seat once a year of the Day of Atonement as an atonement for their sins for the year..

Jesus is the last and eternal sacrifice. He is the last and eternal High Priest.. Only by His blood as He died for our sins is forgiveness of our sins possible.. For without the shedding of blood there is no remission (Heb 9:22). While baptism is a good conscience toward God (1 Peter 3:21) it is a symbol of our entry into a newness of life. But still it is just a symbol not the cleansing agent the Blood of Jesus is.

Is it a command, YES and those that wish to follow Jesus as obedient servants will humble themselves to the completion of the ordinance. But we can't be saved by symbols. We must be born again, that is not a birth of the will of man but of God (John 1:13). And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Baptism is done at the will of men.. being born of God is done by His will in His time.. I am not speaking against baptism.. I believe in following all the commandments of God.. I wish I was obedient in all other ways as I have been in this.. IHS jim

Blueskies

05-11-2010, 07:10 AM

Billy: I find it mind boggling to say the least that when a Mormon is confronted by someone who has left the church and had participated in being a missionary to having been married in a temple to holding church callings but then leave it, they can't understand why. I left the church many years ago after having doubts about it and needing answers. Funny too how when you go to those in authority with your questions, all you get told is, "OH, you're losing your testimony and need to attend more meetings." Now you tell me how attending meetings with screaming babies and kids and people getting up and going in and out during sacrament meetings is going to edify anyone? Parents who's patience is running low and you can see the frustration on their faces and the distraction it causes. Not very uplifting or spiritual in anyway, shape or form. Has no member of the LDS Church given it a thought to have a nursery for the babies and young children so the adults can actually hear something?? NO! That would be to simple.
I was a member in good standing not only being married in a temple but held positions of Sunday School Teacher, Primary Teacher, MIA Teacher, Visiting Teacher and Primary Secretary oh and almost forgot, even Sports Director for the Young Women. So, let jeff try and put down your time spent as a missionary, he doesn't know a thing about you and is only grabbing at straws. God bless you for having a burden for the LDS people. I have enjoyed reading many of your posts.

Billyray

05-11-2010, 07:53 AM

So, let jeff try and put down your time spent as a missionary, he doesn't know a thing about you and is only grabbing at straws. God bless you for having a burden for the LDS people. I have enjoyed reading many of your posts.

Thanks for the note Blueskies. This seems to be a very common tactic used by the LDS, but I don't think it is really a tactic because I truely believe that they do it subconsciously. Why they do this? I am not entirely sure. But if a person can't defend their position on the facts the next best thing is to try to win their position by discrediting the person bringing them the facts. If they can show faults with the messenger this somehow translates into a win for their position. Even though the facts of their case have remained unchanged, i.e. they still have a false god, a false Jesus, and a false gospel.

Just to show you that it is not just Jeff that disbelieves me but rather this is a programmed response by LDS in general, you can look at this thread on the MADB. http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/39446-ad-hominem-has-it-come-down-to-this/ . BTW my own LDS brother tried this tactic on me recently, so I know that this is a deep seated mind control program rearing its ugly head.

nrajeff

05-11-2010, 08:06 AM

Billy: I find it mind boggling to say the least
--That is not very surprising, if you are typical of the attackers I have encountered. Their minds seem easily boggled.

that when a Mormon is confronted by someone who has left the church and had participated in being a missionary to having been married in a temple to holding church callings but then leave it, they can't understand why.
---Oh, I am quite able to understand the reasons people give as to WHY they defect. It's the HOW that Billy is providing no answers on--HOW he could have made it through the hours of cl***es during those years before his mission---and then the long days of cl***es, for weeks at the MTC--and then serve for 2 years teaching people LDS doctrines---and be so wrong about LDS doctrines as basic and easily learned as the doctrine on the baptism for the remission of sins. Maybe you can answer that. No?

I left the church many years ago after having doubts about it and needing answers.
---Too bad for you. Other people had doubts and needed answers, and got answers and had their doubts resolved and didn't quit. I can't help it that you weren't one of those people. For me personally, LDS doctrines answer far more of the important theological and soteriological questions than any other church answers. But, just like the idea of staying married to the one you love forever, it's not for everyone, so if it wasn't your cup of tea, you were free to go in peace and never come back, if that's what makes you happy. But if you appoint yourself to the *** of attacking the LDS church, its leaders, members, or doctrines in a forum, you have to accept the fact that someone is gonna point out any flaws, fallacies, or idiocies in your attacks. If that DOESN'T make you happy, then maybe you shouldn't be attacking.

RealFakeHair

05-11-2010, 08:10 AM

--That is not very surprising, if you are typical of the attackers I have encountered. Their minds seem easily boggled.

---Oh, I am quite able to understand the reasons people give as to WHY they defect. It's the HOW that Billy is providing no answers on--HOW he could have made it through the hours of cl***es during thosee years before his mission---and then the long days of cl***es, for weeks at the MTC--and then serve for 2 years teaching people LDS doctrines---and be so wrong about LDS doctrines as basic and easily learned as the doctrine on the baptism for the remission of sins. Maybe you can answer that. No?

---Too bad for you. Other people had doubts and needed answers, and got answers and had their doubts resolved. I can't help it that you weren't one of those people. For me personally, LDS doctrines answer far more of the important theological and soteriological quesitons than any other church answers. But, just like the idea of staying married to the one you love forever, it's not for everyone, so if it wasn't your cup of tea, you were free to go in peace and never come back, if that's what makes you happy. But if you appoint yourself to the *** of attacking the LDS church, its leaders, members, or doctrines in a forum, you have to accept the fact that someone is gonna point out any flaws, fallacies, or idiocies in your attacks. If that DOESN'T make you happy, then maybe you shouldn't be attacking.

