Was Jesus' Gospel only intended for the "known world" at the time? [Archive]

BigJulie

06-13-2011, 02:49 PM

Oh yeah ...and ...

Does it seem logical and reasonable that there were Hebrew American Indians quoting the New Testament and baptizing each other into the "Christian" "Church" hundreds of years before Christ himself was even born??

Really?

Get real.

-BH

. So much more logical than God, who is all powerful, not teaching about Himself whereever and whenever He chooses. In fact, it would be more logical to see indicators that the knowledge of God has around for a long time and in many places.

Here is one example:

"Like endless boiling water, the flood is pouring forth destruction. Boundless and overwhelming, it overtops hills and mountains. Rising and ever rising, it threatens the very heavens. How the people must be groaning and suffering!"

-- Emperor Yao, as quoted in the Book of History, describing the flood.

Here is another:

PahanaThe true Pahana (or Bahana) is the Lost White Brother of the Hopi. Most versions have it that the Pahana or Elder Brother left for the east at the time that the Hopi entered the Fourth World and began their migrations. However, the Hopi say that he will return again and at his coming the wicked will be destroyed and a new age of peace, the Fifth World, will be ushered into the world. As mentioned above, it is said he will bring with him a missing section of a sacred Hopi stone in the possession of the Fire Clan, and that he will come wearing red. Traditionally, Hopis are buried facing eastward in expectation of the Pahana who will come from that direction.[32]

The legend of the Pahana seems intimately connected with the Aztec story of Quetzalcoatl, and other legends of Central America.[4] This similarity is furthered by the liberal representation of Awanyu, the horned or plumed serpent, in Hopi and other Puebloan art. This figure bears a striking resemblance to figures of Quetzacoatl, the feathered serpent, in Mexico. In the early 16th century, both the Hopis and the Aztecs believed that the coming of the Spanish conquistadors was the return of this lost white prophet. Unlike the Aztecs, upon first contact the Hopi put the Spanish through a series of tests in order to determine their divinity, and having failed, the Spanish were sent away from the Hopi mesas.[33]

BrianH

06-13-2011, 03:04 PM

So much more logical than God, who is all powerful, not teaching about Himself whereever and whenever He chooses. In fact, it would be more logical to see indicators that the knowledge of God has around for a long time and in many places.

Really, so you think that it really is logical to conclude that there were Jewish American Indians practicing Christianity in the Western Hemisphere hundreds of years before Christ was born?

Really? I mean ...REALLY? Plese, by all means DO explain how that is logically valid.

Here is one example:
Like endless boiling water, the flood is pouring forth destruction. Boundless and overwhelming, it overtops hills and mountains. Rising and ever rising, it threatens the very heavens. How the people must be groaning and suffering!"

-- Emperor Yao, as quoted in the Book of History, describing the flood.

Well IF there was a world-wide flood it would indeed be logical that people around the world would have known about it. But this does NOTHING to substantiate your claims that there were Jewish American Indians practicing Christianity and even quoting the New Testament long before Jesus himself had even been born.

Here is another:
The legend of the Pahana seems intimately connected with the Aztec story of Quetzalcoatl, and other legends of Central America.[4] This similarity is furthered by the liberal representation of Awanyu, the horned or plumed serpent, in Hopi and other Puebloan art. This figure bears a striking resemblance to figures of Quetzacoatl, the feathered serpent, in Mexico. In the early 16th century, both the Hopis and the Aztecs believed that the coming of the Spanish conquistadors was the return of this lost white prophet. Unlike the Aztecs, upon first contact the Hopi put the Spanish through a series of tests in order to determine their divinity, and having failed, the Spanish were sent away from the Hopi mesas.[33]

What has the Aztec snake god to do with Jewish American Indians practicing Christianity before Christ was born? And what makes you think that Jesus was "white"? Is it all those pictures you have been looking at? Here's a news flash for you - Jesus was a Jew, a semite from the Levant. We was NOT "white". (And BTW, the American Indians actually do NOT turn "white and delightsome" after converting to Mormonism - so your "prophet" was wrong about that too.

Please explain why anyone should take you seriously at this point.

-BH

.

BigJulie

06-13-2011, 03:31 PM

[QUOTE=BrianH;90655]Really, so you think that it really is logical to conclude that there were Jewish American Indians practicing Christianity in the Western Hemisphere hundreds of years before Christ was born?

Really? I mean ...REALLY? Plese, by all means DO explain how that is logically valid. Yes Really!!. If God is all powerful, it is more logical to believe that He does not limit Himself.

2 Nephi 29:
[7] Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?

[8] Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.

Well IF there was a world-wide flood it would indeed be logical that people around the world would have known about it. But this does NOTHING to substantiate your claims that there were Jewish American Indians practicing Christianity and even quoting the New Testament long before Jesus himself had even been born. It substantiates my claim that a knowledge of God existed outside of Judism.

What has the Aztec snake god to do with Jewish American Indians practicing Christianity before Christ was born? And what makes you think that Jesus was "white"? Is it all those pictures you have been looking at? Here's a news flash for you - Jesus was a Jew, a semite from the Levant. We was NOT "white". - The Aztec traditions should cause you more concern than they do me.

James Banta

06-13-2011, 05:16 PM

[QUOTE] Yes Really!!. If God is all powerful, it is more logical to believe that He does not limit Himself.

2 Nephi 29:
[7] Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?

[8] Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.

It substantiates my claim that a knowledge of God existed outside of Judism.

The Aztec traditions should cause you more concern than they do me.

If we receive more of God's word would it not agree with the word from God we already have? If in one word we see that we are save by God's grace through faith and NOT OF WORKS. And then along come a "new revelation" that says we are saved by Grace but only after all we can do. That is 100% DIFFERENT than salvation being of his works through faith plus nothing, and including the statement that insists that it is NOT OF WORKS..

Worship of a snake man is not a worry to those of us that believe that God has forever been God. That He is the Only God that has ever existed or will ever exist.. We conform our faith to God's word.. We don't invent our religion and then try to force the Bible to support it.. That is the practice of mormonism.. Can you understand that from the time of Columbus to the missionaries being sent into the Indians nations in the late 1800's the major desire for these was to make Jesus and His work known to the Indian people? That is working as Jesus commanded to take His message of life to the whole world.. No one ever believes that the great commission was only for the Roman world but for all mankind.. IHS jim

BrianH

06-13-2011, 05:57 PM

[QUOTE] Yes Really!!. If God is all powerful, it is more logical to believe that He does not limit Himself.

So then why are you NOT a Moonie or a Scientologist? After all, they claim bogus "revelations" too. So why would God -the God of truth- "limit himself" to only the absurdities of the Mormon religion? Scientologists claim that human life was descended from beings who flew to earth in special airplanes 15 trillion years ago and were dumped into volcanoes where their spirits having been frozen by the evil Lord Xenu actually thawed out and began inhabiting the lower life forms that eventually evolved into YOU. So, now ...how is it that you are not a Scientologist, Julie? Their claims are no more absurd than yours. And why would God limit himself to only the absurdities of Mormonism?

2 Nephi 29:
[7] Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?

[8] Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.

It substantiates my claim that a knowledge of God existed outside of Judism.

First of all, that's irrelevant. Your claim is NOT that there was "a knowledge of God outside Judaism". There is little doubt about that. But that is not your claim, nor is it the claim of your religion and it most certainly is not the claim you are failing to support here and now. Your claim is that there really was a vast civilization of Egyptian-writing Jewish American Indians who practiced Christianity before Christ was even born (in direct contradiction, BTW, to what even YOUR cult calls the "word of God" - the Bible). Of course, you don not even know on which continent this supposedly happened, but you like to pretend that it really did happen.

Furthermore, why should anyone believe that the Book of Mormon somehow "substantiates" its own claims. Are we supposed to think it is telling the truth because it says so? The Moonies say THEY are telling the truth. Using your damaged logic, you have an obligation to believe them.

This is like watching you try to pick yourself up off the floor by your own shoelaces and then insisting that you have succeeded, because you FEEEEEL that you have. But looking at it from the outside, all an even minimally conscious person could do in reaction is scratch their head and wonder what you had been smokin'.

The Aztec traditions should cause you more concern than they do me.

Why? The Aztecs did not even exist until many hundreds of years AFTER the so-called "Nephites" and they certainly never lived in New York! But DO, by all means, try to break the Mormon mold here, Julie: try supporting that claim instead of just regurgitating it as a means to create more smoke to hide your failure to substantiate any of your other claims.

-BH

.

BigJulie

06-13-2011, 06:03 PM

[QUOTE=James Banta;90662][QUOTE=BigJulie;90656]

If we receive more of God's word would it not agree with the word from God we already have? It does agree...it just disagrees with your interpretation of your reading.

BigJulie

06-13-2011, 06:07 PM

[QUOTE=BrianH;90666]
So then why are you NOT a Moonie or a Scientologist? After all, they claim bogus "revelations" too. So why would God -the God of truth- "limit himself" to only the absurdities of the Mormon religion? Scientologists claim that human life was descended from beings who flew to earth in special airplanes 15 trillion years ago and were dumped into volcanoes where their spirits having been frozen by the evil Lord Xenu actually thawed out and began inhabiting the lower life forms that eventually evolved into YOU. So, now ...how is it that you are not a Scientologist, Julie? Their claims are no more absurd than yours. And why would God limit himself to only the absurdities of Mormonism? Your arguement that someone else says they have revelation does not undo the proof of my own life. If I state that I have lived by and trusted that 1+1=2, stating that someone else believes that 1+1=3 does not lessen my own experience or the truth that I have lived.

Why? The Aztecs did not even exist until many hundreds of years AFTER the so-called "Nephites" and they certainly never lived in New York! But DO, by all means, try to break the Mormon mold here, Julie: try supporting that claim instead of just regurgitating it as a means to create more smoke to hide your failure to substantiate any of your other claims.

-BH

. As stated, you will disclaim any "proof" that I offer. So, why offer? (They did the same with Christ so I am in good company :))

BrianH

06-13-2011, 06:17 PM

[QUOTE] Your arguement that someone else says they have revelation does not undo the proof of my own life. If I state that I have lived by and trusted that 1+1=2, stating that someone else believes that 1+1=3 does not lessen my own experience or the truth that I have lived.

The "proof" of your life is nothing more than the regurgitation of what you have been told to "think". Just repeating your claims is insufficient as a reason to think those claims are actually TRUE. I am asking you to provide reasons WHY even a minimally conscious person would think you are telling the truth, Julie. Just repeating what you have been told to "think" by your leaders is not even close to providing any reasons to think those claims are true. How is it that you cannot understand the difference?

As stated, you will disclaim any "proof" that I offer. So, why offer? (They did the same with Christ so I am in good company :))
This is just one of the usual LDS cop-outs/excuses. You cannot provide any reasons to believe you and you know it. All you can do is repeat your mantras just as you have been trained to do and then try to blame ME for not falling for that bluntly lame and utterly transparent trick.

Julie, if you cannot actually support your claims, then you best not make them in a forum where they will be questioned. Is that not obvious to you by now?

I note with interest, that, as usual, the Mormon has failed to respond to my request that she simply provide us with some reasons to think that there REALLY WAS a vast civilization of Egyptian-writing Jewish American Indians who practiced Christianity before Christ himself was even born.

-BH

.

BigJulie

06-13-2011, 06:20 PM

[QUOTE=BigJulie;90668]

The "proof" of your life is nothing more than the regurgitation of what you have been told to "think". Just repeating your claims is insufficient as a reason to think those claims are actually TRUE. I am asking you to provide reasons WHY even a minimally conscious person would think you are telling the truth, Julie. Just repeating what you have been told to "think" by your leaders is not even close to providing any reasons to think those claims are true. How is it that you cannot understand the difference?

This is just one of the usual LDS cop-outs/excuses. You cannot provide any reasons to believe you and you know it. All you can do is repeat your mantras just as you have been trained to do and then try to blame ME for not falling for that bluntly lame and utterly transparent trick.

Julie, if you cannot actually support your claims, then you best not make them in a forum where they will be questioned. Is that not obvious to you by now?

-BH

.

As we learn that faith is that which is hoped for, the evidence which is not seen--why are you seeing this as a "mormon cop-out"??---to the world, faith is a cop-out for every believer in Christ. I give you my evidence, you invalidate it. That has always been the role of the non-believers--always has been and always will be. If my life is not proof enough, nothing ever will be.

To the unbeliever, Moses never parted the Red Sea and Christ never rose from the dead. Those who live by the faith of those things will never make sense to those who don't. Nor will my faith or "proof" of my experience ever make sense to you. Just know that I am content in my knowledge of Jesus Christ and the life that I live. I love others and will never do anything to harm you.

BrianH

06-13-2011, 06:27 PM

As we learn that faith is that which is hoped for, the evidence which is not seen--why are you seeing this as a "mormon cop-out"??---to the world, faith is a cop-out for every believer in Christ. I give you my evidence, you invalidate it. That has always been the role of the non-believers--always has been and always will be. If my life is not proof enough, nothing ever will be.

So then according to your damaged logic, YOU should be a Scientologist, since YOU have not seen the evil Lord Xenu or a Thetan.

Julie, the challenge you are hoping to flee here is not a matter of "faith". If the so-called "Nephites" really existed, then their mere existence as a civilization would be easily observed in the M***IVE volumes of evidence of Mesoamerica. As it happens there is not a single molecule of such evidence of any kind. No linguistic evidence, no artifacts, no cities, no biology, no oral traditions, no ANYTHING. Claims about ancient civilizations are not supported by regurgitating canned lines about "faith" in those claims, Julie. My goodness ...THINK, woman ...THINK.

So, do you REALLY think that a person should believe something BECAUSE there is exactly NO evidence for it?

If so, then why are you not a Moonie instead of a Mormon. The Moonies claim that Sun Myung Moon is the reincarnation of Christ and they will tell you to have "faith" too. They will even ask you to pray about it and listen to the Holy Spirit, cuz HE most certainly will (according to them) confirm that they are right.

When you are done with that, explain why you are not a JW, or a Christadelphian, or even a Catholic. They too will all tell you that you just have to BELIEEEEEEEVE them with all your heart to make it all seem true.

-BH

.

Fig-bearing Thistle

06-13-2011, 08:35 PM

BigJulie

06-13-2011, 09:38 PM

So then according to your damaged logic, YOU should be a Scientologist, since YOU have not seen the evil Lord Xenu or a Thetan.

Julie, the challenge you are hoping to flee here is not a matter of "faith". If the so-called "Nephites" really existed, then their mere existence as a civilization would be easily observed in the M***IVE volumes of evidence of Mesoamerica. As it happens there is not a single molecule of such evidence of any kind. No linguistic evidence, no artifacts, no cities, no biology, no oral traditions, no ANYTHING. Claims about ancient civilizations are not supported by regurgitating canned lines about "faith" in those claims, Julie. My goodness ...THINK, woman ...THINK.

So, do you REALLY think that a person should believe something BECAUSE there is exactly NO evidence for it?

If so, then why are you not a Moonie instead of a Mormon. The Moonies claim that Sun Myung Moon is the reincarnation of Christ and they will tell you to have "faith" too. They will even ask you to pray about it and listen to the Holy Spirit, cuz HE most certainly will (according to them) confirm that they are right.

When you are done with that, explain why you are not a JW, or a Christadelphian, or even a Catholic. They too will all tell you that you just have to BELIEEEEEEEVE them with all your heart to make it all seem true.

-BH

. You may an illogical jump that if I say that I have experienced 1+1=2 and have come to trust it and believe it, then that means that I believe anything you disagree with. If I was not Christian and wanted to use your same tactics, I could say that since you cannot prove the Moses parted the Red Sea (other than your own scriptures), that you must also believe in every other "illogical" religious belief such as Moonies or Scientology.

Regardless, I agree with Fig, you are not addressing the question posed in the thread.

James Banta

06-13-2011, 11:21 PM

You may an illogical jump that if I say that I have experienced 1+1=2 and have come to trust it and believe it, then that means that I believe anything you disagree with. If I was not Christian and wanted to use your same tactics, I could say that since you cannot prove the Moses parted the Red Sea (other than your own scriptures), that you must also believe in every other "illogical" religious belief such as Moonies or Scientology.

Regardless, I agree with Fig, you are not addressing the question posed in the thread.

But Julie I do have evidence of an extra biblical nature that testifies of the red Sea p***age (http://www.bibleprobe.com/exodus.htm). God has not left the Christian without evidence.. It is mormonism that is doing all the jumping to conclusions.. IHS jim

BrianH

06-14-2011, 05:40 AM

You may an illogical jump that if I say that I have experienced 1+1=2 and have come to trust it and believe it, then that means that I believe anything you disagree with.

No YOU are making the the illogical jump because you have IGNORED the FACT that the proposition that 1+1=2 is objectively verifyable. So are historical propositions as large as the existence of a vast civilization. Your error lies in the fact that your programmed emotional reactions to your own life are not in any way objective, and thus are insuffient as a means to test the validity of propositions about history. The ONLY means to confirm a HISTORICAL ***ertion are HISTORICAL means. We know conclusively, for example that the nation of Israel existed in the Levant becuase of the immeasurable volume of every possible kind of evidence that so clearly details that civlization

If I was not Christian and wanted to use your same tactics, I could say that since you cannot prove the Moses parted the Red Sea (other than your own scriptures), that you must also believe in every other "illogical" religious belief such as Moonies or Scientology.

Again, your comparison is totally bogus because there is no independent means by which to test the proposition that Moses parted the Red Sea. There cannot be any means to test if a body of water was separated 4,000 years ago. The existence of civlizations on the other hand abnsolutely CAN be and routinely ARE understood by means of the kind of evidence that civilizations leave to history[/quote]

Regardless, I agree with Fig, you are not addressing the question posed in the thread.

YOU are the one who created the rabbit trail here. I am only following YOUR avoidance of the topic. Would you like to quite deviating from the issue at hand?

-BH

.

BrianH

06-14-2011, 05:42 AM

So you don't want to deal with the question? I don't blame you. orthodoxy just doesn't provide the answer.

I just DID deal with the question. Try actually R E A D I N G the post BEFORE you execute your knee-****, programmed reactions.

-BH

.

TheSword99

06-14-2011, 05:48 AM

Is Jesus the Savior of those who have not been taught by his disciples? And how can those be saved who have not been taught by his disciples?

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is intended for all people in all ages til the end of the world. Jesus is the Savior of the world. Does one need to be taught by the apostles? You know what the Holy Scriptures says? It says man is without excuse because God has made himself known to His creatures through His creation.

The lds has failed to grasp that Christ's gospel is a simple one. We do not need years of leaning to come to Christ with humble hearts.

BigJulie

06-14-2011, 07:20 AM

BigJulie

06-14-2011, 07:22 AM

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is intended for all people in all ages til the end of the world. Jesus is the Savior of the world. Does one need to be taught by the apostles? You know what the Holy Scriptures says? It says man is without excuse because God has made himself known to His creatures through His creation.

The lds has failed to grasp that Christ's gospel is a simple one. We do not need years of leaning to come to Christ with humble hearts.

So, are you saying that one should be able to look at a, let's say, tree and from that deduce that mankind has a Savior named Jesus Christ even if that person was born in 1000 bc in South America?

BrianH

06-14-2011, 09:15 AM

Here is the beginning of the rabbit trail. Sorry Brian. So, back to Fig's questions. :)

False.

Had you bothered to actually READ the preceeding post (the one to which your cited post is an obvious addendum), you might have seen that I directly addressed Figs topic by pointing out the straw man fallacy it contains.

THEN AFTER addressing his fallacious insinuiations I posted a counter argument (in the form of a rhetorical question that remains unanswered) and YOU began the digression by failing (as usual) to address that argument.

Read. Think and Understand. You will gain credibility that way.

-BH

.

BigJulie

06-14-2011, 10:48 AM

False.

THEN AFTER addressing his fallacious insinuiations I posted a counter argument (in the form of a rhetorical question that remains unanswered) and YOU began the digression by failing (as usual) to address that argument.

. Thus starting the trip down the rabbit hole with what you thought was rhetorical--but never the less, I addressed your accusation. I guess we are not supposed to do that---we are to only bow to the master of all logical thought :) But Brian, you have convinced me of one thing. In your world, you are always right and every one else who does not agree with you is a fool. Oh well.

BrianH

06-14-2011, 11:41 AM

Thus starting the trip down the rabbit hole with what you thought was rhetorical--but never the less, I addressed your accusation. I guess we are not supposed to do that---we are to only bow to the master of all logical thought :) But Brian, you have convinced me of one thing. In your world, you are always right and every one else who does not agree with you is a fool. Oh well.

Having fully addressed Fig's original fallacious insinuations, I see no reason why it is incorrect to then extend the conversation to show further just how vapid his positoin really is.

Again, I am not here to "convince" you of anything. You and I both know that you would sooner eat your own cat alive than admit that you had been duped by one of the 19th centuries lamest hoaxes.

And yes ...I am right. I know how much that bugs you, but your emotional reactions to the fact that I am right are of no consequence to me or anyone else.

-BH

.

BigJulie

06-14-2011, 11:55 AM

Having fully addressed Fig's original fallacious insinuations, I see no reason why it is incorrect to then extend the conversation to show further just how vapid his positoin really is.

Again, I am not here to "convince" you of anything. You and I both know that you would sooner eat your own cat alive than admit that you had been duped by one of the 19th centuries lamest hoaxes.

And yes ...I am right. I know how much that bugs you, but your emotional reactions to the fact that I am right are of no consequence to me or anyone else.

-BH

.

Well, I don't own a cat and I personally appreciate the testimony I do have. Fig's logic is accurate. There is no reason to believe that Christ would limit himself or knowledge about Himself to one (okay about 2 and half) tribe of Israel. And, even though you want to argue against it, there are indications that knowledge of God has existed in many places around the world.

BrianH

06-14-2011, 12:30 PM

Well, I don't own a cat and I personally appreciate the testimony I do have. Fig's logic is accurate. There is no reason to believe that Christ would limit himself or knowledge about Himself to one (okay about 2 and half) tribe of Israel. And, even though you want to argue against it, there are indications that knowledge of God has existed in many places around the world.

Please do your best to acctually SUPPORT your claim about Fig's logic. Just ***erting your highly predictable opinon of his claim is not the same thing as actually formulating an argument to support it.

For my part, I found it incredibly EASY to see right through the specific logical fallacy he committed: the fallacy of the "straw man".

As for your ***ertion above, since YOU are ostensibly insinuating the positive ***ertion that Christ DID reveal himself to an alleged (though unsubstantiated) vast civilization of Egyptian-writing Jewish American Indians, the onus is upon YOU to show us some reasons to think that this claim is true. Simply saying that there was no reason for him NOT to have done so is nothing short of yet another logical fallacy -the argument from silence.

BigJulie

06-14-2011, 12:54 PM

Please do your best to acctually SUPPORT your claim about Fig's logic. Just ***erting your highly predictable opinon of his claim is not the same thing as actually formulating an argument to support it.

For my part, I found it incredibly EASY to see right through the specific logical fallacy he committed: the fallacy of the "straw man".

As for your ***ertion above, since YOU are ostensibly insinuating the positive ***ertion that Christ DID reveal himself to an alleged (though unsubstantiated) vast civilization of Egyptian-writing Jewish American Indians, the onus is upon YOU to show us some reasons to think that this claim is true. Simply saying that there was no reason for him NOT to have done so is nothing short of yet another logical fallacy -the argument from silence.

Once again, the evidence can be seen in my life--which I know you do not consider valid nor care about. But, I can see that the testimony of those in America of Christ have made a difference in my own life.

Fig-bearing Thistle

06-14-2011, 12:58 PM

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is intended for all people in all ages til the end of the world. Jesus is the Savior of the world. Does one need to be taught by the apostles? You know what the Holy Scriptures says? It says man is without excuse because God has made himself known to His creatures through His creation.

The lds has failed to grasp that Christ's gospel is a simple one. We do not need years of leaning to come to Christ with humble hearts.

Who is going to teach people about Christ if not his followers (i.e. disciples)

Does that means that orthodox Christianity offers 2 ways to salvation:

1. By knowing and accepting Christ.
and/or
2. By being i-g-n-o-r-a-n-t about Christ.

You are basically believing in a brand of Christianity where salvation depends upon the ability of missionaries to build boats in order to teach the rest of the world (such as the Western hemisphere) about the only way to salvation.

Fig-bearing Thistle

06-14-2011, 01:04 PM

I just DID deal with the question. Try actually R E A D I N G the post BEFORE you execute your knee-****, programmed reactions.

-BH

.

No. You didn't. Dismissing isn't dealing.

You are saying that you believe in a form of Christianity where the salvation of millions (if not billions) depends on whether evangelical Christian missionaries can build boats in order to inform the rest of the world about the only way to salvation. And it took them 1500 years to do this.

BrianH

06-14-2011, 01:39 PM

No. You didn't. Dismissing isn't dealing.

You are fibbing agian, Fig. I absolutely answered your quiestion. MY exact words: "Such a claim certainly is unreasonable but ...Christians do not make such a claim".

That is not a dismissal it is a refutation. If you really do not understand the difference between the two, just ask and I will explain it to you.

You are saying that you believe in a form of Christianity where the salvation of millions (if not billions) depends on whether evangelical Christian missionaries can build boats in order to inform the rest of the world about the only way to salvation. And it took them 1500 years to do this.

No more than you believe in a form of "Christianity" (so-called) where the "salvation" of millions (if not billions) depends on whether Mormon missionaries can inform the rest of the world (incluiding the CHRISTIAN world) about the only way to "salvation" by placing their faith in the baseless gibberish utterd by a twice-convicted occult con artist and child abuser... And it will have taken you guys far more than 1500 years to do this.

-BH

.

BrianH

06-14-2011, 01:41 PM

Once again, the evidence can be seen in my life--which I know you do not consider valid nor care about. But, I can see that the testimony of those in America of Christ have made a difference in my own life.

Your life is not evidence of Mesoamerican history any more than a Scientologists life is evidence of the existence of the evil Lord Xenu somwhere in outer space, Julie.

Wake up.

-BH

.

Fig-bearing Thistle

06-14-2011, 02:11 PM

You are fibbing agian, Fig. I absolutely answered your quiestion. MY exact words: "Such a claim certainly is unreasonable but ...Christians do not make such a claim".

That is not a dismissal it is a refutation. If you really do not understand the difference between the two, just ask and I will explain it to you.

[QUOTE=BrianH;90731]
No more than you believe in a form of "Christianity" (so-called) where the "salvation" of millions (if not billions) depends on whether Mormon missionaries can inform the rest of the world (incluiding the CHRISTIAN world) about the only way to "salvation" by placing their faith in the baseless gibberish utterd by a twice-convicted occult con artist and child abuser... And it will have taken you guys far more than 1500 years to do this.

-BH

.

Your ignorance is flabbergasting.

So, if there is another way to salvation for the rest of the world other than by learning about Christ then explain it to me.

Otherwise, the only other conclusion I see for you is that you DO believe in a form of Christianity where the salvation of millions (if not billions) depends on whether evangelical Christian missionaries can build boats in order to inform the rest of the world about the only way to salvation. And it took them 1500 years to do this.

BrianH

06-14-2011, 02:16 PM

Your ignorance is flabbergasting.
Support your accusation that I am ignoran t of the material pertaining to this discussion.

So, if there is another way to salvation for the rest of the world other than by learning about Christ then explain it to me.

I never said there was any such way to salvation.

Otherwise, the only other conclusion I see for you is that you DO believe in a form of Christianity where the salvation of millions (if not billions) depends on whether evangelical Christian missionaries can build boats in order to inform the rest of the world about the only way to salvation. And it took them 1500 years to do this.

No more so than YOU believe in a form of "Christianity" (so called) where the "salvation" of millions (if not billions) depends on whether Mormon missionaries have ever reached any part of the world (including the CHRISTIAN world, since Christ ascended) with a message about the MORMON way to salvation - ie. confessing that a 19th century occult con artist, womanizer, counterfeiter and child molester was some kind of "prophet" with a magic rock in his hat. And it will have taken YOU guys forever to do this since there is exactly no evidence that either Christ himself, nor his apostles nor any of their churches ever taught any of the mindless garbage we find you proclaiming as the "restoration" of the earliest church.

-BH

.

Fig-bearing Thistle

06-14-2011, 02:23 PM

Support your accusation that I am ignoran t of the material pertaining to this discussion.

Because Mormon missionaries don't have to reach every corner of the world. This life isn't the only chance people have to be taught about Christ. But from what orthodoxy teaches, it is the only chance.

But you didn't know that because you were ********.

I never said there was any such way to salvation.

You've painted yourself in a corner, unwittingly as usual.

TheSword99

06-14-2011, 02:28 PM

So, are you saying that one should be able to look at a, let's say, tree and from that deduce that mankind has a Savior named Jesus Christ even if that person was born in 1000 bc in South America?

Julie, I hope you are joking. Anyway I like Barnes Notes on Romans 1:20 which says: "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

They are without excuse - God has given them so clear evidence of his existence and claims, that they have no excuse for their idolatry, and for hindering the truth by their iniquity. This was the case with the Gentile world. They had the means of knowing so much of God, as to show the folly of worshiping dumb idols; compare Isaiah 44:8-10. They had also traditions respecting his perfections; and they could not plead for their crimes and folly that they had no means of knowing him. If this was true of the pagan world then, how much more is it true of the world now?

Yes, we are without excuse for not believing in God. And when we believe in God we will also believe in God the Son.

BrianH

06-14-2011, 02:29 PM

Because Mormon missionaries don't have to reach every corner of the world. This life isn't the only chance people have to be taught about Christ. But from what orthodoxy teaches, it is the only chance.

You have failed: I never said that they had to hit every corner of the world and you have yet to establish that Christ died for nothing here in THIS life, if there is always an eternal range of OTHER opportunities to join the Mormon pantheon of demigods

But you didn't know that because you were ********.

Disputing YOUR clamis does not make one ig norant, Fig. Just because you cannot support your claims does not mean that others are ignoran t.

You've painted yourself in a corner, unwittingly as usual.

Really ...? Go ahead and SHOW ME where Jesus Christ or any of his disciples taught the Masonic occult rituals conveyed in the Mormon Temple, Fig. SHOW MEwhere they taught about secret p***words and magic underpants, and secret handshakes required to become one of the Mormon gods. Go ahead ...at least try, for once, to actually SUPPORT the necessary infrences of your own claims before you try to hide your inabilty to do so behind the kind of empty rhetoric you have just demonstrated.

-BH

.

BigJulie

06-14-2011, 03:57 PM

Julie, I hope you are joking. Anyway I like Barnes Notes on Romans 1:20 which says: "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

They are without excuse - God has given them so clear evidence of his existence and claims, that they have no excuse for their idolatry, and for hindering the truth by their iniquity. This was the case with the Gentile world. They had the means of knowing so much of God, as to show the folly of worshiping dumb idols; compare Isaiah 44:8-10. They had also traditions respecting his perfections; and they could not plead for their crimes and folly that they had no means of knowing him. If this was true of the pagan world then, how much more is it true of the world now?

Yes, we are without excuse for not believing in God. And when we believe in God we will also believe in God the Son.
I was being somewhat facetious regarding the tree. I can understand these verses in context of my beliefs, but I don't understand them in context of yours. Are you saying a belief in God the Father is enough and if someone lives and dies with no knowledge of Jesus Christ, they are still saved? And even if they don't understand God the Father in terms of the OT?

Fig-bearing Thistle

06-14-2011, 06:31 PM

alanmolstad

06-14-2011, 06:45 PM

I was being somewhat facetious ....

fa·ce·tious/fəˈsēSHəs/
Adjective: Treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant

(Oh dont make a face, ....Like Im the only one who googled...)

BigJulie

06-14-2011, 06:46 PM

It's no use, Julie. One people are trapped in the cult of orthodoxy, such as Brian, it's extremely hard to get them to discern when the sun is out.

I find the problem isn't their understanding of their own orthodoxy as much as getting out of the paradigm that is their orthodoxy to ask the obvious questions which they can observe and see around them. But, I do not give up hope here. I think that if a kind and patient conversation is had, we can both see new things and learn new things about each other's paradigms.

P.S. Don't let Brian bother you. He is in a world of his own making and there is no sense nor enjoyment in joining him.

BrianH

06-14-2011, 07:17 PM

I find the problem isn't their understanding of their own orthodoxy as much as getting out of the paradigm that is their orthodoxy to ask the obvious questions which they can observe and see around them. But, I do not give up hope here. I think that if a kind and patient conversation is had, we can both see new things and learn new things about each other's paradigms.

P.S. Don't let Brian bother you. He is in a world of his own making and there is no sense nor enjoyment in joining him.

This is fascinating. Observe here how the Mormons try to comfort each other despite the glaring fact that they are observably incapable of supporting their ***ertions and they know it ...So, as usual, they can only try to make ME the topic. Neither Fig nor Julie have even TRIED to respond to the incredibly simple challenges that have been posed for them. In every case all they can do is writhe, squirm, deflect and ultimately turn and render personal attacks. If the Mormons were telling the truth, it would be reasonable, to say the least, to expect them to be able to do something more than the rhetorical equivalent of stamping their feet, crying and INSISTING that they are right. Apparently they cannot get above such behaviors.

This is also hilarious. The Mormons (including Julie) claim that there really was, somewhere in the Western Hemisphere (they do not know where), a vast, technologically sophisticated (for the day) civilization of Egyptian-writing Jewish American Indians who raised elephants, rode around in chariots, operated a monetary economy, built huge cities and practiced Christianity all before Christ was even born ...but Julie says that I am in a world of my own making.

This is what happens to people who turn into Mormons, folks. Beware.

-BH

.

BigJulie

06-14-2011, 09:08 PM

This is fascinating. Observe here how the Mormons try to comfort each other despite the glaring fact that they are observably incapable of supporting their ***ertions and they know it ...So, as usual, they can only try to make ME the topic. Neither Fig nor Julie have even TRIED to respond to the incredibly simple challenges that have been posed for them. In every case all they can do is writhe, squirm, deflect and ultimately turn and render personal attacks. If the Mormons were telling the truth, it would be reasonable, to say the least, to expect them to be able to do something more than the rhetorical equivalent of stamping their feet, crying and INSISTING that they are right. Apparently they cannot get above such behaviors.

This is also hilarious. The Mormons (including Julie) claim that there really was, somewhere in the Western Hemisphere (they do not know where), a vast, technologically sophisticated (for the day) civilization of Egyptian-writing Jewish American Indians who raised elephants, rode around in chariots, operated a monetary economy, built huge cities and practiced Christianity all before Christ was even born ...but Julie says that I am in a world of my own making.

This is what happens to people who turn into Mormons, folks. Beware.

-BH

.

"For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbours, and laugh at them in our turn?'' Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice (aptly so named for this whole forum.)

TheSword99

06-15-2011, 05:17 AM

It's no use, Julie. One people are trapped in the cult of orthodoxy, such as Brian, it's extremely hard to get them to discern when the sun is out.

At least we have traditional Christianity on our side. The lds began in the 1800's and many of your teachings are not recognizable by the apostles or early Christian writers..

TheSword99

06-15-2011, 05:27 AM

I was being somewhat facetious regarding the tree. I can understand these verses in context of my beliefs, but I don't understand them in context of yours. Are you saying a belief in God the Father is enough and if someone lives and dies with no knowledge of Jesus Christ, they are still saved? And even if they don't understand God the Father in terms of the OT?

How were people in the OT saved? The same way we are today. By faith. God did not change how He saves people. It has always been by faith. The object of one's faith for salvation has always been God.. Genesis 15:6 tells us that Abraham believed God and that was enough for God to credit it to him for righteousness. OT people did not have the same revelation about the world's sin problem like we do because Christ had not yet come and died.

In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son. (Heb. 1:1-2).