Funny thing marriage forever wasn't for Jesus of the Holy Bible either!:)

Billyray

05-11-2010, 08:28 AM

---Oh, I am quite able to understand the reasons people give as to WHY they defect. It's the HOW that Billy is providing no answers on--HOW he could have made it through the hours of cl***es during thosee years before his mission---and then the long days of cl***es, for weeks at the MTC--and then serve for 2 years teaching people LDS doctrines---and be so wrong about LDS doctrines as basic and easily learned as the doctrine on the baptism for the remission of sins. Maybe you can answer that. No?

Please provide evidence for your bogus claim "(Billy could be) so wrong about LDS doctrines as basic and easily learned as the doctrine"

Here is your post to refresh your memory. BTW note the fact that I am asking a question NOT making a statement about LDS theology.

Quote:
Billy asks,
BTW did Ted Bundy have his sins remitted by being baptized in the LDS church?

Jeff replies,
---What sins? How should I know? Only the Godhead and the person in question knows, much of the time, whether a person has sincerely repented of a sin, and whether a person's baptism was efficacious. That's why only the Godhead gets to decide who goes where in the afterlife. At least that is what I think is taught in the Bible. I think it would be very arrogant and presumptuous and tacky for someone to go around asking other people "Have Billy Ray's sins been remitted?" As if any of us would actually know the answer. Tell ya what: You feel free to ask God or Ted in the afterlife about the status of Ted's sins, if you run into either God or Ted.

BTW, if you were really an RM, I would have thought you'd already know, and not need to be taught by me, the LDS doctrine that baptism is efficacious in remitting a person's sins if that person has faith in Jesus, has sincerely repented of those sins, and the person is baptized by an authorized person.

nrajeff

05-11-2010, 11:11 AM

So you're saying that you actually already knew that LDS DON'T believe that Ted Bundy had his sins remitted merely by being baptized, sans the other conditions that LDS claim must be present? So you're admitting that you were mischaracterizing what LDS believe? Why would you do that?

Billyray

05-11-2010, 11:24 AM

nrajeff

05-11-2010, 11:35 AM

You have made a big stink about how I don't know basic LDS doctrine. Prove your false accusation or retract it.

---It's fairly simple: If you had an accurate understanding of LDS doctrines, you'd quit acting like you have such a dismal understanding of them. Unless you're just trying to deceive people.

Billyray

05-11-2010, 11:50 AM

---It's fairly simple: If you had an accurate understanding of LDS doctrines, you'd quit acting like you have such a dismal understanding of them. Unless you're just trying to deceive people.

Proof your false claim or retract it.

Mesenja

05-11-2010, 12:05 PM

nrajeff

05-11-2010, 12:29 PM

Proof your false claim or retract it.

---Show me what part of it is false:

"If you had an accurate understanding of LDS doctrines, you'd quit acting like you have such a dismal understanding of them. Unless you're just trying to deceive people."

Are you saying that it's NOT TRUE that if you had an accurate understanding of LDS doctrines, you'd quit acting like you have such a dismal understanding of them? So your claim is that you would NOT quit acting like you had a dismal understanding of them? Then you're admitting that you intend deception?

Billyray

05-11-2010, 01:19 PM

---Show me what part of it is false:

You are the one who made the false claim, prove it or retract it.

Here is my QUESTION
BTW did Ted Bundy have his sins remitted by being baptized in the LDS church?

Is this your bombshell evidence that I am unaware of basic LDS doctrine? How do I know YOUR belief if I don't ask you what you believe? If I try and tell you what believe then you complain about that as well.

Addendum
Also note this exchange WE had on 12-09-2009, 11:04 AM-

But the Christians of past centuries who KILLED EACH OTHER over the differences in their Bible interpretations, didn't consider it a trivial, minor deal. Otherwise, they wouldn't have KILLED EACH OTHER over those differences.

Do you really believe that anyone who professes to be Christian is truly Christian?

Do you really believe that Ted Bundy was a converted Mormon and really believed in Mormonism despite his baptism into the Mormon faith?

Mesenja

05-11-2010, 02:08 PM

Here is my QUESTION:By the way did Ted Bundy have his sins remitted by being baptized in the LDS church?

Is this your bombshell evidence that I am unaware of basic Latter-day Saint doctrine? How do I know YOUR belief if I don't ask you what you believe? If I try and tell you what believe then you complain about that as well.

Why then do you need to ask a Later-day Saint what his belief is?

Billyray

05-11-2010, 02:15 PM

Why then do you need to ask a Later-day Saint what his belief is?
1. First off I ask questions to direct the flow of conversation NOT to show my understanding of LDS theology. It is a way to get you to think about what you really believe.

2. Different LDS have different beliefs.

Mesenja

05-11-2010, 10:14 PM

My statement "it may not be possible to agree on every issue" is a stipulation simply because I have dealt with LDS and they almost always dig to find an exception. Because of this twisting and digging for the exception I will usually use terms other than always, never, or 100% because then it becomes a game for LDS to find the exception rather than go with the general intention of my post. Lets test the LDS game. Jim and I agree 100% about Jesus.

Now you say to me “Mesenja,I think that you underestimate how close Jim and I really are and how far you are from us” Being close in agreement is not being 100% in agreement. This newest revelation by you that “Jim and I agree 100% about Jesus.” is worthless to me. The reason why is that previously you said that “everyone would like to think that they are right about every issue concerning Jesus but this may not be possible".

Billyray

05-11-2010, 10:30 PM

Now you say to me “Mesenja,I think that you underestimate how close Jim and I really are and how far you are from us” Being close in agreement is not being 100% in agreement. This newest revelation by you that “Jim and I agree 100% about Jesus. . .

You obviously did not read my post very clearly OR you missed my main point which you would of caught when I stated clearly "Lets test the LDS game". (Below is my full statement). Do I think that I am 100% agreement with every Protestant? No. I think that we may have minor disagreements. But these are MINOR not MAJOR disagreements that you and I have. Do you have a point that you are trying to make or are you going to continue going in circles?

My statement "it may not be possible to agree on every issue" is a stipulation simply because I have dealt with LDS and they almost always dig to find an exception. Because of this twisting and digging for the exception I will usually use terms other than always, never, or 100% because then it becomes a game for LDS to find the exception rather than go with the general intention of my post. Lets test the LDS game. Jim and I agree 100% about Jesus.

nrajeff

05-12-2010, 10:14 AM

...Do I think that I am 100% agreement with every Protestant? No. I think that we may have minor disagreements. But these are MINOR not MAJOR disagreements...

---Every AOL would like to think that his theological ("Jesus is the Father incarnate...Jesus is the God of the Christ") or soteriological ("You must believe TULIP in order to be saved...no, belief that Jesus is your Savior is the only requirement") disagreements with other AOLs are minor....but sometimes that's just not possible.....

Billyray

05-12-2010, 10:19 AM

---Every AOL would like to think that his theological ("Jesus is the Father incarnate...Jesus is the God of the Christ") or soteriological ("You must believe TULIP in order to be saved...no, belief that Jesus is your Savior is the only requirement") disagreements with other AOLs are minor....but sometimes that's just not possible.....

What do you see as the major disagreements between Protestants?

nrajeff

05-12-2010, 10:43 AM

Are you saying that your answer to my actual question:

Doesn't the Bible say that remission of sins comes through a process that baptism is part of? I.e., doesn't the Bible say that there is a connection between baptism and the remission of sins?

is "NO, the Bible states NO such connection"
???? Really ????

Billyray

05-12-2010, 10:51 AM

nrajeff

05-12-2010, 11:17 AM

Baptism can NOT bring remission of sin to anyone and you know it..

---Another quote for the hard drive....

James Banta

05-12-2010, 11:45 AM

What do you see as the major disagreements between Protestants?

He can't see it... The Bible teaches us that we are baptized because (For) our sins have been remitted.. IHS jim

nrajeff

05-12-2010, 11:59 AM

He can't see it... The Bible teaches us that we are baptized because (For) our sins have been remitted.. IHS jim

---What verse says that?

a) Mark 1:4
John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

b) 1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ

c) Jim Banta 1:1
We are baptized because our sins have been remitted.

Billyray

05-12-2010, 11:59 AM

He can't see it... The Bible teaches us that we are baptized because (For) our sins have been remitted.. IHS jim

That is why Jeff is avoiding answering that question. LDS are brain washed into thinking that there are all of these major divisions and disagreements in the Protestant world, but this is simply not the case.

Billyray

05-12-2010, 12:11 PM

James Banta

05-12-2010, 02:02 PM

---What verse says that?

a) Mark 1:4
John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

b) 1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ

c) Jim Banta 1:1
We are baptized because our sins have been remitted.

You don't see that.. It says it right there on Mark 1:4 "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins". Tell me why it can't be that we are baptized because our sins have been remitted.. If the Blood of Jesus is required to have sin remitted:

1 John 1:7
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Not the waters of baptism, the blood of Jesus is the agent that cleanses us.. Baptism isn't a way to have sin forgiven it is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but it is the answer of a good conscience toward God (1 Peter 3:21). A symbol of coming for to a newness of life. From our lives of sin into the perfection of God's righteousness, His work of creation in our heart.

If you were blind you would see what I am saying but you are so I know it's hard for you..

James (banta) 1:1
Is about the star that lead the wise men to Herod.. If you don't know what the book says don't try to quote it..

The Bible teaches that the Baptism of John was NOT Christian baptism..

Acts 19:1-6
And it came to p***, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having p***ed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

These men had only John's baptism and Paul taught them that such is not the baptism of Jesus.. And they all submitted to re-baptism.. Why did they do that if John's baptism was good enough? Isn't that the same baptism the Smith said he and Cowdrey had? Why was it when they received the priesthood of their Jesus they didn't re-preform the rite and give each other the gift of the Holy Spirit? Smith never received true Christian baptism but instead only the baptism of John.. IHS jim

RealFakeHair

05-12-2010, 02:12 PM

You don't see that.. It says it right there on Mark 1:4 "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins". Tell me why it can't be that we are baptized because our sins have been remitted.. If the Blood of Jesus is required to have sin remitted:

1 John 1:7
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Not the waters of baptism, the blood of Jesus is the agent that cleanses us.. Baptism isn't a way to have sin forgiven it is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but it is the answer of a good conscience toward God (1 Peter 3:21). A symbol of coming for to a newness of life. From our lives of sin into the perfection of God's righteousness, His work of creation in our heart.

If you were blind you would see what I am saying but you are so I know it's hard for you.. IHS jim

The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 3:21
Water had nothing to do with our Salvation, it was and still all about our relationship with Jesus Christ of the Holy Bible!

nrajeff

05-12-2010, 02:57 PM

You don't see that.. It says it right there on Mark 1:4 "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins". Tell me why it can't be that we are baptized because our sins have been remitted..

---Because the word "for" in that verse was not intended to mean "because there has been." That's why.

Interpret what "for" means in THIS sentence:

"I paid $5 FOR this lousy Ed Decker book." The sentence is saying:

a) "I paid $5 because I got this lousy Ed Decker book."

b) " I paid $5 IN ORDER TO GET this lousy Ed Decker book."

Which is the most normal, logical, reasonable, common sense interpretation, Jim? And which would amount to eisegesis, twisting the words so they mean what you want them to mean?

Father_JD

05-12-2010, 04:13 PM

Russianwolfe

05-12-2010, 08:06 PM

Interpret this, jeff: I took an aspirin for my headache. ;)

You certainly did not take the pill because you headache was already gone!