Our salvation is still based on the death of Christ, our faith is still the requirement for salvation, and the object of our faith is still God. Today, for us, the content of our faith is that Jesus Christ died for our sins, He was buried, and He rose the third day

BrianH

06-15-2011, 06:53 AM

"For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbours, and laugh at them in our turn?'' Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice (aptly so named for this whole forum.)

Except for YOU, of course ...right?

-BH

.

BigJulie

06-15-2011, 08:47 AM

How were people in the OT saved? The same way we are today. By faith. God did not change how He saves people. It has always been by faith. The object of one's faith for salvation has always been God.. Genesis 15:6 tells us that Abraham believed God and that was enough for God to credit it to him for righteousness. OT people did not have the same revelation about the world's sin problem like we do because Christ had not yet come and died.

In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son. (Heb. 1:1-2).

Our salvation is still based on the death of Christ, our faith is still the requirement for salvation, and the object of our faith is still God. Today, for us, the content of our faith is that Jesus Christ died for our sins, He was buried, and He rose the third day

So, you believe that EVERYONE has had the opportunity to understand about God and who He is (such as Abraham) prior to their death. Is this correct?

BigJulie

06-15-2011, 08:48 AM

At least we have traditional Christianity on our side. The lds began in the 1800's and many of your teachings are not recognizable by the apostles or early Christian writers..

Actually, tradition often disagrees with your "traditional Christianity." We've already had threads to discuss that. Christianity has evolved into what it is today just as every other religion. To think otherwise is naive.

James Banta

06-15-2011, 09:15 AM

Actually, tradition often disagrees with your "traditional Christianity." We've already had threads to discuss that. Christianity has evolved into what it is today just as every other religion. To think otherwise is naive.

Would you mind showing where Christianity in Her tradition disagrees with the scriptures.. I say that mormonism as it began was a trinitarian religion holding the one true eternal God as it's God. Then Joseph Smith changed that into three Gods. And created gods at that.. This is fact and is incontestable, it is history..

In 2 Nephi 31:21 it clearly reads:

2Nephi 31:21
And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

Then Smith teaches that:

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!

And who can contradict it; Jesus can:

Mark 12:29
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord

I have shown you, AGAIN, that mormonism has changed their doctrine as to the nature of God, from that of the God taught in the Bible to that which is clearly his private invention outside the teaching of the Bible and the BofM.. So how have the traditions of Christian Church been changed from the teaching of the Bible.. I say it hasn't been changed that the Gospel of Jesus is for all time and all people. It hasn't changed, it won't change, it is intended for the "whole world" at all times. IHS jim

BigJulie

06-15-2011, 10:18 AM

[QUOTE=James Banta;90769]Would you mind showing where Christianity in Her tradition disagrees with the scriptures.. How about I show you how Christianity has evolved over the years and their intrepretation of scripture has evolved as well. This is not hard to do as many historians make note of it.

James Banta

06-15-2011, 11:53 AM

[QUOTE] How about I show you how Christianity has evolved over the years and their intrepretation of scripture has evolved as well. This is not hard to do as many historians make note of it.

I don't care how you or others believe that the Church has evolved over the years. I want to see how the Church today is outside the teaching of the Bible.. Take for instance baptism.. Are we outside the Bible in teaching that only the blood of Jesus has cleansing power to make us clean before a Holy God. That water no matter what prayer is said, not matter what authority is claimed is only water and has no power to cleanse sin from the soul of anyone.. Show me how that is a corruption of the Bible message.. Show me that priesthood is the authority to act in God's name when we believe it is an office of sacrifice and only sacrifice. That Jesus was the last and in the only High Priest.. Show me where I am wrong and I have corrupted the Bible just in these two doctrines.. If I haven't then why does mormonism teach that the waters of baptism cleanses a person of sin (You said that yourself). If you agree that priesthood is only a sacrificial office then why does mormonism call it the power to act in God's name? just those two are areas where I find mormonism to be a corruption of the Bible.. Show me where they are not and show me why Christianity is a corruption.. That should be easy for you after all Smith said that God told him that all our churches are wrong that all our teachers are corrupt.. So DO IT! The only reason you haven't is because you CAN'T, not Biblically anyway.. IHS jim

BigJulie

06-15-2011, 12:07 PM

[QUOTE=James Banta;90779]

I don't care how you or others believe that the Church has evolved over the years. I want to see how the Church today is outside the teaching of the Bible.. Well, as I said, to believe any religion has not evolved is naive.

Take for instance baptism.. Are we outside the Bible in teaching that only the blood of Jesus has cleansing power to make us clean before a Holy God. That water no matter what prayer is said, not matter what authority is claimed is only water and has no power to cleanse sin from the soul of anyone.. Show me how that is a corruption of the Bible message.. The corruption in of the Bible message can be seen when people do not understand how someone is baptized. Your acknowledgement that some can believe they can be "spiritually" baptized alone is not congruent at all with Bible teachings. Christ was baptized. He showed us how it was done. That a religion or person has "evolved" into thinking that a physical baptism is now unnecessary--as I said can be compared to those who do not feel that marriage is necessary as long as they know they love each other and are committed to each other. The words in the Bible are the same, but the word "baptism" has taken on a whole different meaning than God ever intended. The very fact that "spiritual" baptism alone without physical baptism compares equally to spiritual baptism shown by physical baptism shows just how far man has evolved their own thinking away from what God intended (as could be said the same for those who believe that a spiritual marriage is enough without a physical marriage.)

James Banta

06-15-2011, 12:38 PM

[BigJulie;90781] Well, as I said, to believe any religion has not evolved is naive.

I guess I am naive because I see the same doctrines taught in the Bible held to be the truth here by all of us that here that call ourselves Christian. I don't see that as the case in mormonism.. Every time there is a difference between what the Bible teaches and what mormonism teaches we get that "Oh that is a corruption of the Bible". That is said without a word of scholarship or support.. It just disagrees with the teachings of Joseph Smith so it is wrong and he is right.. I am sorry but just the reverse is the actual truth..

The corruption in of the Bible message can be seen when people do not understand how someone is baptized. Your acknowledgement that some can believe they can be "spiritually" baptized alone is not congruent at all with Bible teachings. Christ was baptized. He showed us how it was done. That a religion or person has "evolved" into thinking that a physical baptism is now unnecessary--as I said can be compared to those who do not feel that marriage is necessary as long as they know they love each other and are committed to each other. The words in the Bible are the same, but the word "baptism" has taken on a whole different meaning than God ever intended. The very fact that "spiritual" baptism compares equally to physical baptism shows just how far man has evolved their own thinking away from what God intended.

And I said I agreed that baptism is a real ordinance that identifies us as belonging to Jesus. I don't agree with those that believe in just a spiritual baptism but I don't reject a spiritual baptism either.. The actual water baptism is NOT like the baptism of Jesus.. That was the same baptism we find in Acts 19 called the baptism of John.. Paul rebaptized those in Christian baptism.. Then the Holy Spirit came upon them.. The baptism of John is not Christian baptism so therefore Jesus did not receive the same baptism as Christians receive.. I believe avoiding baptism is a sin. After we have a command to baptize. I believe following the commandments is ALWAYS the right thing to do.. But we all sin.. and the Bible tell us that if we confess that we are sinners that the blood, THE BLOOD not water, of Jesus cleanses us from ALL sin.. Would that include the mistaken idea that water baptism is unnecessary? Wouldn't that be part of ALL sin? It is a good thing that the Church as a whole, ALL THE BELIEVERS IN JESUS) practice water baptism..

Hey just last year a friend in England wanted to have a baptism preformed on herself. This was in the Anglican church. The Church of England. You know one of those churches mormonism points out with disdain for practicing the baptism of babies by sprinkling.. The Pastor agreed and took her into a pool and baptized her by immersion.. Cool don't you think? What does that prove? It proves that if a person wants water baptism they can get it no matter what church you belong to withing the Christian family.. But what does it mean to us? It mean we as identifying ourselves as being in Jesus.. It tells the world that we have been recreated as His children, that we are no longer of the world and children of Satan, that we belong to Jesus.. It's really a good thing and we praise God when someone willingly enters the waters of baptism to make that public statement that they are His.. Does it save them, NO! That happened long before they were baptized.. IHS jim

BigJulie

06-15-2011, 01:35 PM

And I said I agreed that baptism is a real ordinance that identifies us as belonging to Jesus. I don't agree with those that believe in just a spiritual baptism but I don't reject a spiritual baptism either.. The actual water baptism is NOT like the baptism of Jesus.. That was the same baptism we find in Acts 19 called the baptism of John.. Paul rebaptized those in Christian baptism.. Then the Holy Spirit came upon them.. The baptism of John is not Christian baptism so therefore Jesus did not receive the same baptism as Christians receive.. I believe avoiding baptism is a sin. After we have a command to baptize. I believe following the commandments is ALWAYS the right thing to do.. But we all sin.. and the Bible tell us that if we confess that we are sinners that the blood, THE BLOOD not water, of Jesus cleanses us from ALL sin.. Would that include the mistaken idea that water baptism is unnecessary? Wouldn't that be part of ALL sin? It is a good thing that the Church as a whole, ALL THE BELIEVERS IN JESUS) practice water baptism..

I never said that is was not Christ who cleanses us from sin, my point is that it is Christ who teaches us to be baptized. So, to you, avoiding baptism is a sin and your baptism is not like Christ's baptism and "ALL THE BELIEVERS IN JESUS practice water baptism?" And yet you say,

I don't agree with those that believe in just a spiritual baptism but I don't reject a spiritual baptism either

You are getting clear as mud here. Those who follow Christ--do they get baptized, yes or no? Does Christ expect us to be baptized? Is it okay in your book to get "spiritually" baptized alone, as it is Christ who saves and not the water? (As I said, I agree it is Christ who saves, which is why when He says, be baptized, , we are--so the question is, how do you see it?)

Walrus

06-15-2011, 02:56 PM

But Julie I do have evidence of an extra biblical nature that testifies of the red Sea p***age (http://www.bibleprobe.com/exodus.htm). God has not left the Christian without evidence.. It is mormonism that is doing all the jumping to conclusions.. IHS jim

Evidence isn't faith. I'm glad that more and more is coming out to support the events of the Bible. And I really don't care, but am also glad that as time goes, the Book of Mormon is being established by science, not destroyed. Note: lack of evidence means nothing...in the 1840's, the Book of Mormon was criticized because:
1. No one ever heard of records preserved on metal plates
2. American Indians didn't work with cement, and they didn't have large stone cities.
3. Swords couldn't be 'stained'
4. The area couldn't sustain the populations described in the BoM
5. Some practices mentioned are too bizarre..like collecting the limbs of falling enemies and taking them to a king, or why would women and children think themselves murderers, why would burying weapons of war keep one from digging them up and using them?
6. No one, that early on, could build a ship that would sail that distance.
and more...

1. Metal plates, and stone boxes (like the one JS found the plates in) have been found.
2. they did and they did
3. 'swords' were made using flint embedded in wood..which can stain, and can easily chop limbs
4. Tierra Preta...wiki it...a man made, created my man around 480BC and used until 950 AD. Matches the BoM account of Nephites cultivating the ground and becoming very prosperous....oh..Tierra Preta is the most fertile ground on earth and its a mystery...using the vast fields of it could easily sustain the populations in the BoM
5. Such practices were normal in the time period and culture..to prove your victory. At the same time, in the BoM, where the women and children thought themselves awful murderers, public human sacrifice was practiced and participated by women and children. That entire BoM population of repenting people relocated to another area...why? maybe to get away from the human sacrificing culture they used to belong to.
6. Some old school Columbus Archeologists are still stubborn but its pretty much becoming mainstream knowlegde that Pre-Columbus sailors hit the shores of America

Walrus

06-15-2011, 03:11 PM

If we receive more of God's word would it not agree with the word from God we already have? If in one word we see that we are save by God's grace through faith and NOT OF WORKS. And then along come a "new revelation" that says we are saved by Grace but only after all we can do. That is 100% DIFFERENT than salvation being of his works through faith plus nothing, and including the statement that insists that it is NOT OF WORKS..

Whoa...the Bible says, once or twice, that you are saved by Grace and not of works. Then in about...lets be reasonable..10 other places it tells us we'll be held acountable for our works, good or bad, we're going to be judged of our works, by their fruits ye shall know them, with out works, faith is dead..etc etc.

How do you nullify all these, God's Words, with one word that fits your religious perspective? They're together..they work hand in hand...Christ actually COMING DOWN and ATONING had to be DONE. ACTED. FINISHED. It was a work, not Grace alone, not Faith alone...for if Christ did not Atone, a work of faith and love, then all would have been for naught. To act IS to have faith. IS to effectuate Grace.
We must ask...we must ask Christ to by our Saviour, and then we must follow him. If we don't, we're cut off...opps..grace has no affect on one who does not have a broken heart and contrite spirit. Answers to prayers are given by the Grace of God..but mostly, for the prayer to be answered, it must be asked...again..a work. None of our works serve us, if not done in the Name of Christ, or after his example, for all wickedness will perish, be destroyed, be cast off forever. All bad fruit (bad actions) burnt, all good fruit (good works) laid up in store.

The Faith/Works debate is the silliest debate out there. A point Satan uses to divide you and I..when there is nothing worth dividing ourselves over...like our similar beliefs. In the end, I and the other always end up agreeing..(of course Grace is the only thing that qualifies us..but our demeanor, our life should reflect it...and if not, then something needs straightening.

Walrus

06-15-2011, 03:43 PM

I have shown you, AGAIN, that mormonism has changed their doctrine as to the nature of God, from that of the God taught in the Bible to that which is clearly his private invention outside the teaching of the Bible and the BofM.. So how have the traditions of Christian Church been changed from the teaching of the Bible.. I say it hasn't been changed that the Gospel of Jesus is for all time and all people. It hasn't changed, it won't change, it is intended for the "whole world" at all times. IHS jim

I find that my perspective on History and fellow New Age Christians are about the same..but our conclusions are different.

Christ establishes his Church, 12 apostles (who fill vacancies..keeping it 12) are called, Seventy are called to help the apostles, priests, teachers, evangelists and all sorts appear. Miracles abound. Some can only baptize, others can baptize by water AND by the Spirit..a distinction! Scripture is created..not just any scripture, but personal revelation and instruction to particular groups and peoples who need differing things. Though some thought themselves to be of Paul, or of Peter or of ?? they all meshed into one, if one had the spiritual mind to see it. Many were very confused, you can see it in the epistles..they struggled to apply what the Apostles taught.
Miracles of the New Testament are recognized to have ceased by 400AD if not earlier. Scripture also ceases. Nowhere do we have such a large gab of time in not hearing God's Word. The Catholic Church is established with a Pope, not a prophet at its head. No more Apostles. No more Seventies. Offices of the priesthood change. The World terms a period of this time as the Dark Ages. Catholic Church divides..Roman vs. Orthidox.
Luther finds the Catholic church to be without power and authority, the sacraments and doctrines to be in discord with the Word of God. He maintains that authority is important, but has no claim upon it himself, (how can you claim authority from someone who didn't have authority?). He keeps most of the sacraments/ordinances and begins a major reformation movement.(why did God's church need reforming if it wasn't altered by the hand of man?)
Later, Calvin splits from all 'works' except for the sacrament and concludes that since no organized religion really has it, we can only rely on the Bible itself.
And here we are.
Since then, the worlds wisest men and women, with all their worldly training and man-given degrees from their man-made universities have built an incomplete picture of Christ and his gospel that has birthed 1000's of differing sects and faiths.
Not one time in the written Word of God has Mankind been able to stay on course without a living prophet. Jews didn't recognize Jesus because of their man-made degrees, and man-made ins***utions. They killed the prophets and anyone else who challenged them. The dirtiest, lowest tactics were used, and are now being used. Lies, deceit, mis-representations, mis-qoutes, misguiding questions, catch-22's, and even when such are pointed out, it's not enough...its as though 'its better to lie and save someone from Mormonism' than what...saying the truth?!?
Where be God in this pursuit?

BigJulie

06-15-2011, 03:48 PM

Well said Walrus!

BrianH

06-15-2011, 04:41 PM

Evidence isn't faith.

The problem is, faith is not evidence, - just believing something does not make it true. And the alleged "revelations" of Mormonism include truth claims about objective matters that are not only unsupported by the evidence, but these LDS claims are regularly disproven by the facts.

I'm glad that more and more is coming out to support the events of the Bible. And I really don't care, but am also glad that as time goes, the Book of Mormon is being established by science, not destroyed. Note: lack of evidence means nothing...in the 1840's, the Book of Mormon was criticized because:
1. No one ever heard of records preserved on metal plates
2. American Indians didn't work with cement, and they didn't have large stone cities.
3. Swords couldn't be 'stained'
4. The area couldn't sustain the populations described in the BoM
5. Some practices mentioned are too bizarre..like collecting the limbs of falling enemies and taking them to a king, or why would women and children think themselves murderers, why would burying weapons of war keep one from digging them up and using them?
6. No one, that early on, could build a ship that would sail that distance.
and more...

1. Metal plates, and stone boxes (like the one JS found the plates in) have been found.
2. they did and they did
3. 'swords' were made using flint embedded in wood..which can stain, and can easily chop limbs
4. Tierra Preta...wiki it...a man made, created my man around 480BC and used until 950 AD. Matches the BoM account of Nephites cultivating the ground and becoming very prosperous....oh..Tierra Preta is the most fertile ground on earth and its a mystery...using the vast fields of it could easily sustain the populations in the BoM
5. Such practices were normal in the time period and culture..to prove your victory. At the same time, in the BoM, where the women and children thought themselves awful murderers, public human sacrifice was practiced and participated by women and children. That entire BoM population of repenting people relocated to another area...why? maybe to get away from the human sacrificing culture they used to belong to.
6. Some old school Columbus Archeologists are still stubborn but its pretty much becoming mainstream knowlegde that Pre-Columbus sailors hit the shores of America

1. While this claim is popular among Mormons it is false. Metal-inscriptions were known to exist all over the world before Joseph Smith claimed to unearth the Book of Mormon. That SOME BoM critics did not know this does not mean this fact is evidence that supports the veracity of the BoM.

2. This is another tactic employed by people forced to make excuses for the Book of Mormon: claim that evidence from one civilization represents and thus supports the claims of the BoM. Yes a few American Indian tribes built stone cities. But none of the stone cities were built and inhabited by "NEPHITES". They were, instead, inhabited by tribes well-known to us today and none of them show any evidence of having any biological, linguistic, religious, economic, technological or any other kind of ties to what the Book of Mormon describes as the "Nephites" or other BoM peoples. In fact their civilizations and cultures are not even remotely similar to the "Nephites" as recorded in the BoM apart from the generalities that could be imagined to link them to just about ANY human civilization of the time.

3. Far from evidence in support of the BoM, the fact that some Native American tribes used clubs with sharpened stones imbedded in them is irrelevant to your claims since the BoM clearly and explicitly says that the Jewish American Indian tribe you call the "Nephites" wielded STEEL swords. The existence of stone-bladed clubs is not evidence of STEEL swords.

4. You're kidding right? Here again, we see how the Mormon mind scrambles for ANYTHING it can grasp at. But the evidence does not match the claim. Exactly WHICH p***age in the BoM describes Tierra Preta -the particular dark soil in the Amazon valley- in any way that excludes just plain "dark" or "rich" soil so common all over the western hemisphere even in Joe Smith's day just as it is today? And what on earth makes you think that this applies to the BoM civilization which left its only written work buried in Smith's back yard in Western New York???

5. Same tactic as #4. I don't see how the fact that Mayans practiced human sacrifice supports the historicity of the BoM. Please show us where the BoM describes the ritual practice of human sacrifice among the "Lamanites" or the "Nephites". Then explain why we should think that the Mayans were REALLY the "Nephites".

6. This is an overgeneralization that fails to support your claims. For example, Lief Erickson sailed to America in the pre-colombian eara, but he was not a Hebrew. He was a Viking. It is NOT "becoming mainstream knowlegde" that Israelites sailed to America, which is what your so-called "scripture" actually describes. Just pointing to the fact that SOMEONE sailed to America in the pre-Colombian period is a fatally flawed argument because that fact does not support your claim that Israelites sailed to America. In fact, exactly NO ONE in the archaeological world has ever presented any evidence to support this idea and it is certainly NOT anything close to "mainstream knowledge".

All you have here is empty guesswork, imaginary connections, "borrowed" evidence, and empty rhetoric. But that is all Mormons EVER bring to the table when this topic arises. Maybe that is WHY no qualified historians or archaeologists have ever accepted or advocated the Mormon view that attempts to totally revise Mesoamerican history.

-BH

.

Walrus

06-15-2011, 06:53 PM

The problem is, faith is not evidence, - just believing something does not make it true. And the alleged "revelations" of Mormonism include truth claims about objective matters that are not only unsupported by the evidence, but these LDS claims are regularly disproven by the facts.

1. While this claim is popular among Mormons it is false. Metal-inscriptions were known to exist all over the world before Joseph Smith claimed to unearth the Book of Mormon. That SOME BoM critics did not know this does not mean this fact is evidence that supports the veracity of the BoM.

2. This is another tactic employed by people forced to make excuses for the Book of Mormon: claim that evidence from one civilization represents and thus supports the claims of the BoM. Yes a few American Indian tribes built stone cities. But none of the stone cities were built and inhabited by "NEPHITES". They were, instead, inhabited by tribes well-known to us today and none of them show any evidence of having any biological, linguistic, religious, economic, technological or any other kind of ties to what the Book of Mormon describes as the "Nephites" or other BoM peoples. In fact their civilizations and cultures are not even remotely similar to the "Nephites" as recorded in the BoM apart from the generalities that could be imagined to link them to just about ANY human civilization of the time.

3. Far from evidence in support of the BoM, the fact that some Native American tribes used clubs with sharpened stones imbedded in them is irrelevant to your claims since the BoM clearly and explicitly says that the Jewish American Indian tribe you call the "Nephites" wielded STEEL swords. The existence of stone-bladed clubs is not evidence of STEEL swords.

4. You're kidding right? Here again, we see how the Mormon mind scrambles for ANYTHING it can grasp at. But the evidence does not match the claim. Exactly WHICH p***age in the BoM describes Tierra Preta -the particular dark soil in the Amazon valley- in any way that excludes just plain "dark" or "rich" soil so common all over the western hemisphere even in Joe Smith's day just as it is today? And what on earth makes you think that this applies to the BoM civilization which left its only written work buried in Smith's back yard in Western New York???

5. Same tactic as #4. I don't see how the fact that Mayans practiced human sacrifice supports the historicity of the BoM. Please show us where the BoM describes the ritual practice of human sacrifice among the "Lamanites" or the "Nephites". Then explain why we should think that the Mayans were REALLY the "Nephites".

6. This is an overgeneralization that fails to support your claims. For example, Lief Erickson sailed to America in the pre-colombian eara, but he was not a Hebrew. He was a Viking. It is NOT "becoming mainstream knowlegde" that Israelites sailed to America, which is what your so-called "scripture" actually describes. Just pointing to the fact that SOMEONE sailed to America in the pre-Colombian period is a fatally flawed argument because that fact does not support your claim that Israelites sailed to America. In fact, exactly NO ONE in the archaeological world has ever presented any evidence to support this idea and it is certainly NOT anything close to "mainstream knowledge".

All you have here is empty guesswork, imaginary connections, "borrowed" evidence, and empty rhetoric. But that is all Mormons EVER bring to the table when this topic arises. Maybe that is WHY no qualified historians or archaeologists have ever accepted or advocated the Mormon view that attempts to totally revise Mesoamerican history.

-BH

.

My point is not to avail you evidence to prove that the BoM is true...no such evidence COULD exist other a personal eyewitness account of the entire process...by your standards. It is by the Spirit of God that you may know ALL things, yet if your brow is br*** and your neck stiff, so it cannot look to the rght or to the left...then your understanding will be lacking.
The point was to show that the 'jump to conclusions' method behind BoM critics have been systematically deminished.
Convenient that one can stand on one point of fact, (Central america can't sustain large populations as stated in the Book of Mormon) until evidence comes out to cut it short. Then the 'ultimate lack of evidence' switches to some other aspect while the point that the populations noted ARE valid, are snuffed off as an unimportant topic of discussion. OOOhhhh, well of course, it was a big deal before the Tierra Preta discovery, but it isn't anymore because mentioning it only VALIDATES the BoM.
Think. The Sword of Laban was finely crafted sword crafted in Jeruselem by a master craftsman (by the description of it). That sword becomes a hierloom to the king. It's steel is strong, unmatched in battle. Awesome to have a 1000 of those! You have novice metalsmiths beating metals into the same shape. It would be ludicrous to ***ume that they were able to replicate the process. One would ***ume that time and resources would have been invested in that which they could produce with the resources and knowledge available. Why didn't God help them? He did. Read the Book of Mormon. He inspired leaders and stregthened the minds and hearts of the people. You need not rely on steel to win a battle.
Battle tactics..another GREAT point. Very specific type of warfare, completely different from 1800 century combat with which Joseph Smith was familiar. Guerilla type stuff. Digging of ditches, building of ramparts, walls, and towers...all very specific and not common to EVERY part of the world and in every country. Such tactics and evidences are found in the time line, and area of central America. Not proof noooo...not proof. I reallly reaalllly interesting correlation of events, time and place, though.

Nor was my point to say there is evidence of steel swords, but that, unknowingly 0to Joseph Smith, 'stained swords' has applicable context.
You act as though all cultures and all cities and all there is to be known is known. They havnt lookied at half the ruins in Central America and nor do they have a clear picture of what they HAVE looked at.
I don't think the "Nephites" were THE Mayan. It's pretty clear when Laman and Nephite split up...and the Nephits are super industrious and prosperous and expanding and growing...while the Lamanites are lazy and primitive and unindustrious and yet are able to come in with 4x the man power, that the lamanites and nephites were not alone. If you had a 'fairer race' of people that kept their commandments, intermarried amonst themselves, keep their faith, didn't mix with others of other faiths, versus a brother race that didn't care, and just mated and mixed and adopted whatever practice or custom they enjoyed, and that other culture was of darker skin...then it would be easy to see how one group would eventually turn darker and the one would remain lighter skinned.
If the nephites were always outnumbered by lamanites (and lamanites are simply combined with all those who are not followers of God, or as enemies to the nephites) then by doing some basic algebra we come to the conclusion that there was a large population of non-nephi/laman descent. You introduce a race unto a contenent where they are the minority, wait a 1000 years, and wish yourself luck finding them. It's not scientifically plausable that you would find them.
Did the 'church' as described in the BoM always have full control over the population? No..almost never...at best a government was established that insured religious freedom and/or the leader happened to be a righteous one. So what are we looking for? At best, remnants of the religion as described in the Book of Mormon. If all the believers in Christ were hunted down and killed, I doubt anything left in plain sight would be preserved. Again, with the account given, what can we erally expect to find? A temple with the 10 commandments? Again..the anti-culture would have dismantled or destroyed any traces of it...the only thing that would remain are allusions to doctrines..not whole and tarnished by man's wisdom.

BrianH

06-15-2011, 08:38 PM

My point is not to avail you evidence to prove that the BoM is true...no such evidence COULD exist other a personal eyewitness account of the entire process...by your standards. It is by the Spirit of God that you may know ALL things, yet if your brow is br*** and your neck stiff, so it cannot look to the rght or to the left...then your understanding will be lacking.
The point was to show that the 'jump to conclusions' method behind BoM critics have been systematically deminished.
Convenient that one can stand on one point of fact, (Central america can't sustain large populations as stated in the Book of Mormon) until evidence comes out to cut it short. Then the 'ultimate lack of evidence' switches to some other aspect while the point that the populations noted ARE valid, are snuffed off as an unimportant topic of discussion. OOOhhhh, well of course, it was a big deal before the Tierra Preta discovery, but it isn't anymore because mentioning it only VALIDATES the BoM.
Think. The Sword of Laban was finely crafted sword crafted in Jeruselem by a master craftsman (by the description of it). That sword becomes a hierloom to the king. It's steel is strong, unmatched in battle. Awesome to have a 1000 of those! You have novice metalsmiths beating metals into the same shape. It would be ludicrous to ***ume that they were able to replicate the process. One would ***ume that time and resources would have been invested in that which they could produce with the resources and knowledge available. Why didn't God help them? He did. Read the Book of Mormon. He inspired leaders and stregthened the minds and hearts of the people. You need not rely on steel to win a battle.
Battle tactics..another GREAT point. Very specific type of warfare, completely different from 1800 century combat with which Joseph Smith was familiar. Guerilla type stuff. Digging of ditches, building of ramparts, walls, and towers...all very specific and not common to EVERY part of the world and in every country. Such tactics and evidences are found in the time line, and area of central America. Not proof noooo...not proof. I reallly reaalllly interesting correlation of events, time and place, though.

Nor was my point to say there is evidence of steel swords, but that, unknowingly 0to Joseph Smith, 'stained swords' has applicable context.
You act as though all cultures and all cities and all there is to be known is known. They havnt lookied at half the ruins in Central America and nor do they have a clear picture of what they HAVE looked at.
I don't think the "Nephites" were THE Mayan. It's pretty clear when Laman and Nephite split up...and the Nephits are super industrious and prosperous and expanding and growing...while the Lamanites are lazy and primitive and unindustrious and yet are able to come in with 4x the man power, that the lamanites and nephites were not alone. If you had a 'fairer race' of people that kept their commandments, intermarried amonst themselves, keep their faith, didn't mix with others of other faiths, versus a brother race that didn't care, and just mated and mixed and adopted whatever practice or custom they enjoyed, and that other culture was of darker skin...then it would be easy to see how one group would eventually turn darker and the one would remain lighter skinned.
If the nephites were always outnumbered by lamanites (and lamanites are simply combined with all those who are not followers of God, or as enemies to the nephites) then by doing some basic algebra we come to the conclusion that there was a large population of non-nephi/laman descent. You introduce a race unto a contenent where they are the minority, wait a 1000 years, and wish yourself luck finding them. It's not scientifically plausable that you would find them.
Did the 'church' as described in the BoM always have full control over the population? No..almost never...at best a government was established that insured religious freedom and/or the leader happened to be a righteous one. So what are we looking for? At best, remnants of the religion as described in the Book of Mormon. If all the believers in Christ were hunted down and killed, I doubt anything left in plain sight would be preserved. Again, with the account given, what can we erally expect to find? A temple with the 10 commandments? Again..the anti-culture would have dismantled or destroyed any traces of it...the only thing that would remain are allusions to doctrines..not whole and tarnished by man's wisdom.

This is nothing more than just another example of the kind of rambling mental retreat that you Mormon guys have been conditioned to repeat any time you are stimulated with even a very basic challenge to what you have been told to "think".

Look ... You affirm that the Book of Mormon is a divinely inspired book, like the Bible. And like the Bible you claim that the Book of Mormon records allegations about real people, actual places and true events - in other words HISTORY.

There lies the problem: the Book of Mormon's alleged "revelations" include normal events that supposedly really happened in this world - in actual history; the kind of events that invariably leave evidence of themselves, such as the building of cities, the use of metal coins, and the recording of human language. The problem is, not only is there no evidence to connect the claims of this supposedly divine revelation to reality, there is a coherent and well-documented and universally recognized history based on undisputed facts that totally displaces the possibility that the Book of Mormon is telling the truth. For example, the Mayans were NOT the "Nephites", they WERE -and actually still are- the MAYANS! The Cherokee did not speak Hebrew or write Egyptian (let alone "Reformed Egyptian" a language that has never existed), they spoke and wrote in CHEOKEE! The Souix never trained elephants, they trained HORSES and developed a strong horse-based culture. All the facts of Mesoamerican history contradict, displace and eliminate the fantasies of the Book of Mormon. The fact that you are personally uninformed about the FACTS of Mesoamerican history, does not mean that those facts do not exist.

Now, God is not a liar. That means that God does not lie about anything, including Mesoamerican history. The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, is clearly and obviously lying with its absurd fantasies about a vast civilization populated by Egyptian-writing Jewish American Indians who supposedly quoted the New Testament and baptized each other in the name of "Jesus Christ" all hundreds of years before Jesus himself was even born! This is utter nonsense and no rational, coherent person could even begin to fall for such gibberish. Moreover, since God is NOT a liar, and since the Book of Mormon is overflowing with LIES about Mesoamerican history, we can only conclude that the BoM is NOT the "divine revelation" you claim it is.

Meanwhile I note with interest that you failed to even try to defend the copy-paste boilerplate "evidence" prepared for the "fatihful" doubtlessly by some LDS website in your original response. Instead you have offered the programmed, knee-**** response of trying to hide your inability to support the BoM's HISTORICAL and LINGUISTIC claims behind the usual appeals to "faith" and "the Holy 'Ghost'". Sorry, man ...the facts of history are learned by the evidence of HISTORY. One needs no divine intervention to understand the facts of the Ming Dynasty, the rise of the Roman Empire, the American Civil War, the rise of the nation of Israel or any other historical reality. So your claim that the history of the BoM can only be discerned by means of the supernatural is nothing more than the fallacy of special pleading. Moreover, no one who knows the facts about American history has any reason to even begin to think that Native Americans were REALLY Egyptian-speaking Jews who practiced Christianity before Christ was born. And those who claim that divine intervention has informed them that this total absurdity is TRUE are hideously deceived.

-BH

.

TheSword99

06-16-2011, 05:09 AM

Walrus

06-16-2011, 05:34 PM

Walrus

06-16-2011, 05:47 PM

Since the Holy Scriptures do not contradict itself and since God is not the author of confusion, then it cannot be both that faith PLUS works saves a person. The bible does not say "once or twice" that faith alone is what saves us. Paul said over and over throughout his writings and was always consistent that it is faith PLUS NOTHING. All throughout the Bible it has always been faith that saves a person. It was the faith of OT saints and God never changed His plan of Salvation.

Therefore, we must take all the p***ages that speak about works in its proper context. Yes, there will be rewards for obedience to God and any useless works will be burned but the man himself will be spared if he has been born again.

COULD I have faith in Christ and do such a thing? No. We stress our personal responsibility to perform Good works as an expression of faith, and in fulfillment of Gods' commandments to do so. What came first..my faith or my work? Faith. If I had not Faith, NO work would justify me.

Where do we disagree?...without faith, we are nothing. And yet works are the reflection of our faith....... .... ....... ........ ....... .. again, i don't see the rift that you see.
Can you have faith and not perform a 'work'? And can faith stand alone? Yes and yes. Can a work stand alone, without faith, and be justified. God accepts not these things.
We couldn't forever be in limbo, awaiting Christ's Atonement. Christ had to perform the greatest of all works, to fulfill ALL righteousness. Simply saying it wasn't enough. Christ DID it.

Walrus

06-16-2011, 06:14 PM

This is nothing more than just another example of the kind of rambling mental retreat that you Mormon guys have been conditioned to repeat any time you are stimulated with even a very basic challenge to what you have been told to "think".

Look ... You affirm that the Book of Mormon is a divinely inspired book, like the Bible. And like the Bible you claim that the Book of Mormon records allegations about real people, actual places and true events - in other words HISTORY.

There lies the problem: the Book of Mormon's alleged "revelations" include normal events that supposedly really happened in this world - in actual history; the kind of events that invariably leave evidence of themselves, such as the building of cities, the use of metal coins, and the recording of human language. The problem is, not only is there no evidence to connect the claims of this supposedly divine revelation to reality, there is a coherent and well-documented and universally recognized history based on undisputed facts that totally displaces the possibility that the Book of Mormon is telling the truth. For example, the Mayans were NOT the "Nephites", they WERE -and actually still are- the MAYANS! The Cherokee did not speak Hebrew or write Egyptian (let alone "Reformed Egyptian" a language that has never existed), they spoke and wrote in CHEOKEE! The Souix never trained elephants, they trained HORSES and developed a strong horse-based culture. All the facts of Mesoamerican history contradict, displace and eliminate the fantasies of the Book of Mormon. The fact that you are personally uninformed about the FACTS of Mesoamerican history, does not mean that those facts do not exist.