Marvin

James Banta

05-12-2010, 08:24 PM

The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 3:21
Water had nothing to do with our Salvation, it was and still all about our relationship with Jesus Christ of the Holy Bible!

I agree with you and I think that is what I said.. I see a man with a firm grasp on the word of God in you.. A man who only teaches the truth as revealed in God's word and taught to you by the Holy Spirit.. God Bless you and work wonders through your witness.. IHS jim

Billyray

05-12-2010, 08:57 PM

-
b) 1 Peter 3:21. . .baptism doth also now save us

Jeff, Does baptism doth also now save (you) by itself?

James Banta

05-12-2010, 09:03 PM

---Because the word "for" in that verse was not intended to mean "because there has been." That's why.

Interpret what "for" means in THIS sentence:

"I paid $5 FOR this lousy Ed Decker book." The sentence is saying:

a) "I paid $5 because I got this lousy Ed Decker book."

b) " I paid $5 IN ORDER TO GET this lousy Ed Decker book."

Which is the most normal, logical, reasonable, common sense interpretation, Jim? And which would amount to eisegesis, twisting the words so they mean what you want them to mean?

Johnny got a new bike FOR his birthday.. Didn't Johnny get he bike because of his birthday not in order to get a birthday.. Sounds like you are trying to prove that the water of baptism is capable of what the Bible says only the blood of Jesus has power to do; cleanses us of sin.. Really this should be a no brainier for even mormons.. It is the blood that cleanses man of Sin not water! If water could do it Jesus died in vain. Lets look at the Bible and see what it teaches on the subject..

Exod 30:10
And Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements: once in the year shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations: it is most holy unto the LORD.

Lev 5:9
And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be wrung out at the bottom of the altar: it is a sin offering.

Lam 4:13
For the sins of her prophets, and the iniquities of her priests, that have shed the blood of the just in the midst of her

Matt 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Rom 3:25
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God

Eph 1:7
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace

Col 1:14
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins

1John 1:7
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
Rev 1:5
And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood
Even though the Bible is this adamant about the blood of Jesus being the cleansing agent you still want to believe that we are baptized to have our sins washed away in water. That it is baptism that bring forgiveness. UNBELIEVABLE!!! IHS jim

Billyray

05-12-2010, 09:09 PM

Sounds like you are trying to prove that the water of baptism is capable of what the Bible says only the blood of Jesus has power to do; cleanses us of sin.

Agree with you Jim, LDS think that the water somehow magically washes away their sins that somehow can't be washed by the blood of Christ. Not to mention all of the verses that state that we are saved by faith and not by works.

***us 3
5Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

Mesenja

05-12-2010, 11:53 PM

Agree with you Jim,LDS think that the water somehow magically washes away their sins that somehow can't be washed by the blood of Christ. Not to mention all of the verses that state that we are saved by faith and not by works.

***us 3

5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done,but according to his mercy he saved us,by the washing of regeneration,and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

3. …he saved us,not because of any works of righteousness that we had done,but according to his mercy,through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit. [***us 3:5;NRSV]

3. Jesus answered him,‘Very truly,I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.’ 4. Nicodemus said to him,‘How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother’s womb and be born?’ 5. Jesus answered,‘Very truly,I tell you,no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. [John 3:3-5;NRSV]

James Banta

05-13-2010, 07:55 AM

3. …he saved us,not because of any works of righteousness that we had done,but according to his mercy,through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit. (***us 3:5;NRSV)

3. Jesus answered him,‘Very truly,I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.’ 4. Nicodemus said to him,‘How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother’s womb and be born?’ 5. Jesus answered,‘Very truly,I tell you,no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. [John 3:3-5;NRSV]

And what does a p***age about the second BIRTH have to do with water baptism? It is more like water baptism has to do with the second birth. Showing a testimony of the cleansing God had already preformed on their heart..

In all the p***ages of the Bible the word baptism is always used in reference to the ordinance.. Here in the first context of John 3 the word is not used once, while the word Born/Birth is used Seven Times.. This p***age in therefore about the second Birth, the Spiritual Birth and not mere water baptism.. IHS jim

Billyray

05-13-2010, 08:18 AM

(John 3:3)
Jesus answered him,‘Very truly,I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.

What is born from above? This is certainly not water baptism.

5.Jesus answered,‘Very truly,I tell you,no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit

Why do you think that is speaking about water baptism? Is there any indication anywhere within the context of this p***age that would indication baptism?

he saved us,not because of any works of righteousness that we had done,but according to his mercy,through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit. (***us 3:5;NRSV)

***us 3:5
5he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, NIV

5he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, ESV

5Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; KJV

5 not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, ASV

5He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit NASB

Mesenja

05-13-2010, 08:35 AM

James Banta

05-13-2010, 08:54 AM

Jesus told Nicodemus that "no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit." [John 3:3-5;NRSV] The apostle Paul taught that we are saved "according to his mercy,through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit." [***us 3:5;NRSV]

Since only two birth's are mentioned the born of water of the first birth, the natural birth, it must be the waters related to natural birth.. I guess you have never heard the expresion "My water broke"... IHS jim

Billyray

05-13-2010, 09:08 AM

What's the water of rebirth?

The answer was in ALL the other versions that I posted for you.

by the washing of regeneration and renewal OF the Holy Spirit[/B], ESV

Regeneration is a work of God, not by some ritual that we do.

Ezekiel 36:25-27 ESV
25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.
26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
27 j And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

Mesenja

05-13-2010, 09:26 AM

The actual word baptism is never mentioned in these p***ages of scripture. It's inferred by the text and this interpretation is in accordance with both the understanding of this p***age and theology of the early Church Fathers. More importantly it is also in agreement with scripture.