Now, God is not a liar. That means that God does not lie about anything, including Mesoamerican history. The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, is clearly and obviously lying with its absurd fantasies about a vast civilization populated by Egyptian-writing Jewish American Indians who supposedly quoted the New Testament and baptized each other in the name of "Jesus Christ" all hundreds of years before Jesus himself was even born! This is utter nonsense and no rational, coherent person could even begin to fall for such gibberish. Moreover, since God is NOT a liar, and since the Book of Mormon is overflowing with LIES about Mesoamerican history, we can only conclude that the BoM is NOT the "divine revelation" you claim it is.

Meanwhile I note with interest that you failed to even try to defend the copy-paste boilerplate "evidence" prepared for the "fatihful" doubtlessly by some LDS website in your original response. Instead you have offered the programmed, knee-**** response of trying to hide your inability to support the BoM's HISTORICAL and LINGUISTIC claims behind the usual appeals to "faith" and "the Holy 'Ghost'". Sorry, man ...the facts of history are learned by the evidence of HISTORY. One needs no divine intervention to understand the facts of the Ming Dynasty, the rise of the Roman Empire, the American Civil War, the rise of the nation of Israel or any other historical reality. So your claim that the history of the BoM can only be discerned by means of the supernatural is nothing more than the fallacy of special pleading. Moreover, no one who knows the facts about American history has any reason to even begin to think that Native Americans were REALLY Egyptian-speaking Jews who practiced Christianity before Christ was born. And those who claim that divine intervention has informed them that this total absurdity is TRUE are hideously deceived.

-BH

.

Your bias has blinded you my friend.

One cannot have an discussion when the starting point is, I'm absurd. Nothing I say would suffice. Really....NO evidence exists? No one knew they built with cement. They do! That's 'an evidence'. Verified by science. So now, you can change your tone and say...there's not enough evidence..because unless you would be guilty of the same accusation, you must 'face the facts'.
Was Christ unknown to the prophets and the people they taught before Christ came? Huh??? The plan of salvation...Jesus Christ as our Saviour...God is no respector of persons, yet he wouldnt teach ANYone about Christ before his comig? Wasn't that the WHOLE POINT of the OT?
John the baptist was baptizing before Christ was teaching it...Where did John get it from?
If the Atonement is eternal, wouldn't the ordinances be eternal? Must be baptized...even Christ did it. MUST be important.

BrianH

06-16-2011, 07:46 PM

Your bias has blinded you my friend.

No, the FACTS have enlightened me. YOU are the one offering nothing but bias here, amigo. And you have offered no facts to refute the truths I posted for you.

One cannot have an discussion when the starting point is, I'm absurd.

Please pay attention. I never said YOU are absurd. I said the historical content of the Book of Mormon is absurd and gave you several clear reasons WHY it is absurd. You have not refuted those reasons. In fact, at this point all you have done is experience and then give voice to a predictable emotional reaction to the facts with which I am confronting your claims. Your emotional reaction is not a refutation.

Nothing I say would suffice. Really....NO evidence exists?

Correct. You have been misled by a collection of uninformed and deceptive fakers grasping at imaginary straws and "borrowing" the well-documented evidence of OTHER civilizations and then presenting it as "evidence" to support the fantasies they are telling you are true.

No one knew they built with cement. They do! That's 'an evidence'. Verified by science. So now, you can change your tone and say...there's not enough evidence..because unless you would be guilty of the same accusation, you must 'face the facts'

You are simply repeating the mistake prepared for you by your masters. It is true that "they" built with something similar to what we could call "cement". But the problem is "THEY" were not "Nephties". "They" were indigenous Native American peoples with an actual history that has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon.

Was Christ unknown to the prophets and the people they taught before Christ came? Huh???

If you will put aside all the nonsense published by the LDS church and actually R E A D the Bible by itself, it will become clear to you that the biblical prophets foretold the coming of the Messiah. This fact in no way supports the ridiculous ***ertions in the BoM that Egyptian-writing Jewish American Indians knew him as "Jesus Christ" (which is NOT his name) and quoted the New Testament and practiced baptizing in his name hundreds of years before Jesus ben Joseph was born!

The plan of salvation...Jesus Christ as our Saviour...God is no respector of persons, yet he wouldnt teach ANYone about Christ before his comig? Wasn't that the WHOLE POINT of the OT?

This is nothing but the weak insinuation of a desperate straw man fallacy. I never said that God wouldn't teach anyone anything about the Messiah. Again, if you simply R E A D the Bible you will quickly discover that God revealed that there would be a Messiah, that he would be of the lineage of David, born of a virgin and several other details of his life, ministry, death and resurrection. We have no reason to think that he named the Messiah and introduced the distinguishing tenets of the Christian faith to a vast civilization of Egyptian-writing Israelites somewhere in the Western Hemisphere (you don't even know where!) hundreds of years before the incarnation.

John the baptist was baptizing before Christ was teaching it...Where did John get it from?

From the normative ritual ablution practice of Second Temple Judasim, of course. What is it about John baptizing people in the Jordan for the repentance of sins that makes you think it somehow supports claims pertaining to the existence of the "Nephites"???

If the Atonement is eternal, wouldn't the ordinances be eternal? Must be baptized...even Christ did it. MUST be important.

Sure baptism is important. But there is nothing about the rite of baptism as practiced in the first century Israel that in any way suggests it was practiced by any native American culture, let alone the non-existent "Nephites".

-BH

.

James Banta

06-16-2011, 07:51 PM

Your bias has blinded you my friend.

One cannot have an discussion when the starting point is, I'm absurd. Nothing I say would suffice. Really....NO evidence exists? No one knew they built with cement. They do! That's 'an evidence'. Verified by science. So now, you can change your tone and say...there's not enough evidence..because unless you would be guilty of the same accusation, you must 'face the facts'.
Was Christ unknown to the prophets and the people they taught before Christ came? Huh??? The plan of salvation...Jesus Christ as our Saviour...God is no respector of persons, yet he wouldnt teach ANYone about Christ before his comig? Wasn't that the WHOLE POINT of the OT?
John the baptist was baptizing before Christ was teaching it...Where did John get it from?
If the Atonement is eternal, wouldn't the ordinances be eternal? Must be baptized...even Christ did it. MUST be important.

Off subject still again.. how does proofs of the BofM extend to the Gospel only being for one place or one time.. It's nit that this wouldn't make an interesting thread it just doesn't fit here.. IHS jim

TheSword99

06-17-2011, 03:47 AM

So I can have faith in Christ but I can kill you and your family and still be saved?

Surely you're joking. I never said that. I said useless works will be burned. That is not the same as committing a grave sin.

Once a man is spiritually born again, he is indwelt with the Holy Spirit and nothing and no one can snatch that man from Jesus' hand.

TheSword99

06-17-2011, 03:53 AM

COULD I have faith in Christ and do such a thing? No. We stress our personal responsibility to perform Good works as an expression of faith, and in fulfillment of Gods' commandments to do so. What came first..my faith or my work? Faith. If I had not Faith, NO work would justify me.

Where do we disagree?...without faith, we are nothing. And yet works are the reflection of our faith....... .... ....... ........ ....... .. again, i don't see the rift that you see.
Can you have faith and not perform a 'work'? And can faith stand alone? Yes and yes. Can a work stand alone, without faith, and be justified. God accepts not these things.
We couldn't forever be in limbo, awaiting Christ's Atonement. Christ had to perform the greatest of all works, to fulfill ALL righteousness. Simply saying it wasn't enough. Christ DID it.

Can you tell us what faith you adhere to?

A Christian does good works because he is saved, not in order to get saved. there's the difference. When one is born again he receives a new heart. God begins transforming that person from the inside. However, works do nothing to aid salvation. It was Abraham's faith that God declared as righteousness. This was before Abraham had even offered up Isaac. Faith is what pleases God. The Bible says our righteous acts are like filthy rags to God. There is usually a motive behind everything we do.

alanmolstad

06-17-2011, 04:43 AM

So I can have faith in Christ but I can kill you and your family and still be saved?

Yes...

Yes we can be saved yet also guilty of many sins.

TheSword99

06-17-2011, 05:42 AM

Yes...

Yes we can be saved yet also guilty of many sins.

So you don't believe in repenting of those sins?

Walrus

06-17-2011, 11:52 AM

Off subject still again.. how does proofs of the BofM extend to the Gospel only being for one place or one time.. It's nit that this wouldn't make an interesting thread it just doesn't fit here.. IHS jim

Off subject responding to BH...?? okay

Walrus

06-17-2011, 12:12 PM

Can you tell us what faith you adhere to?

A Christian does good works because he is saved, not in order to get saved. there's the difference. When one is born again he receives a new heart. God begins transforming that person from the inside. However, works do nothing to aid salvation. It was Abraham's faith that God declared as righteousness. This was before Abraham had even offered up Isaac. Faith is what pleases God. The Bible says our righteous acts are like filthy rags to God. There is usually a motive behind everything we do.

I don't reference timing the same way as you. Work's don't justify salvation, faith does. We accept that...we're moving on...now what do I do while i wait for my life to end? For am I not perfect? No need to do learn or do or act or experience? No! How bout I pray for the Lord to keep me from temptation? He commanded it. How bout keeping his commandments...if I am saved, if I truly have faith in that promise, I'll keep his commandments....which were not "Don't worry about works or about them because i just said them..just so..." you make Christ a fool if you ignore HIS WORK and HIS example...otherwise you're not his disciple! You can make mistakes...thats what repentance is for. I heard on the Christian radio yesterday, Pastor Bob say "There is an immediate change when one accepts Christ in their heart, Night to Day! But the process of repentance continues, a slow process where, step by step, you are perfected in your Walk with Jesus!" I agree!!! There is an immediate washing away of sins, a release of a great burden...a refreshing! And then onward! Endure to the end!
I've gave a sufficient answer already..you must be burdened with a false idea that we value works more than faith. It's not true! May God bless your heart and may you be free of that falsehood, in Jesus's name!

Walrus

06-17-2011, 12:20 PM

Yes...

Yes we can be saved yet also guilty of many sins.

Good answer! I agree with the concept, but literally it should read
"We can be guilty of many sins, and yet be saved"

We cannot be guilty AND saved at the same time...because if you are saved, you have no guilt. That's why Christ would have us ALWAYS pray to the Father...its so very easy to stray if you don't think you need to pray, or attend worship services etc..

Christ "Your sins are forgiven you, go thy way and sin no more."

Walrus

06-17-2011, 01:07 PM

No, the FACTS have enlightened me. YOU are the one offering nothing but bias here, amigo. And you have offered no facts to refute the truths I posted for you.

Please pay attention. I never said YOU are absurd. I said the historical content of the Book of Mormon is absurd and gave you several clear reasons WHY it is absurd. You have not refuted those reasons. In fact, at this point all you have done is experience and then give voice to a predictable emotional reaction to the facts with which I am confronting your claims. Your emotional reaction is not a refutation.

Correct. You have been misled by a collection of uninformed and deceptive fakers grasping at imaginary straws and "borrowing" the well-documented evidence of OTHER civilizations and then presenting it as "evidence" to support the fantasies they are telling you are true.

You are simply repeating the mistake prepared for you by your masters. It is true that "they" built with something similar to what we could call "cement". But the problem is "THEY" were not "Nephties". "They" were indigenous Native American peoples with an actual history that has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon.

If you will put aside all the nonsense published by the LDS church and actually R E A D the Bible by itself, it will become clear to you that the biblical prophets foretold the coming of the Messiah. This fact in no way supports the ridiculous ***ertions in the BoM that Egyptian-writing Jewish American Indians knew him as "Jesus Christ" (which is NOT his name) and quoted the New Testament and practiced baptizing in his name hundreds of years before Jesus ben Joseph was born!

This is nothing but the weak insinuation of a desperate straw man fallacy. I never said that God wouldn't teach anyone anything about the Messiah. Again, if you simply R E A D the Bible you will quickly discover that God revealed that there would be a Messiah, that he would be of the lineage of David, born of a virgin and several other details of his life, ministry, death and resurrection. We have no reason to think that he named the Messiah and introduced the distinguishing tenets of the Christian faith to a vast civilization of Es somewhere in the Western Hemisphere (you don't even know where!) hundreds of years before the incarnation.

From the normative ritual ablution practice of Second Temple Judasim, of course. What is it about John baptizing people in the Jordan for the repentance of sins that makes you think it somehow supports claims pertaining to the existence of the "Nephites"???

Sure baptism is important. But there is nothing about the rite of baptism as practiced in the first century Israel that in any way suggests it was practiced by any native American culture, let alone the non-existent "Nephites".

-BH

.

Haaahahahahha...an emotional response eh? I won't deny I'm human...but you don't think you're approach has ANYthing do to with the responses you get?
Is this what being saved is? Rudeness? Reviling? Really? Where is Christ? Where is the Christ like love?? Where Brian??? Why do you feel so much hate? Think..if what you are teaching others stirs up SOOOO much contention and ill feeling...MAYBE ITS NOT OF GOD!
Ah ha! The Mormon admits it...you havn't read a single word I wrote. What you teach about what i believe...ISNT what i believe. And you WONT listen!

So you wont need to throw this out anymore, I'll enlighten you.

Egyptian-writing Israelites...how long were the Israelites in bondage to the Egyptians? Long enough to be Egyptian Writing Israelites. That was too easy. Logical. Did Egypt and Jerusalem (or Israelites) conduct trade with each other? Yes, throughout Biblical History and its backed up by science. So established was the Jewish culture that Jesus and family lived there for awhile. But it's still absurd to think that there were ever Egyptian-writing Israelites....no...its absurd to think that there weren't. They would trade with them, and live amongst them, but they wouldn't speak each other's language or communicate in any written form? That's ill logic...do you know that when two cultures come together that over a period of time a sub-culture of the two mixed is created? Mexico and the US, for instance? Anyone else disagree beside BH?
Placing a people in the Americas from Jerusalem..impossible for God? Contrary to God's will? God said he would scatter Israel. Scatter them in the streets? Scatter them in the city? We're talking God...if God can take up the City of Enoch unto himself, then God can scatter who He wants, when He wants. If we all came from Noah...how did all the islanders get there? God put them there. How? Tornadoes, by the Spirit (not false), by boat maybe? When you say, "It's impossible" why would it be impossible for God? What ARE all the islanders doing on all those islands anyways??? God had no purpose in doing so?

Genesis 26:4
4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;

Sending Israeli speaking ANYTHING to the four corners of the earth is exactly in accordance with the fundamental promises made to Father Abraham.

Instead of complaining about my argument, i invite you to actually address it.

BrianH

06-17-2011, 02:33 PM

Haaahahahahha...an emotional response eh? I won't deny I'm human...but you don't think you're approach has ANYthing do to with the responses you get?

Yes an emotional response and nothing else.

Is this what being saved is? Rudeness? Reviling? Really? Where is Christ? Where is the Christ like love?? Where Brian??? Why do you feel so much hate? Think..if what you are teaching others stirs up SOOOO much contention and ill feeling...MAYBE ITS NOT OF GOD!
Ah ha! The Mormon admits it...you havn't read a single word I wrote. What you teach about what i believe...ISNT what i believe. And you WONT listen!

When simply telling the the truth is called "rudeness" I have to ask, what do you call making accusations and then failing to support them?

The facts are simply against you here Wally. Get used to it. That is what being a Mormon ususally means.

So you wont need to throw this out anymore, I'll enlighten you.

Egyptian-writing Israelites...how long were the Israelites in bondage to the Egyptians? Long enough to be Egyptian Writing Israelites. That was too easy. Logical. Did Egypt and Jerusalem (or Israelites) conduct trade with each other? Yes, throughout Biblical History and its backed up by science. So established was the Jewish culture that Jesus and family lived there for awhile. But it's still absurd to think that there were ever Egyptian-writing Israelites....no...its absurd to think that there weren't. They would trade with them, and live amongst them, but they wouldn't speak each other's language or communicate in any written form? That's ill logic...do you know that when two cultures come together that over a period of time a sub-culture of the two mixed is created? Mexico and the US, for instance? Anyone else disagree beside BH?

You have not only failed to enlighten me, you have failed to do anthing more than speculate based on exactly NOTHING. It may indeed be that some Israelite somewhere learned how to write in Egyptian. But the idea of Jewish American Indians writing Hebrew scripture in "Reformed Egyptian" is just plain fiction. Until you can SHOW US some reason to think that there was ever any such thing as Smith's "Reformed Egyptian" all of your speculations are nothing more than self-serving guesswork with no basis in any fact whatsoever.

Placing a people in the Americas from Jerusalem..impossible for God? Contrary to God's will? God said he would scatter Israel. Scatter them in the streets? Scatter them in the city? We're talking God...if God can take up the City of Enoch unto himself, then God can scatter who He wants, when He wants. If we all came from Noah...how did all the islanders get there? God put them there. How? Tornadoes, by the Spirit (not false), by boat maybe? When you say, "It's impossible" why would it be impossible for God? What ARE all the islanders doing on all those islands anyways??? God had no purpose in doing so?

No one said it was impossible for God - that is just another straw man fallacy on your part. I am telling you that there is no reason to think that such a thing actually HAPPENED and, in fact, to anyone who is even minimally familair with the FACTS of Mesoamerican history (whcih obviously leaves you and virtually all other Mormons out), such a claim is bluntly imbecielic.

Genesis 26:4
4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;

Sending Israeli speaking ANYTHING to the four corners of the earth is exactly in accordance with the fundamental promises made to Father Abraham.
Firstr of all, let me help you out here. No one ever spoke "Israeli". The langauge of the Israelites is called "Hebrew". And yes God promised that the Israelites would inheret the earth ...but you have yet to present any reasons to think that this promise was fulfilled prior to the Jewish diaspora in the 1st century, or even today.

Instead of complaining about my argument, i invite you to actually address it.

LOL!!!! "Actually address" your "argument"?!?! Get control of yourself, Wally. Then try going back to my first reply to you here where I specifically detailed the errors in each of your numbered ***ertions. THAT WAS "addressing" your so-called "arguments" (which are actually nothing of the kind, being just empty ***ertions and regurgitations of the same biolerplate excuses prepared by the LSD church for its "faithful" that we have been refuting here for several years).