Jesus did say to Nicodemus that "Very truly,I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above." This particular p***age does not refer to the ordinance of baptism by immersion in water. It teaches us who is the source of our spiritual rebirth or regeneration. The method that God chooses to use is our "being born of water and Spirit." [John 3:3-5;NRSV] The apostle Paul also taught that we are born from above "through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit." [***us 3:5;NRSV]

nrajeff

05-13-2010, 09:38 AM

Johnny got a new bike FOR his birthday..

Wrong. "For his birthday" is a different usage of "for" than
"Be baptized for the remission of sins." I think if you could read it in Greek, you'd understand that the meaning you are pouring into the scripture is wrong.

Peter said unto them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

What did Peter mean? What was he talking about?

Sounds like you are trying to prove that the water of baptism is capable of what the Bible says only the blood of Jesus has power to do; cleanses us of sin..
---The WHOLE REASON why baptism can be efficacious in the process of remitting sins, is BECAUSE of Jesus' atonement. This is such a no-brainer that even an extremist AOL should be able to see that. I think.

Mesenja

05-13-2010, 10:41 AM

Stating that "Regeneration is a work of God,not by some ritual that we do" does not answer my question. The Greek word Palingenesia--palin (again),genesis (beginning,birth) means literally the New Birth. The apostle Paul mentions both the "water of rebirth" or the "washing of regeneration" along with the "renewal by the Holy Spirit" as part of the process of how being"justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life". This time instead of avoiding answering my specific question or dismissing it why don't you give me a direct answer?

Father_JD

05-13-2010, 01:14 PM

The "washing of regeneration" does NOT MEAN WATER BAPTISM. Read for once in your life...CONTEXTUALLY!!

Father_JD

05-13-2010, 01:15 PM

You certainly did not take the pill because you headache was already gone!

Marvin

You missed the point, Marvin. :rolleyes:

Mesenja

05-13-2010, 01:38 PM

Billyray

05-13-2010, 01:46 PM

Jesus did say to Nicodemus that "Very truly,I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above." This particular p***age does not refer to the ordinance of baptism by immersion in water. It teaches us who is the source of our spiritual rebirth or regeneration.

Hey you are starting to get it.

The method that God chooses to use is our "being born of water and Spirit." The apostle Paul also taught that we are born from above "through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit."
Oh, I guess I spoke to fast.

You were starting to get it, then you made up the second part to fit your theology. Where do you read in this p***age the "method that God chooses" is by water baptism?

Russianwolfe

05-13-2010, 01:50 PM

You missed the point, Marvin. :rolleyes:

Sez you!

Marvin

RealFakeHair

05-13-2010, 02:15 PM

The ordinance of baptism is part of the doctrine that Paul himself preached. [Hebrews 6:2] Paul was immersed in order to have his sins “washed away” [Acts 22:16] and taught that in order to have "redemption through his blood,the forgiveness of sins,in accordance with the riches of God's grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding" we are to be baptized "into Christ”. [Ephesians 1:3;Romans 6:3-4;Galatians 3:27] Jesus spoke of being "born of water" and Paul clarifies exactly which birth is being referred to here by saying this is "the water of rebirth" [John 3:3-5,NRSV;***us 3:5,NRSV]

One Lord, one faith, one baptism, EPH. 4:5. (1)

Then remembered the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. ACTS 11:16. water baptism, Holy Ghost Baptism, does this mean there are 2 baptism?

And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. What now we have a third baptism, right?

And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 1 Cor. 1:16. What, doesn't look like Paul was to concern who he had baptized. I wonder why?

For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 1 Cor. 12:13, Wait, I think we are getting some where here. We now have 1 body, put that with 1 baptism and where headed in the right place.

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. GAL 3:26-28.

So how did we get from John's baptism to children of God by faith in Christ Jesus?
It wasn't overnight, it took time, but Paul and Peter both got it. It isn't about water, laying on of hands, or a Church name above a building that make a person a child of God, it is by Faith in Christ Jesus of the Holy Bible. We know this by drinking in the spiritual waters of the Holy Ghost.
Remember when Jesus said, I give you living water? Drink of this cup and you will have Eternal life, amen!

Father_JD

05-13-2010, 02:24 PM

Sez you!

Marvin

Yep. Sez me. :D

akaSeerone

05-13-2010, 02:42 PM

The ordinance of baptism is part of the doctrine that Paul himself preached. [Hebrews 6:2] Paul was immersed in order to have his sins “washed away” [Acts 22:16] and taught that in order to have "redemption through his blood,the forgiveness of sins,in accordance with the riches of God's grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding" we are to be baptized "into Christ”. [Ephesians 1:3;Romans 6:3-4;Galatians 3:27] Jesus spoke of being "born of water" and Paul clarifies exactly which birth is being referred to here by saying this is "the water of rebirth" [John 3:3-5,NRSV;***us 3:5,NRSV]
Our sins are washed away by the blood of the Lamb....Amen

Revelation 1:5

5And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Revelation 7:14

14And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

And yes being born of water and Spirit does mean amniotic fluid and Holy Spirit Baptism.

Nicodemus was already destined for heaven as long as he kept the Law because he was a Jew, but Jesus said that now it takes more in that Nicodemus also had to be born again and the sixth verse bears this out.

6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Right there Jesus is talking about natural birth and Spiritual Birth and it has nothing to do with water baptism....PERIOD!!

And you have to understand that only a few times where baptism is mentioned does it refer to water baptism. Most of the time it is referring to Holy Spirit Baptism.

Andy

Mesenja

05-13-2010, 03:59 PM

John 3:5

5 Jesus answered,‘Very truly,I tell you,no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of 1. water and 2. Spirit.