I suggest unless you can present some actual FACTS and some valid reasoning from those facts, you -like all other Moromons before you- will be left with nothing to do BUT repeat the same tired old nonsense.

-BH

.

Walrus

06-17-2011, 05:02 PM

alanmolstad

06-17-2011, 06:06 PM

We cannot be guilty AND saved ....

Jesus took the place of a man condemned to death.
The man was guilty.
He had been tried and found guilty.

Of this there is no doubt.

However Jesus took the death sentence in the place of the guilty/condemned man...
Jesus did not carry his own cross, he actually carried one made for another.

as he does for me too.....as he does for all of us.

BrianH

06-17-2011, 09:23 PM

imbecielic

So God has the entire Earth before Him. He promised it to Abraham's seed. As the sands of the sea. So you would not just concede the one intellectual thought that God may have begun to fulfill his promises after they were made? God delayed a season before Abraham received the promised Isaac..sure...but not 'long after' a nation was formed.

You are not claiming that God may have begun to fulfill his promises after they were made. You are claiming that there REALLY WAS a vast, technologically anachronistic civilization populated by Egyptian-writing, Jewish American Indians who quoted the New Testament and baptized each other in the name of "Jesus Christ" hundreds of years before Christ himself was even born. See the difference?

Where are the Lost 10 Tribes, when will they be gathered, who even knows where they are? Do they even know who they are? Unlikely. But God does. God has kept track of them. God said they would be scattered and they were. He said they would be gathered, and they will. He has provided the means by which we may know who they are, and where they went. Ten tribes. Not one...ten. Take a map of the earth and throw a dart. Any of them could have ended up anywhere. When will God 'start' to fulfill that foundational promise? Never stopped, never was not fulfilling that promise.

Well ...YOU may not know where the OTHER 10 tribes are (and BTW, they were not "lost", they were dispersed). But YOU are obviously not particularly well informed here. The FACT is, they have been and are being identified all over the world. And guess what ...? NONE of them were in the Western Hemisphere prior to the major European migrations following Colombus.

Can we expect God to throw a tribe way far away? Yes.

But you are not claiming that God "threw a tribe far away". You are claiming that there REALLY WAS a vast, technologically anachronistic civilization populated by Egyptian-writing, Jewish American Indians who quoted the New Testament and baptized each other in the name of "Jesus Christ" hundreds of years before Christ himself was even born. See the difference between that and the idea that there were Hebrews who migrated to other places in the world following the universally-recognized and well-documented diaspora.

Zechariah chpt 10

Verse 1-Ask for rain in the days of the latter rain..(speaking of the future)
Verse 2-5 'They' walk without a shepherd for a while, God visits Judah, makes Judah his 'goodly horse in the battle', and they tread down their enemies.
That can be considered fulfilled or currently being fulfilled, in my opinion.

Sure but that is not the issue here. The idea you are supposed to be defending is the foundational distortions of Mesoamerican history recorded in your "scripture", in which we are told of a vast, technologically anachronistic civilization populated by Egyptian-writing, Jewish American Indians who quoted the New Testament and baptized each other in the name of "Jesus Christ" hundreds of years before Christ himself was even born. Are you getting any of this yet?

Verse 6-9
6 And I will strengthen the house of Judah, and I will save the house of Joseph, and I will bring them again to place them; for I have mercy upon them: and they shall be as though I had not cast them off: for I am the Lord their God, and will hear them.

Should you ever bother to actually read the CONTEXT here, you should be able to quickly discover that what God is talking about here is gathering His chosen people (the Israelites) back in the land he granted them when he made his promises to Abraham. This has nothing to do in any way whatsoever with some alleged vast, technologically anachronistic civilization populated by Egyptian-writing, Jewish American Indians who quoted the New Testament and baptized each other in the name of "Jesus Christ" hundreds of years before Christ himself was even born.

7And they of Ephraim shall be like a mighty man, and their heart shall rejoice as through wine: yea, their children shall see it, and be glad; their heart shall rejoice in the Lord.

8I will hiss for them, and gather them; for I have redeemed them: and they shall increase as they have increased.

9And I will sow them among the people: and they shall remember me in far countries; and they shall live with their children, and turn again.

So Ephraim, or the house of Joseph, will be brought back..as if they were not cast off, and He will hear them. They shall be like a mighty man (as Judah is also) and they and their children shall rejoice in the Lord...the Gospel is what drives one to rejoice! He will gather them..so they had to have been scattered, or apart. They shall be sowed and they shall remember me in far countries.

Again, irrelevant to the issue we are debating.

God promised it..can't deny it. We can expect that the house of Joseph will be sent away, but remembered of the Lord. They will be blessed and will rejoice in the Lord...can't rejoice in the Lord if you don't know the Lord.

Yep. God promised it alright, and it has nothing to do with some alleged vast, technologically anachronistic civilization populated by Egyptian-writing, Jewish American Indians who quoted the New Testament and baptized each other in the name of "Jesus Christ" hundreds of years before Christ himself was even born.

Zechariah 9
9¶Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ***, and upon a colt the foal of an ***.
10And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth.

Ephraim is again brought up as a Contemporary force..both have power taken from them after the coming of Christ. Christ speaks to the heathen (gentiles) and his dominion shall be the whole earth...i think it refers to the heathen's dominion for Christ's reign hadn't occured in the text, yet.

9:13 When I have bent Judah for me, filled the bow with Ephraim, and raised up thy sons, O Zion, against thy sons, O Greece, and made thee as the sword of a mighty man.

Again, Judah and Ephraim...Ephraim being the actual 'missile'...against Greece. Why Greece? Greek philosophy, perhaps...ideologies.

Ezekiel 37:
6Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:

What would God have a prophet write that wouldn't be scripture? Nothing. Never. Writing upon a stick is writing scripture on something that can be read by Judah and Ephraim. For Judah, cool, for Ephraim, why? And not only is that stick for Ephraim, but for all the house of Israel his companions. But why? We read above that Christ would remember Ephraim, and they would rejoice in the Lord, and they couldn't do so without KNOWING the Lord...and prophets, and scripture, and worship are necessary to know the Lord enough to rejoice. And if they are rejoicing in the Lord, surely it is because they know the Good News! They know about Christ and his Atoning Sacrifice. Is it possible for a culture to loss its way and completely lose sight of the truth? The House of Israel is proof. They were the House of Israel. Their collapse was predicted as was Judah's and the scattering of the rest.

I can only guess that you have simply lost touch with this conversation altogether. Nothing here is even remotely relevant nor supportive of the point you are responsible for making if you intend to provide some reasons to grant the BoM at least some tiny bit of credibility.

[quote[ 1 Nephi 5:14
14And it came to p*** that my father, Lehi, also found upon the plates of br*** a genealogy of his fathers; wherefore he knew that he was a descendant of Joseph; yea, even that Joseph who was the son of Jacob, who was sold into Egypt, and who was preserved by the hand of the Lord, that he might preserve his father, Jacob, and all his household from perishing with famine.

What did a prophet to be think about the records they obtained?

21And we had obtained the records which the Lord had commanded us, and searched them and found that they were desirable; yea, even of great worth unto us, insomuch that we could preserve the commandments of the Lord unto our children.

Why would they take scripture, and why would they continue to do so? So they may preserve the commandments of the Lord and rejoice in his Promises![/QUOTE]

Why would anyone think the "Nephites" ever even existed?

-BH

.

TheSword99

06-18-2011, 03:56 AM

Good answer! I agree with the concept, but literally it should read
"We can be guilty of many sins, and yet be saved"

We cannot be guilty AND saved at the same time...because if you are saved, you have no guilt. That's why Christ would have us ALWAYS pray to the Father...its so very easy to stray if you don't think you need to pray, or attend worship services etc..

Christ "Your sins are forgiven you, go thy way and sin no more."

Once we are spiritually born again, God declares us not guilty. This is because Jesus Christ paid for that guilt This saved person is no longer a sinner, but is now righteous in God's sight and cleansed from all sin by the blood of the Lamb..

Walrus

06-18-2011, 10:40 AM

You are not claiming that God may have begun to fulfill his promises after they were made. You are claiming that there REALLY WAS a vast, technologically anachronistic civilization populated by Egyptian-writing, Jewish American Indians who quoted the New Testament and baptized each other in the name of "Jesus Christ" hundreds of years before Christ himself was even born. See the difference?

Well ...YOU may not know where the OTHER 10 tribes are (and BTW, they were not "lost", they were dispersed). But YOU are obviously not particularly well informed here. The FACT is, they have been and are being identified all over the world. And guess what ...? NONE of them were in the Western Hemisphere prior to the major European migrations following Colombus.

But you are not claiming that God "threw a tribe far away". You are claiming that there REALLY WAS a vast, technologically anachronistic civilization populated by Egyptian-writing, Jewish American Indians who quoted the New Testament and baptized each other in the name of "Jesus Christ" hundreds of years before Christ himself was even born. See the difference between that and the idea that there were Hebrews who migrated to other places in the world following the universally-recognized and well-documented diaspora.

.

Sure but that is not the issue here. The idea you are supposed to be defending is the foundational distortions of Mesoamerican history recorded in your "scripture", in which we are told of a vast, technologically anachronistic civilization populated by Egyptian-writing, Jewish American Indians who quoted the New Testament and baptized each other in the name of "Jesus Christ" hundreds of years before Christ himself was even born. Are you getting any of this yet?

Should you ever bother to actually read the CONTEXT here, you should be able to quickly discover that what God is talking about here is gathering His chosen people (the Israelites) back in the land he granted them when he made his promises to Abraham. This has nothing to do in any way whatsoever with some alleged vast, technologically anachronistic civilization populated by Egyptian-writing, Jewish American Indians who quoted the New Testament and baptized each other in the name of "Jesus Christ" hundreds of years before Christ himself was even born.

Again, irrelevant to the issue we are debating.

Yep. God promised it alright, and it has nothing to do with some alleged vast, technologically anachronistic civilization populated by Egyptian-writing, Jewish American Indians who quoted the New Testament and baptized each other in the name of "Jesus Christ" hundreds of years before Christ himself was even born.

Why would anyone think the "Nephites" ever even existed?

-BH

.

So you admit they are being found! Bravo!

All the facts I laid out are relevant. Through the Bible we can expect to find the ten tribes dispersed. We can expect to find two separate nations who are mighty and rejoice in the Lord. We can expect that second nation to keep a record.
It is all within the realm of reason and expectation. God didn't limit his work to just the Eastern Hemisphere for we see Children of God scattered upon the entire face of the Earth. So you cannot say that God wouldn't place one person there, if others are already there, and more will arrive. It is irrational to say that it is an impossibility.
And you are claiming that science/man is 100% accurate and has 100% of the information, so much so, we ought to scoff haahahahahahaha at the idea that God might know just a wee bit more than us?
How would one track two families who disappear into the night? Who travel alone, keep to themselves, build a ship and set sail without establishing settlements and communities? No surprise in not finding their trail. Although we can trace the directions they took and see how nicely it matches up with the landscape? The burial place of NHM? Must have heard that by now.
If you wish to only see the gathering of Israel and completely disregard the promises of God to the house of Joseph, and their part in it, you are free to do so. It shall be noted that you wanted it from the Bible, i delivered, and you still rejected it. If the Word of God won't at least bring you down to an eye to eye conversation, then nothing will.
My point. You are so adament that the entire idea is IMPOSSIBLE. That is lie. And you know it. Go is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow..why WOULDN'T God teach his children about Christ? Only if they weren't stiffnecked...because that was what God was trying to drill in over and over and over again. Why WOULDN'T God preserve the House of Joseph like God said he would?

2 Nephi 29
Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?

7Know ye not that there are more nations than one? (the House of Judah is just one of the 12) Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?

8Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.

9And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.

10Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

11For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.

12For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.

James Banta

06-18-2011, 11:27 AM

I never said that is was not Christ who cleanses us from sin, my point is that it is Christ who teaches us to be baptized. So, to you, avoiding baptism is a sin and your baptism is not like Christ's baptism and "ALL THE BELIEVERS IN JESUS practice water baptism?" And yet you say,

You are getting clear as mud here. Those who follow Christ--do they get baptized, yes or no? Does Christ expect us to be baptized? Is it okay in your book to get "spiritually" baptized alone, as it is Christ who saves and not the water? (As I said, I agree it is Christ who saves, which is why when He says, be baptized, , we are--so the question is, how do you see it?)

Even those that don't hold water baptism to be an ordinance of the Church believe they are baptized in the Spirit into Jesus.. I stand by what I said.. ALL Christians believe in baptism.. Some literal, some not.. I am one that believes in water baptism as a testimony to the world that I have made a commitment to my Lord Jesus.. I respect others that spirituality that and hold that their Faith in Him baptizes then in Spirit.. What I reject 100% is anyone that tells me that water Baptism cleanses them of their sin.. If water, or anything but the Blood of the Lamb, could do so then Jesus died in vain.. Being baptized is important because Jesus commanded it. But being perfect as the Father is perfect is also important because Jesus commanded it.. Does it mean that if there is any sin in you that you can't be saved? NO! And therefore getting wet can't save you either. Salvation requires intervention by God in the death of Jesus on the cross.. IHS jim

BrianH

06-18-2011, 02:12 PM

So you admit they are being found! Bravo!

I admitted nothing of the kind. They were never "lost" to begin with. Please actually READ a post before responding to it. If you will go back and read what you are calling an "admission", you should be able to figure out that it is a refutation of your fundamental premise. The Jewish people were never "lost" to begin with. In fact, they knew who they were for their entire existence. The nonsensical idea that they were "lost" is just more fantasy world nonsense.

All the facts I laid out are relevant.

You did not lay out any "facts".

Through the Bible we can expect to find the ten tribes dispersed. We can expect to find two separate nations who are mighty and rejoice in the Lord. We can expect that second nation to keep a record.
It is all within the realm of reason and expectation. God didn't limit his work to just the Eastern Hemisphere for we see Children of God scattered upon the entire face of the Earth. So you cannot say that God wouldn't place one person there, if others are already there, and more will arrive. It is irrational to say that it is an impossibility.
And you are claiming that science/man is 100% accurate and has 100% of the information, so much so, we ought to scoff haahahahahahaha at the idea that God might know just a wee bit more than us?
How would one track two families who disappear into the night? Who travel alone, keep to themselves, build a ship and set sail without establishing settlements and communities? No surprise in not finding their trail. Although we can trace the directions they took and see how nicely it matches up with the landscape? The burial place of NHM? Must have heard that by now.
If you wish to only see the gathering of Israel and completely disregard the promises of God to the house of Joseph, and their part in it, you are free to do so. It shall be noted that you wanted it from the Bible, i delivered, and you still rejected it. If the Word of God won't at least bring you down to an eye to eye conversation, then nothing will.
My point. You are so adament that the entire idea is IMPOSSIBLE. That is lie. And you know it. Go is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow..why WOULDN'T God teach his children about Christ? Only if they weren't stiffnecked...because that was what God was trying to drill in over and over and over again. Why WOULDN'T God preserve the House of Joseph like God said he would?

None of this is even relevant, let alone supports your claims about some supposed vast civilization populated by Egyptian-writing Jewish American Indians who raised elephants, rode the plains in chariots and baptized each other in the name of "Jesus Christ" before Christ himself was even born. And BTW, the tired old NHM nonsense remains nothing but another Mormon myth. There is not even any evidence that the "NHM" inscription refers to a place. And Smith got more wrong about the geography of the Arabian Peninsula than he got right.

Finally, of course God would teach his "children" about Christ. That is what he DID, AFTER the Son was incarnated, according to the Bible. And what you have so far failed to do is provide us with any reason to think that these "children" included the apparently non-existent "Nephites" and that God taught them all the NT details before he was born.

2 Nephi 29
Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?

7Know ye not that there are more nations than one? (the House of Judah is just one of the 12) Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?

8Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.

9And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.

10Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

11For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.

12For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.

Here's a little basic logic for you: citing the Book of Mormon in support of the Book of Mormon is a fallacy known as the "circular argument". Being fallacious it is irrational and being irrational it has no value other than to demonstrate that you are thus far, unable to ***emble a rational argument to support your claims.

-BH

.

James Banta

06-18-2011, 07:38 PM

Is Jesus the Savior of those who have not been taught by his disciples? And how can those be saved who have not been taught by his disciples?

Here is what God has to say about your demand that the Indians be saved by Jesus coming to them teaching them as he had in the Old World:

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse

Did God make anything in the Americas? If He did then His Godhead and eternal power are clearly seen.. They like the Aborigines, like the natives in the core of Africa, the far reaches of Asia, the Arctic, the peoples scattered across every corner of the earth, can see that power and Godhead, none have any excuse.. IHS jim

James Banta

06-18-2011, 08:38 PM

Let us take these false teaching one at a time..
1. Christ establishes his Church, 12 apostles (who fill vacancies..keeping it 12) are called..
Ok you say he called 12 but one of them was a devil and gave up his bisho***** (Acts 1:20). That place was to be given to another. Then comes the requirements for the position in Verses 21-22. See what it says they must have been with Jesus from the time of His baptism to the day of His ***ertion.. Know anyone that qualifies? I don't! Ok Now where can we look to find the total number of apostles that are real Apostles of the Lamb.. Let look at Revelations 21:14 "And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." Which twelve do you think the Holy Spirit was speaking of when He showed this vision to the Apostle John? Seem that mormonism with modern apostles that were not there walking with Jesus during His mortal ministry have no right to be called Apostles of the Lamb.. Neither do they have the right to fine their names inscribed on the foundations of the New City.. Your ***ertions are UNBIBLICAL.

2. Miracles of the New Testament are recognized to have ceased by 400AD if not earlier.
My God is a God of miracles.. These have not ceased and will not until the perfect returns for His Church.. Daily miracles continue. A person would have to be blind not to see them..