***us 3:5

5 he saved us,not because of any works of righteousness that we had done,but according to his mercy,through the 1. water of rebirth and renewal by the 2. Holy Spirit.

Mesenja

05-14-2010, 11:49 AM

The "washing of regeneration" does NOT MEAN WATER BAPTISM. Read for once in your life...CONTEXTUALLY!

Put in it's proper context what "the water of rebirth" is referring to then of being ""born of water? [***us 3:5 NRSV;John 3:3-5 NRSV] After you have finished doing that explain why the contextual meaning of what Jesus said is different then what the apostle Paul means by it.

Billyray

05-14-2010, 12:28 PM

Put in it's proper context what "the water of rebirth" is referring to then or being ""born of water? [***us 3:5 NRSV;John 3:3-5 NRSV] After you have finished doing that explain why the contextual meaning of what Jesus said is different then what the apostle Paul means by it.

Is baptism a requirement for salvation?

Mesenja

05-14-2010, 06:06 PM

Is baptism a requirement for salvation?

The Savior said that "Very truly,I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit." Paul said that we are saved "through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit". The ordinance of baptism must include the confirmation of the Holy Ghost or it is just half a baptism and ineffectual.

"The gospel requires baptism by immersion for the remission of sins,which is the meaning of the word in the original language—namely,to bury or immerse. … I further believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, [as evidenced] by Peter’s preaching on the day of Pentecost. You might as well baptize a bag of sand as a man,if not done in view of the remission of sins and getting of the Holy Ghost. Baptism by water is but half a baptism, and is good for nothing without the other half—that is,the baptism of the Holy Ghost. The Savior says,‘Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit,he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" [History of the Church,5:499;punctuation modernized;paragraph divisions altered;from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on July 9,1843,in Nauvoo,Illinois;reported by Willard Richards]

nrajeff

05-14-2010, 06:40 PM

Interpret this, jeff: I took an aspirin for my headache. ;)

---Okay, let's go with that example. "I took an aspirin for my headache" means that:

"I took an aspirin in order to relieve my headache."

So, ****ogizing it to "I was baptized for the remission of my sins," it would read:

"I was baptized in order to have my sins remitted. "

Thanks for providing evidence that the LDS are right, FJD.

Billyray

05-14-2010, 07:55 PM

Billy asked,
Is baptism a requirement for salvation?

Mesenja replies
The Savior said that . . . .

I took that as a yes. You also seem to support the Catholic position especially with all of the ECF's quotes. If baptism is an absolute requirement for salvation then why can little children who die not need to be baptized if baptism is an absolute requirement? (I am not asking about age of accountable in this question so please don't give me that answer)

Mesenja

05-14-2010, 09:25 PM

I took that as a yes. You also seem to support the Catholic position especially with all of the ECF's quotes. If baptism is an absolute requirement for salvation then why can little children who die not need to be baptized if baptism is an absolute requirement? (I am not asking about age of accountable in this question so please don't give me that answer)

I can't help it if the ante-Nicene Fathers take a diametrically opposite position on baptism then you do. As to why we do not practice infant baptism the answer is found in the Book of Mormon.

THE BOOK OF MORONI
CHAPTER 8

Infant baptism is an evil abomination—Little children are alive in Christ because of the atonement—Faith,repentance,meekness and lowliness of heart,receiving the Holy Ghost,and enduring to the end lead to salvation. Between A.D. 400 and 421

1 An epistle of my father Mormon,written to me,Moroni;and it was written unto me soon after my calling to the ministry. And on this wise did he write unto me,saying:
2 My beloved son,Moroni,I rejoice exceedingly that your Lord Jesus Christ hath been mindful of you,and hath called you to his ministry,and to his holy work.
3 I am mindful of you always in my prayers,continually praying unto God the Father in the name of his Holy Child,Jesus, that he,through his infinite goodness and grace,will keep you through the endurance of faith on his name to the end.
4 And now, my son, I speak unto you concerning that which grieveth me exceedingly; for it grieveth me that there should disputations rise among you.
5 For,if I have learned the truth,there have been disputations among you concerning the baptism of your little children.
6 And now, my son,I desire that ye should labor diligently,that this gross error should be removed from among you;for,for this intent I have written this epistle.
7 For immediately after I had learned these things of you I inquired of the Lord concerning the matter. And the word of the Lord came to me by the power of the Holy Ghost,saying:
8 Listen to the words of Christ,your Redeemer,your Lord and your God. Behold,I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance;the whole need no physician,but they that are sick;wherefore,little children are whole,for they are not capable of committing sin;wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me,that it hath no power over them;and the law of circumcision is done away in me.
9 And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son,I know that it is solemn mockery before God,that ye should baptize little children.
10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin;yea,teach parents that they must repent and be baptized,and humble themselves as their little children,and they shall all be saved with their little children.
11 And their little children need no repentance,neither baptism. Behold,baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins.
12But little children are alive in Christ,even from the foundation of the world;if not so,God is a partial God, and also a changeable God,and a respecter to persons for how many little children have died without baptism!
13 Wherefore,if little children could not be saved without baptism,these must have gone to an endless hell.
14 Behold I say unto you,that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity;for he hath neither faith,hope,nor charity;wherefore,should he be cut off while in the thought,he must go down to hell.
15 For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism.
16 Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner,for they shall perish except they repent. Behold,I speak with boldness,having authority from God;and I fear not what man can do;for perfect love casteth out all fear.
17 And I am filled with charity,which is everlasting love;wherefore,all children are alike unto me;wherefore,I love little children with a perfect love;and they are all alike and partakers of salvation.
18 For I know that God is not a partial God,neither a changeable being;but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.
19 Little children cannot repent;wherefore, it is awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of God unto them,for they are all alive in him because of his mercy.
20 And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ,and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption.
21 Wo unto such,for they are in danger of death,hell,and an endless torment. I speak it boldly;God hath commanded me. Listen unto them and give heed,or they stand against you at the judgment-seat of Christ.
22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ,and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law;wherefore, he that is not condemned,or he that is under no condemnation,cannot repent;and unto such baptism availeth nothing—
23 But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ,and the power of his Holy Spirit,and putting trust in dead works.

nrajeff

05-14-2010, 09:53 PM

Baptism is a requirement for all who fall under "accountable" status. Sorry if you don't want to hear that, but that's plain old Common Sense knocking at your door, and the wise thing to do is to let it in.