3. The book of Scripture is closed.. Ok I think it is.. God has given us the greatest of all miracles the greatest of all teachers. The full account of all He has done from the first sparkle of light to the final defeat of death and Sin.. What did he forget? Oh maybe saddling us with Laws and ordinances that the Holy Spirit has shown us through the apostle Paul can't save us.. Oh but wait that would be against what the Holy Spirit has taught.. Only a scripture avoiding cultist would add more works than what Jesus completed on the cross would do such an evil thing..

4. Nowhere do we have such a large gab of time in not hearing God's Word. (the creation of man made churches)..
God's word has been available since the days Moses recorded the works God preformed for the children of Israel.. Now we have the full record of all God has done to make eternal life with Him again available. I see that you have never heard God's message to you.. You couldn't have and believe that the heavens are closed.. God is working in the hearts and mind of His children and adding those who will come to Him to His Church daily. His Church lives though She has been attacked again and again. He has always had a people he could call him own in every time.. She has always stood against Her attackers and through His strength she has survived.. There is no argument between the churches of Christianity.. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by Him.. Not a pope, not an Apostle, not a Seventy, not by any priesthood held by a man. Only in and through Jesus is there salvation and ALL Christian organizations there the CHURCH, His children gather are one.. There are many such as mormonism that put priesthoods, prophets, bishops and presidents, in His place saying that mere men have the authority to add to the Church.. Yet that again is unbiblical for The Bible tells us that HE and HE alone add people to the Church (Acts 2:47)..

5. Not one time in the written Word of God has Mankind been able to stay on course without a living prophet.
The Church today has better then a living prophet.. God lives in the members of His Church (1Cor 6:19).. The writer to the Hebrew makes it clear: Hebrews 1:1-2 "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds". If we have Jesus speaking to us what need is there for prophets to stand between us and Him with His word? Maybe you haven't realized this but in the Gospel, the nature of God, how salvation comes to mankind, the Christians here on Walter Martin and other places where the church gathers are one in these basic Christian doctrines.. Doctrines that mormonism does not share with us.. IHS jim

BigJulie

06-18-2011, 08:57 PM

Even those that don't hold water baptism to be an ordinance of the Church believe they are baptized in the Spirit into Jesus.. I stand by what I said.. ALL Christians believe in baptism.. Some literal, some not.. I am one that believes in water baptism as a testimony to the world that I have made a commitment to my Lord Jesus.. I respect others that spirituality that and hold that their Faith in Him baptizes then in Spirit.. What I reject 100% is anyone that tells me that water Baptism cleanses them of their sin.. If water, or anything but the Blood of the Lamb, could do so then Jesus died in vain.. Being baptized is important because Jesus commanded it. But being perfect as the Father is perfect is also important because Jesus commanded it.. Does it mean that if there is any sin in you that you can't be saved? NO! And therefore getting wet can't save you either. Salvation requires intervention by God in the death of Jesus on the cross.. IHS jim

I don't know who ever said that it is the water at baptism that cleanses from sin rather than Christ who cleanses, but I don't know where one would come up with the idea that they can intrepret baptism to be something done spiritually only when we can clearly see exactly what baptism is based on the example of Christ Himself. So, I will stick with my position, the person who thinks they can rewrite the definition of "baptism" is like the person who thinks they can get married by just being committed to each other.

I believe that the whole discussion began based on you saying you believe in what the Bible teaches. Clearly, your views that someone can be spiritually baptized and ignore the very example of what baptism is as taught by Jesus Christ shows that your beliefs around baptism are not in line with Biblical teaching of just what the word "baptism" means.

James Banta

06-19-2011, 08:16 AM

I don't know who ever said that it is the water at baptism that cleanses from sin rather than Christ who cleanses, but I don't know where one would come up with the idea that they can intrepret baptism to be something done spiritually only when we can clearly see exactly what baptism is based on the example of Christ Himself. So, I will stick with my position, the person who thinks they can rewrite the definition of "baptism" is like the person who thinks they can get married by just being committed to each other.

I believe that the whole discussion began based on you saying you believe in what the Bible teaches. Clearly, your views that someone can be spiritually baptized and ignore the very example of what baptism is as taught by Jesus Christ shows that your beliefs around baptism are not in line with Biblical teaching of just what the word "baptism" means.

So baptism can't cleanse you of sin but you must be baptized? What is it's purpose to you then? I have shown you that John's baptism is not effectual before.. Here is that proof again:

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.
Jesus had John's Baptism not Christian Baptism.. Paul rebaptized these men that had the same exact baptism as Jesus.. Was the Baptism Jesus then really an example of what we should do? It doesn't look like it.. Jesus had His own purposes in submitting to John's Baptism..

So please tell me again what doesn't baptism do for you that is so essentially to your salvation? It doesn't cleanse from sin. You must be confirmed to become a member of the church.. Why can't a baptism be spiritual if the Baptism of Jesus isn't the baptism that the the Holy Spirit required in this text? Seems to me that such a baptism is actually more effectual than the baptism of John, the same Baptism that mormonism insists is the the same as their baptism.. So why baptize? Seems to me that LDS baptism being the same thing as John's baptism serves the purposes of Joseph Smith and not God.. IHS jim

alanmolstad

06-19-2011, 08:38 AM

James Banta

06-19-2011, 09:13 AM

Jesus had to be baptized as a way to fulfill the role he had as being the holy guide to our own lives.
Just as he was baptized, so to must we all who wish to carry the name of "Christian"

"Christians" are they who walk in the steps of Christ...
Christ was baptized, so to are we.

The act of baptism,,,,is the outward sign of what has happened inside the heart of the person.
That is why we say that just being underwater, (something that we do every day anyway) is not what saves us.
Water washes away the filth of the flesh, but it is the blood of Christ that washes away the stain of sin in our hearts.

we are in this way, "buried" with Christ in our baptism, and when we come up out of the water we are in a very real way, 'rising" with Christ in new life.....

in "His" life.

I agree with you all but for that little word "MUST" That would indicate that baptism is an ordinance required for our salvation. That just can't be. It can't be any more than never telling a lie, or never feel lust in your heart. It isn't anymore the way to God than never feeling anger over small unimportant events of our lives.. No we should not lie, but we do.. No we shouldn't lust, but yet we do. And we should never be angry over nothing, yet we do.. Paul made it clear that the thing he really wants to do (the good) he doesn't do. But the things he would not do, (sin) that is what he does. Our flesh is where sin lives, those of us that are trusting Jesus have been reborn of Him. We have a new spirit that is in constant conflict with the flesh. I pray that we will see that new spirit, the heart created within us as we believed, conquer and put the flesh down. I have a long path ahead of me on the path of sanctification. I praise Jesus that he has already given me justification thru His Blood..

Yes I have obeyed and followed my Lord into the waters of baptism. It was my honor to do so. To be though of Him worth to identify with His death is a blessing in it's self but to come forth and be identified with His resurrection is beyond anything I could have ever imagined.. I praise Him for this grace and opportunity to live for Him as well.. That sanctification is hard for a rebellious nature like mine.. IHS jim

alanmolstad

06-19-2011, 09:33 AM

I agree with you all but for that little word "MUST"

When John stood looking at Jesus, John also thought to himself that the word "must" just didn't really seem to apply to the baptism of Jesus.

But Jesus knew it did.

The Baptism of Jesus is a "must' in as such because it was a means that Jesus fully bonded his sin-less self with the sin-full humanity.

Baptism is a "must" for us in as such for via it we being sin-full men are bound to the death and resurrection of Jesus the sin-less.

The water is not what saves the believer.
But the grace that comes to us via faith is what saves us.
and one of the means that grace uses is baptism.

Is it magic?...no
But it is sacred...

I think of the whole issue with another Bible story as a window into it's nature.
The story of Moses and the burning bush.
as Moses walked over to the bush, God told him to take off his shoes because the ground he was standing on was holy.

Now the ground is just the ground....the day before it was not holy, the day arfter it was not holy...but right there and then because of the presence of the Lord, the ground became holy.....

Moses was told he must take off his shoes...
(it wasn't a suggestion)

we are told to be baptized
(also not a suggestion)

The water is just the water, it is the Lord's presence that makes it holy water.

BigJulie

06-19-2011, 04:15 PM

[QUOTE=James Banta;90899]So baptism can't cleanse you of sin but you must be baptized? What is it's purpose to you then? I have shown you that John's baptism is not effectual before.. Here is that proof again:

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.
Jesus had John's Baptism not Christian Baptism.. Paul rebaptized these men that had the same exact baptism as Jesus.. Was the Baptism Jesus then really an example of what we should do? It doesn't look like it.. Jesus had His own purposes in submitting to John's Baptism..

Jesus Christ didn't have a Christian baptism? You can't be serious. He is Christ--by definition, His baptism is CHRISTian baptism.

The point you are missing is that they were baptized LIKE Christ, but were not baptized with those in authority to give the Holy Ghost---which meant that they believed, but didn't know of the gospel of Jesus Christ through those in authority who could and should give the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.

You have got to be kidding me if you are trying to disclaim Christ's baptism as different than the baptism we are to have. If you want to know the purpose of baptism--you can refer to the words of Christ. What is the purpose with baptism? To fulfill all righteousness. That means, that if we believe, we are obedient to the words of Christ and to his apostles and diciples. In other words, we don't define what baptism is. Christ defines it. And he defines it as baptism by water and laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

[QUOTE]So please tell me again what doesn't baptism do for you that is so essentially to your salvation? It doesn't cleanse from sin. As I said before--you are making the same argument that those make who want to be "married" in spirit only. I've heard the argument--why do we need a piece of paper? We love each other and are committed, that is enough. Well, that is a farce. Likewise, those who think they can, in their heart, say they follow Christ and be "cleansed" by him, but then deny doing the very thing he asks is a lie. I love God, but I don't need to do as He asks or follow His ways of doing things?

I like what Maria Van Trapp said about it. (Think Sound of Music). To paraphrase, she said that people like to pretend that we are spiritual only and not physical--but the world does not work that way--we are both physical beings as well as spiritual beings. She said that is why God gives us physical things to remind of us spiritual things such as baptism and the sacrament. She said, we understand that we would never say to someone, I love you, bu then refuse to give them a hug or a kiss. She said that we pretend we don't need physical expression and so give up religious physical expression just to take up our expression to things such as sports or beauty pagents.

So, please tell me the person who says they have been spiritually baptized and does not need to follow the example of Christ?

BigJulie

06-19-2011, 04:20 PM

James Banta

06-19-2011, 05:23 PM

[BigJulie;90903] Jesus Christ didn't have a Christian baptism? You can't be serious. He is Christ--by definition, His baptism is CHRISTian baptism.

I know that mormonism teaches that the Church has existed from the days of Adam but that is not what the Bible teaches. The Bible says that the disciples were even to leave the city until they are indued with power. That happened as the Holy Spirit was given to those that believed and the Church was born.. Christian baptism didn't exist until that date.. Yes Jesus is the Christ, the cornerstone on which the Church is built but it is the Church is Christian not Her Lord.. No more that the Church is the Lord.. Again built on Him, but not Him.

The point you are missing is that they were baptized LIKE Christ, but were not baptized with those in authority to give the Holy Ghost---which meant that they believed, but didn't know of the gospel of Jesus Christ through those in authority who could and should give the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.

I am NOT missing that point.. These men in Acts 19 were also baptized like Jesus was baptized, but Paul rebaptized then as it tells us clearly in verse 5 "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Paul didn't just confirm them he baptized them all over again.. I guess you missed that.. Now you are saying that they weren't baptized by those in authority? How do you know that.. Paul asked them about receiving the Holy Spirit not "Who baptized you?" There was not question about authority here. The question was "did you receive the Holy Spirit?". Mormonism teaches that there are those with the authority to baptize who do not have the authority to give a person the gift of the Holy Spirit.. Again it wasn't the baptism Paul was concerned most about it was the Holy Spirit.. No authority? They were baptized with John's baptism. Are you saying that He or the men who followed him didn't have that much authority? You are making any sense..

You have got to be kidding me if you are trying to disclaim Christ's baptism as different than the baptism we are to have. If you want to know the purpose of baptism--you can refer to the words of Christ. What is the purpose with baptism? To fulfill all righteousness. That means, that if we believe, we are obedient to the words of Christ and to his apostles and diciples. In other words, we don't define what baptism is. Christ defines it. And he defines it as baptism by water and laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

That is what I am saying.. You have a baptism of repentance.. That is John's baptism.. That is not the believers Baptism.. We identify with the death burial and resurrection of Jesus.. It has nothing to do with the washing away of sin.. By the time a person receives Christian baptism their sins have long been forgiven.. It is identification with Jesus we are doing in baptism (Romans 6:3-4), not washing away our sins.. Only Jesus through His commitment to His death burial and resurrection was fulfilling all righteousness. You can't be made righteous by completing a commanded ordinance.. I want you to look at the baptism of Jesus (John 1:29-33).. Where did anyone lay hands on Him to give Him the Gift of the Holy Spirit? Am I missing something or are you making stuff up that isn't part of the scripture? If you can site any Christian source that tells you that Jesus ever had someone lay hands on Him to give Him the Holy Spirit I will back off and see baptism your way.. But you can't call the Baptism of Jesus the Baptism of believers and then change the pattern of the ordinance to suite yourself..

As I said before--you are making the same argument that those make who want to be "married" in spirit only. I've heard the argument--why do we need a piece of paper? We love each other and are committed, that is enough. Well, that is a farce. Likewise, those who think they can, in their heart, say they follow Christ and be "cleansed" by him, but then deny doing the very thing he asks is a lie. I love God, but I don't need to do as He asks or follow His ways of doing things?

And you deny that a man an a woman who make promises to each other and to God to live under His holy ordinance of marriage are married even if they didn't get the State's permission? I think it would be correct to state that intent with the Church, but if a couple doesn't want to involve the State, even if they don't want the Church to stand as witness it is God that joins them not Caesar! Why is that a farce? These believe they are married as much as those that claim a spiritual baptism say they are baptized in Jesus.. You are making your self out to be God in denying other peoples faith in these matters.. The question should be "Who is Jesus?" If they come back and say the first born spirit child of God the Father and one of His wives, you aren't talking the YHWH that created all things and therefore have a false Jesus..

I like what Maria Van Trapp said about it. (Think Sound of Music). To paraphrase, she said that people like to pretend that we are spiritual only and not physical--but the world does not work that way--we are both physical beings as well as spiritual beings. She said that is why God gives us physical things to remind of us spiritual things such as baptism and the sacrament. She said, we understand that we would never say to someone, I love you, bu then refuse to give them a hug or a kiss. She said that we pretend we don't need physical expression and so give up religious physical expression just to take up our expression to things such as sports or beauty pagents.

Oh I think quoting a young Austrian girl to prove your point is great!.. What is the matter you couldn't find a scriptural reference to make your point? I would think Not.. All that God has commanded us is Spiritual. There is not one ordinance that is not spiritual. Our births, baptism, marriages, and our deaths, all are spiritual before God.. Paul tells us to do all things as to the Lord.. that would tell you even our life's work is spiritual. Maybe you can provide a bit more authority of scripture before making foolish statements again..

So, please tell me the person who says they have been spiritually baptized and does not need to follow the example of Christ?
Nope can't do it because all such believers, believe that they are following the example of Jesus and Julie one group that does so you shouldn't draw spiritual swords with Society of Friends. The salvation Army is another that church that sees no reason to include the physical rite as a practice of the church.. Personally I don't agree but nether do I condemn them for this tenet of their faith.. they are 100% reliant on the Blood of Jesus. Unlike momronism that is mostly reliant of their works and only count on Jesus after all they can do.. IHS jim

James Banta

06-19-2011, 05:38 PM

[QUOTE][QUOTE=James Banta;90662]It does agree...it just disagrees with your interpretation of your reading.

Instead of your one sentence denials how about showing me that what you say is the truth? here are two statements that seem to conflict Please explain how both statements are true:

Eph 2:8-9
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.

2 Nephi 25:23
For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

One says it is NOT BY WORK so that no one can boast of their righteousness, and the other says we must do it all and God through His grace fills in where we miss.. Completely different in the meaning and yet mormonism calls both these books scripture and God's word.. Don't you wish you could have scripture that didn't conflict with each other.. IHS jim

James Banta

06-19-2011, 05:50 PM

Whoa...the Bible says, once or twice, that you are saved by Grace and not of works. Then in about...lets be reasonable..10 other places it tells us we'll be held acountable for our works, good or bad, we're going to be judged of our works, by their fruits ye shall know them, with out works, faith is dead..etc etc.

How do you nullify all these, God's Words, with one word that fits your religious perspective? They're together..they work hand in hand...Christ actually COMING DOWN and ATONING had to be DONE. ACTED. FINISHED. It was a work, not Grace alone, not Faith alone...for if Christ did not Atone, a work of faith and love, then all would have been for naught. To act IS to have faith. IS to effectuate Grace.
We must ask...we must ask Christ to by our Saviour, and then we must follow him. If we don't, we're cut off...opps..grace has no affect on one who does not have a broken heart and contrite spirit. Answers to prayers are given by the Grace of God..but mostly, for the prayer to be answered, it must be asked...again..a work. None of our works serve us, if not done in the Name of Christ, or after his example, for all wickedness will perish, be destroyed, be cast off forever. All bad fruit (bad actions) burnt, all good fruit (good works) laid up in store.

The Faith/Works debate is the silliest debate out there. A point Satan uses to divide you and I..when there is nothing worth dividing ourselves over...like our similar beliefs. In the end, I and the other always end up agreeing..(of course Grace is the only thing that qualifies us..but our demeanor, our life should reflect it...and if not, then something needs straightening.

This is a very foolish statement because :

1. God doesn't give us conflicting statements in His word..

2. There are many statements in the Scripture that says we are saved by grace through faith:

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.
—John 1:14-18

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
—Romans 5:1-2

So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surp***ing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to har*** me, to keep me from becoming conceited. Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
—2 Corinthians 12:7-10

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our tresp***es, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
—Ephesians 1:3-10

And you were dead in the tresp***es and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the p***ions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our tresp***es, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
—Ephesians 2:1-10

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly p***ions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
—***us 2:11-13

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
—Hebrews 4:15-16

There are p***ages Jesus spoke about being saved by keeping the commandments. As He did so did He know that those He was teaching this that all these had already failed and were hell bound.. YES! So why even say it? Paul explains:

Gal 3:24-25
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
There is no disagreement of this anywhere in all TRUE scripture.. IHS jim

James Banta

06-19-2011, 06:45 PM

Evidence isn't faith. I'm glad that more and more is coming out to support the events of the Bible. And I really don't care, but am also glad that as time goes, the Book of Mormon is being established by science, not destroyed. Note: lack of evidence means nothing...in the 1840's, the Book of Mormon was criticized because:
1. No one ever heard of records preserved on metal plates
2. American Indians didn't work with cement, and they didn't have large stone cities.
3. Swords couldn't be 'stained'
4. The area couldn't sustain the populations described in the BoM
5. Some practices mentioned are too bizarre..like collecting the limbs of falling enemies and taking them to a king, or why would women and children think themselves murderers, why would burying weapons of war keep one from digging them up and using them?
6. No one, that early on, could build a ship that would sail that distance.
and more...

1. Metal plates, and stone boxes (like the one JS found the plates in) have been found.
2. they did and they did
3. 'swords' were made using flint embedded in wood..which can stain, and can easily chop limbs
4. Tierra Preta...wiki it...a man made, created my man around 480BC and used until 950 AD. Matches the BoM account of Nephites cultivating the ground and becoming very prosperous....oh..Tierra Preta is the most fertile ground on earth and its a mystery...using the vast fields of it could easily sustain the populations in the BoM
5. Such practices were normal in the time period and culture..to prove your victory. At the same time, in the BoM, where the women and children thought themselves awful murderers, public human sacrifice was practiced and participated by women and children. That entire BoM population of repenting people relocated to another area...why? maybe to get away from the human sacrificing culture they used to belong to.
6. Some old school Columbus Archeologists are still stubborn but its pretty much becoming mainstream knowlegde that Pre-Columbus sailors hit the shores of America

Where is the story of the BofM confirmed as I have just shown you that the Exodus is confirmed in ancient writings in stone? There is nothing that confirms that Lehi was real, or that anyone escaped from Jerusalem, as Babylon came down on the city and destroyed it.

There have been metal scrolls found one as part of Dead Sea Scrolls.. From the The Jerusalem Post we read:

Though part of the official Dead Sea Scrolls Collection, the Copper Scroll differs from the others in that it is written entirely on thin sheets of alloyed copper rather than papyrus or leather. Furthermore, the Copper Scroll is neither scriptural nor literary, but rather a detailed list of approximately sixty locations where vast amounts of gold, silver, coins, vessels, and other religious artifacts are hidden. Such Temple treasures might also include the Ark of the Covenant. THE SCROLL was found rolled in two parts and badly oxidized. Fearing it would crumble like thin gl***, experts debated for four years over the best way to open it. Finally the Scroll was sent to a lab in Manchester, England where they cut it into twenty-three strips with a high-speed saw. Photographs of the strips were taken, and then, since the scroll had been found during an expedition sponsored by the Jordan Department of Antiquities, the pieces were sent back to the country.
It is my contention that never was scripture ever written and preserved on metal plates or scrolls.. It is always papyrus or vellum, never metal.. That is still a strike against the idea of the BofM..

Men through the world had used lime cement for 1,000s of years.. Even in the Far East where science tells us that almost the full population of the Americas originated, a lime cement was used often. This is a very weak "proof" of the BofM..

Swords that are in the BofM would be patterned after the sword of Laban would they not? And according to the BofM steel was available to produce them but none like that have been found.. Yes the clubs with sharp stone of Meteoric steel embedded on them were used.. Steel was unknown to these people.. Through the BofM says it was..

Did agriculture exist in the Americas.. You have no argument there..

Now to prove the BofM you must show that the rise of the great nation of Mesoamerica existed when the BofM says they existed.. You must show the great calamities at the meridian of time destroyed much of these cities.. the time line of the settlement of the great cities nor of their destruction fits with the timeline of the BofM..

Between 100,000 and 200,000 people lived there at its peak around 600 A.D., making it one of the ancient world's largest cities with an urban core covering some twenty square kilometers. Settlement began about 200 B.C. and the basic layout of the city was complete by the mid-second century A.D.

Source: Teotihuacan | Thematic Essay | Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History | The Metropolitan Museum of Art

Does the BofM teach that the children of Lehi fell into full apostasy by the 2nd century BC? Enough that all the people had fallen into idolatry at that time.. I never read that.. God always had a prophet to lead the people toward the coming of Jesus.. The records of Lehi and Nephi seem to survive, Could that have happened if nonbelievers held them.. After all they were gold, right? Don't you find it strange that during the life and death of Jesus the city grew and idolatry flourished as He was said to be there teaching the people? I do! IHS jim

BigJulie

06-19-2011, 09:25 PM

[QUOTE=James Banta;90908]I know that mormonism teaches that the Church has existed from the days of Adam but that is not what the Bible teaches. Gen 4:3-4 And in process of time it came to p***, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

It appears that the Lord was involved from the beginning teaching of His ways of what is acceptable to Him and what is not.

The Bible says that the disciples were even to leave the city until they are indued with power. That happened as the Holy Spirit was given to those that believed and the Church was born.. Christian baptism didn't exist until that date.. Yes Jesus is the Christ, the cornerstone on which the Church is built but it is the Church is Christian not Her Lord.. No more that the Church is the Lord.. Again built on Him, but not Him.

Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

I am NOT missing that point.. These men in Acts 19 were also baptized like Jesus was baptized, but Paul rebaptized then as it tells us clearly in verse 5 "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Paul didn't just confirm them he baptized them all over again.. I guess you missed that.. But, baptism, either time, meant the same thing. When and how are you changing the meaning of the word baptism? Regardless of what it symbolizes, baptism is baptism.

That is what I am saying.. You have a baptism of repentance.. That is John's baptism.. That is not the believers Baptism.. We identify with the death burial and resurrection of Jesus.. It has nothing to do with the washing away of sin..

Act 2:38 Then 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.

By the time a person receives Christian baptism their sins have long been forgiven.. It is identification with Jesus we are doing in baptism (Romans 6:3-4), not washing away our sins.. Only Jesus through His commitment to His death burial and resurrection was fulfilling all righteousness. You can't be made righteous by completing a commanded ordinance.. You can't be righteous and ignore what Christ asks us to do.

I want you to look at the baptism of Jesus (John 1:29-33).. Where did anyone lay hands on Him to give Him the Gift of the Holy Spirit? And yet, the Spirit descended on him like a dove and His Father spoke, behold my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.

Act 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

Am I missing something or are you making stuff up that isn't part of the scripture? If you can site any Christian source that tells you that Jesus ever had someone lay hands on Him to give Him the Holy Spirit I will back off and see baptism your way.. How about Christ taught us what baptism is and we see it through His example. We also see that it is through the laying on of hands that the gift of the Holy Ghost is given to those who are not Christ rather than just as a dove descending. It is interesting for me to meet the Christian who claims that they don't need to be baptized as Christ was in water and then somehow, as if they were Christ, the Holy Ghost just descends on them.

And you deny that a man an a woman who make promises to each other and to God to live under His holy ordinance of marriage are married even if they didn't get the State's permission? I was thinking more like a pastor or preacher or someone who God has ordained in that position rather than just living together and calling it good--which is what we see quite a bit of.

I think it would be correct to state that intent with the Church, but if a couple doesn't want to involve the State, even if they don't want the Church to stand as witness it is God that joins them not Caesar! Why is that a farce? You are going on on some sort of tangent here to justify your position on baptism. So, are you saying that two people can just committ to each other and that a "spiritual" marriage is good enough--no ceremony, etc?

Oh I think quoting a young Austrian girl to prove your point is great!.. What is the matter you couldn't find a scriptural reference to make your point? No, I used the baptism of Christ--that seemed like quite enough to teach us how we should be baptized. I used Maria Van Trapp because what she noticed is true .
would think Not.. All that God has commanded us is Spiritual. There is not one ordinance that is not spiritual. Our births, baptism, marriages, and our deaths, all are spiritual before God.. And if you notice all of these also involve our physcial bodies (except you want to exclude baptism)---birth, marriage and death all involve a physical manifestation. Even the Sacrament is a physical manifestation of our spiritual state. As Maria Van Trapp said, we wouldn't think to say we love someone and then deny them a hug. Why would we think we can tell God we love Him and then deny what He asks us to do?

Nope can't do it because all such believers, believe that they are following the example of Jesus and Julie one group that does so you shouldn't draw spiritual swords with Society of Friends. The salvation Army is another that church that sees no reason to include the physical rite as a practice of the church.. Personally I don't agree but nether do I condemn them for this tenet of their faith.. they are 100% reliant on the Blood of Jesus. Unlike momronism that is mostly reliant of their works and only count on Jesus after all they can do.. IHS jim And your point was that you follow the teachings found within the Bible. When one group can say they see baptism by water and by the spirit and another by the spirit alone...and you are okay either way, I say, this is not following the Bible.

One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

BigJulie

06-19-2011, 09:29 PM

[QUOTE=BigJulie;90667][QUOTE]

Instead of your one sentence denials how about showing me that what you say is the truth? here are two statements that seem to conflict Please explain how both statements are true:

Eph 2:8-9
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.

2 Nephi 25:23
For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

One says it is NOT BY WORK so that no one can boast of their righteousness, and the other says we must do it all and God through His grace fills in where we miss.. Completely different in the meaning and yet mormonism calls both these books scripture and God's word.. Don't you wish you could have scripture that didn't conflict with each other.. IHS jim

As I said James--tell me exactly how you are faithful without works and then you can criticize me believing that faith without works is dead and that we need to do somthing other than just say it.

BigJulie

06-19-2011, 09:38 PM

[QUOTE][QUOTE=James Banta;90911]There have been metal scrolls found one as part of Dead Sea Scrolls.. From the The Jerusalem Post we read:
[B][INDENT]Though part of the official Dead Sea Scrolls Collection, the Copper Scroll differs from the others in that it is written entirely on thin sheets of alloyed copper rather than papyrus or leather. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found after 1947.

James, you say:

It is my contention that never was scripture ever written and preserved on metal plates or scrolls.. It is always papyrus or vellum, never metal.. That is still a strike against the idea of the BofM..

And yet...

Nearly all surviving documents from Italy before the third century BC, when Rome began its conquest of the peninsula, are in Etruscan. The vast majority of these inscriptions are simply names on tombstones.53 The Bonfantes list only eight Etruscan documents of any length, half of which are written on metal.54 These four metal plates are also the oldest of the eight major surviving Etruscan documents; all of them are sacred texts.

4.1. The lead plate of Santa Marinella (500 BC), written on both sides, was a religious text.55

4.2. The Pyrgi plates (early 5C BC) have been discussed above (2.9). They represent not only one of the earliest lengthy Etruscan documents, but also sacred writing on gold plates in both Phoenician and Etruscan. Although not quite a "Rosetta Stone," these plates were important in the deciphering of Etruscan.

4.3. The lead tablet of Magliano (475—450 BC) (inscribed on both sides) is a religious text discussing rituals and sacrifices.56 Since both the Santa Marinella (4.1) and the Magliano lead plates were inscribed on both sides, it clearly indicates that they were not intended as dedicatory inscriptions to be mounted on walls but were to be handled while read.

4.4. The famous bronze haruspicina (liver divination) model Settima (3C—1C BC) is not precisely a metal plate but is nonetheless an example of sacred prophetic writing on bronze.

That the three oldest Etruscan texts of any length (4.1, 4.2, 4.3) are all sacred writing on metal is certainly indicative that the practice was widespread in pre-Roman Italy. The dual Phoenician/Etruscan inscription from Pyrgi (4.2, 2.9) indicates that the practice was most likely adopted from Phoenicia, where examples of writing sacred texts on metal plates date much earlier.

http://maxwellins***ute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=1&id=637#15

James Banta

06-20-2011, 08:31 AM

[QUOTE][QUOTE] The Dead Sea Scrolls were found after 1947.

James, you say:

And yet...

Did you even read what I said or is it that you couldn't understand. There is no books of scripture written in all Israel or by the Church on metal plates or scrolls.. the metal copper scrolls found with the DSS do NOT contain scripture.. All your other "proofs" that sacred writings were written on metal plates are NOT the scriptures but texts of the idols and false gods of the nations.. All you have done in all these examples you pick up from mormon sources is prove that what I have said here in true and accurate. The Books of scripture (Not just religious texts of other gods and people that were not of Israel, or the Church) were never written on metal but instead papyrus and velum.. Nothing you have said here has shown that statement to be inaccurate.. What it does show is that the God plates were less and less likely to have ever existed.. IHS jim

BigJulie

06-20-2011, 08:59 AM

Did you even read what I said or is it that you couldn't understand. There is no books of scripture written in all Israel or by the Church on metal plates or scrolls.. the metal copper scrolls found with the DSS do NOT contain scripture.. All your other "proofs" that sacred writings were written on metal plates are NOT the scriptures but texts of the idols and false gods of the nations.. All you have done in all these examples you pick up from mormon sources is prove that what I have said here in true and accurate. The Books of scripture (Not just religious texts of other gods and people that were not of Israel, or the Church) were never written on metal but instead papyrus and velum.. Nothing you have said here has shown that statement to be inaccurate.. What it does show is that the God plates were less and less likely to have ever existed.. IHS jim

Oh---you think that Nephi had to follow exactly what Israelites did--the fact that metal plates were used way back that other religions used for their sacred writings in the same area doesn't matter as long as metal plates have not been found yet for the Biblical writings. Interesting--and that is why you noted the Dead Sea scrolls, which were Biblical writings and in which metal plates were found with them, but the metal plates were not Biblical text.

So, then, a discovery like this should make you believe the Book of Mormon since you seem to think you need proof of metal plates with Biblical text dating from the time of the Book of Mormon in order to believe:

Discovered in 1979, these scrolls were found inside one of a series of burial caves called Ketef Hinnom in a hillside just west of Jerusalem. They were two small silver scrolls, about 1″ x 4″ in size, and much care was taken over a three year period to unroll them to read them. They had archaic Hebrew text on them. They determined that the scrolls date to approximately 600 BC, very near the time that Lehi left Jerusalem.

Amazingly, the scrolls contain the oldest surviving citations of the Hebrew Bible, in addition to the oldest surviving reference to Yahweh (Jehovah or LORD). The text comes from primarily Numbers 6:24-26, which is a priesthood blessing (or ordinance) the Lord instructed Moses to teach Aaron to give to the Israelites.

http://www.templestudy.com/2011/04/07/authentic-ancient-metal-plates/

James Banta

06-20-2011, 09:53 AM

[BigJulie;90914] Gen 4:3-4 And in process of time it came to p***, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

It appears that the Lord was involved from the beginning teaching of His ways of what is acceptable to Him and what is not.

Just how does this show that the Church existed in the days that Able's sacrifice was accepted by the Lord?? That makes no sense. Please show where the Church existed at that time..

Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

But, baptism, either time, meant the same thing. When and how are you changing the meaning of the word baptism? Regardless of what it symbolizes, baptism is baptism.

One Lord, NOT THREE, One faith in that Lord, and one baptism into that Lord.. I do hope one day you will come to know that..

I see the meaning of Baptism is now in question so lets see what it means in the language we both speak..

Baptism
Ecclesiastical . a ceremonial immersion in water, or application of water, as an initiatory rite or sacrament of the Christian church.

Any similar ceremony or action of initiation, dedication, etc.

A trying or purifying experience or initiation. (Dictionary,com)

Looks like you are right in definition number one.. But that isn't the whole meaning. Looks like I am right as well saying that it can be an action of dedicating ones self or dedicating ones self to God.. The second and third meaning of the word don't seem to require water..

Act 2:38 Then 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.

You can't be righteous and ignore what Christ asks us to do.

No you can't be righteous if you don't obey Jesus in being baptized. But you can't be righteous if you don't obey Jesus is all that he commanded.. In short you can't ever be righteous! You can't be righteous and lust, lie, covet, or get angry. You can be righteous if you are perfect as the Father in heaven is perfect.. All these are His commandments and carry the same penalty as not being water baptized.. Don't you understand that we all are sinners? That we never see after God but go out of the way? (Romans 3:11-12).. Remember Jesus is the Way! As I said in the last post when you have obeyed Jesus in all things, then come back to me and tell me that baptism is required for salvation.. Until then I will rely on His grace though a faith that He Himself has provided for me..

And yet, the Spirit descended on him like a dove and His Father spoke, behold my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.

Act 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

So when I tell you that the Holy Spirit came on me as He did in Acts 2:1-4. Then there is the conversion of How about Christ taught us what baptism is and we see it through His example. We also see that it is through the laying on of hands that the gift of the Holy Ghost is given to those who are not Christ rather than just as a dove descending. It is interesting for me to meet the Christian who claims that they don't need to be baptized as Christ was in water and then somehow, as if they were Christ, the Holy Ghost just descends on them.

It would seem that God doesn't always follow your pattern or require that the hand of one in "authority" touch a believer to give then the Gift of the Holy Spirit. In Caesarea, a Roman centurion, Cornelius, was taught by Peter and the Holy Spirit fell on him and all that heard Peter's words, as He had fallen on the diciples at Pentecost. Then they were offered baptism.. How did that work.. It broke all your rules (Acts 10).

I was thinking more like a pastor or preacher or someone who God has ordained in that position rather than just living together and calling it good--which is what we see quite a bit of.

God appointed anyone that goes out to teach His Gospel to baptize.. He has given all Power as the Holy Spirit can into them. A pastor of a church has no more authority from God than a person who has just proclaimed faith in Jesus.. Why is it an LDS woman who believes in a non professional clergy would have to hear that from a person who believe in having a paid professional clergy?

You are going on on some sort of tangent here to justify your position on baptism. So, are you saying that two people can just committ to each other and that a "spiritual" marriage is good enough--no ceremony, etc?

No you are the one that brought other ordinances into the conversation I just gave you a Biblical answer to what you stated..

No, I used the