Billyray

05-14-2010, 09:55 PM

I can't help it if the ante-Nicene Fathers take a diametrically opposite position on baptism then you do. As to why we do not practice infant baptism the answer is found in the Book of Mormon.

“For Christ also said,'Except ye be born again,ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' Now that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs,is manifest to all... And for this we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice,by our parents coming together,and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training;in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance,but may become the children of choice and knowledge,and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed,there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again,and has repented of his sins,the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe.” [Justin Martyr,Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 1 Pg. 183,160 A.D.
Justin Martyr believes in baptism--I believe in baptism. But baptism does not save. Salvation is by faith in Christ.

The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus
JUSTIN MARTYR
Chapter XIII.—Isaiah teaches that sins are forgiven through Christ’s blood.
“For Isaiah did not send you to a bath, there to wash away murder and other sins, which not even all the water of the sea were sufficient to purge; but, as might have been expected, this was that saving bath of the olden time which followed those who repented, and who no longer were purified by the blood of goats and of sheep, or by the ashes of an heifer, or by the offerings of fine flour, but by faith through the blood of Christ, and through His death, who died for this very reason, as Isaiah himself said, when he spake thus: ‘The Lord shall make bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the nations and the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of God. "
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.xiii.html

Father_JD

05-17-2010, 05:41 PM

Put in it's proper context what "the water of rebirth" is referring to then of being ""born of water? [***us 3:5 NRSV;John 3:3-5 NRSV] After you have finished doing that explain why the contextual meaning of what Jesus said is different then what the apostle Paul means by it.

Duh. That thing called CONTEXT. Problem with you Mos is that you try to ram one definition or one usage down the throat of every p***age that mentions a given word...in this case, "washing".

So let's hear Paul speak for himself, huh?

Tts 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,

Tts 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Tts 3:6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

Tts 3:7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Catch that, M??

1. NOT saved by "works of righteousness" that we have done.
2. It's according to GOD'S MERCY ( I suggest you go back and read Romans 10) which means NOTHING which one DOES.
3. Washed by the REGENERATION AND RENEWING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
4. We are JUSTIFIED BY GRACE and NOT by works as a causitive agent.

It's abundantly clear to those who don't have a "prophet" to sustain, that Paul is NOT TALKING ABOUT WATER BAPTISM!!!

(LOL. Just like Ezekiel wasn't talking about "scripture" in chapter 37).

Mesenja

05-17-2010, 07:20 PM

One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?

Did you guess which thing was not like the others?
Did you guess which thing just doesn't belong?
If you guessed this one is not like the others,
Then you're absolutely...right!

Billy believes that "everyone would like to think that they are right about every issue concerning Jesus but this may not be possible"

You believe that even half truths added to truth as being ****ogous to "a gl*** half filled with pure water and the other half filed with sewer water. So it is with half truths. They are nothing more that 100% lies."

Mesenja

05-18-2010, 08:24 AM

Duh. That thing called CONTEXT. Problem with you Mormons is that you try to ram one definition or one usage down the throat of every p***age that mentions a given word...in this case,"washing".

So let's hear Paul speak for himself,huh?

***us 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,

***us 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to his mercy he saved us,by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

***us 3:6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

***us 3:7 That being justified by his grace,we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Catch that,Mesenja?

1. NOT saved by "works of righteousness" that we have done.
2. It's according to GOD'S MERCY (I suggest you go back and read Romans 10) which means NOTHING which one DOES.
3. Washed by the REGENERATION AND RENEWING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
4. We are JUSTIFIED BY GRACE and NOT by works as a causitive agent.

It's abundantly clear to those who don't have a "prophet" to sustain,that Paul is NOT TALKING ABOUT WATER BAPTISM! (LOL. Just like Ezekiel wasn't talking about "scripture" in chapter 37).

Jesus said to Nicodemus that without being "born of water and Spirit" no one would enter into "the kingdom of God" Paul taught that baptism which he describes as the "washing of regeneration" or "the water of rebirth" was the intervening agency that we receive grace by which we are saved through faith. Baptism by immersion in water is only half a baptism since we need the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost to receive the "renewal by the Holy Spirit". The idea of birth,regeneration and rebirth are all linked to the medium of water which is always made separate from the idea of the "renewal by the Holy Spirit".

Father_JD

05-19-2010, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by Father_JD

Duh. That thing called CONTEXT. Problem with you Mormons is that you try to ram one definition or one usage down the throat of every p***age that mentions a given word...in this case,"washing".

So let's hear Paul speak for himself,huh?

***us 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,

***us 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to his mercy he saved us,by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

***us 3:6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

***us 3:7 That being justified by his grace,we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Catch that,Mesenja?

1. NOT saved by "works of righteousness" that we have done.
2. It's according to GOD'S MERCY (I suggest you go back and read Romans 10) which means NOTHING which one DOES.
3. Washed by the REGENERATION AND RENEWING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
4. We are JUSTIFIED BY GRACE and NOT by works as a causitive agent.

It's abundantly clear to those who don't have a "prophet" to sustain,that Paul is NOT TALKING ABOUT WATER BAPTISM! (LOL. Just like Ezekiel wasn't talking about "scripture" in chapter 37).

Jesus said to Nicodemus that without being "born of water and Spirit" no one would enter into "the kingdom of God" Paul taught that baptism which he describes as the "washing of regeneration" or "the water of rebirth" was the intervening agency that we receive grace by which we are saved through faith. Baptism by immersion in water is only half a baptism since we need the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost to receive the "renewal by the Holy Spirit". The idea of birth,regeneration and rebirth are all linked to the medium of water which is always made separate from the idea of the "renewal by the Holy Spirit".

Your "Nuh-uh" NON-response is duly noted, M. I demonstrated from the CONTEXT WHAT PAUL MEANT, and you merely double back with your patented robotic unsupported ***ERTION and REFUSE TO ENGAGE PAUL'S WORDS FROM ***US.

Typical. Lame, Mormon reindeer trick. :rolleyes:

LOL. You Mos simply won't address scripture that can't be twisted to agree with Mormonism!!

Mesenja

05-19-2010, 10:32 PM

"The doctrine of baptism is one of the few teachings within Roman Catholicism for which it can be said that there is a universal consent of the Fathers....From the early days of the Church,baptism was universally perceived as the means of receiving four basic gifts:the remission of sins,deliverance from death,regeneration,and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit." [William Webster,The Church of Rome at the Bar of History,page 95-96]
Quotes About Water Baptism

Ignatius,A.D. 110

[Jesus] was born and baptized that by his suffering he might purify the water. (Letter to the Ephesians 18)

Justin Martyr,c. A.D. 150
So that we would not remain the children of necessity and ignorance but become the children of choice and knowledge,and so that we may obtain in the water the forgiveness of sins formerly committed. There is pronounced over the the person who chooses to be born again,and who has repented of their sins,the name of God,the Father and Lord of the universe. He who leads the person that is to be washed to the laver calls God by this name alone. And this washing is called illumination because those who learn these things are illuminated in their understanding. (First Apology 61)

And this food is called among us the Eucharist,of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true,who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins and to regeneration,and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. (First Apology 66)

Cyprian of Carthage

Because of this basin of repentance and knowledge of God,which has been ordained for the transgression of God’s people,as Isaiah cries,we have believed,and we testify that the very baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented. It is the water of life. But the cisterns which you have dug for yourselves are broken and of no benefit to you. For what is the use of a baptism which cleanses the flesh and body alone? Baptize the soul from wrath and from covetousness,from envy,and from hatred,and,lo,the body is pure. (Dialogue with Trypho 14)

Those who have been dipped abroad—outside the Church—and have been stained among heretics and schismatics [Novatianists] with the taint of profane water. When they come to us and to the Church which is one,they ought to be baptized. The reason is that laying hands on them that they may receive the Holy Spirit is of little importance,unless they also receive the baptism of the Church. For then can they finally be fully sanctified and be the sons of God,if they be born of each sacrament,since it is written,"Except a man be born again of water,and of the Spirit,he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" [John 3:5]. (Epistles of Cyprian 7,as numbered by The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. V)***us 3:5

5 he saved us,not because of any works of righteousness that we had done,but according to his mercy,through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.

1. not because of any works of righteousness that we had done
2. according to his mercy
3. through* [Greek,"through";by means of] the water* [Greek washing] of rebirth

and

4. renewal by the Holy Spirit

1 Corinthians 6:11

11 And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed,you were sanctified,you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

1. you were washed [water]
2. you were sanctified [Holy Spirit]
3. you were justified

Romans 15.16

16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God,so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable,[B]sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

Romans 3:24

24 they are now justified by his grace as a gift,through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

nrajeff

05-20-2010, 08:20 AM

Mesenja, you're doing to our "opponents" what Russ used to threaten to do to us: Bury the other side in quotes that support your argument. Well done.

Mesenja

05-20-2010, 02:30 PM

Mesenja, you're doing to our "opponents" what Russ used to threaten to do to us:Bury the other side in quotes that support your argument. Well done.

However as you know debating with with our opponents on Walter Martin is an exercise in futility. This is based on two guiding principles they use in debate.

1. They will never concede anything to a Latter-day Saint.

2. They will always reject whatever is said by a Latter-day Saint only for the reason that we say it.

akaSeerone

05-20-2010, 02:34 PM

However as you know debating with with our opponents on Walter Martin is an exercise in futility. This is based on two operating principles they use in debate.

1. They will never concede anything to a Latter-day Saint.

2. They will always reject whatever is said by a Latter-day Saint only for the reason that we say it.
THAT IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE AND I AM SURE YOU KNOW IT.

JUST ANOTHER LAME EXCUSE FOR NOT ADMITTING IT WHEN YOU HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONG.

Andy

nrajeff

05-20-2010, 03:27 PM

[B]THAT IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE AND I AM SURE YOU KNOW IT.

---When was the last time you stated that you agreed with a point that an LDS poster made?

What % of time do you agree with the LDS?

I rest my case.

Father_JD

05-20-2010, 03:36 PM

***us 3:5

5 he saved us,not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.

1. not because of any works of righteousness that we had done
2. according to his mercy
3. through* [Greek,"through";by means of] the water* [Greek washing] of rebirth

and

4. renewal by the Holy Spirit

1 Corinthians 6:11

11 And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed,you were sanctified,you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

1. you were washed [water]
2. you were sanctified [Holy Spirit]
3. you were justified

Romans 15.16

16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable,[B]sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

Romans 3:24

24 they are now justified by his grace as a gift,through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

Hey, M. Apparently you haven't bothered to look at the Greek of ***us 3. "Water" DOES NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE IN THE GREEK.

You have NOT engaged the text other than to attempt to twist "washing" to mean WATER and loosely tie it to other verses which really don't make your case either. :rolleyes: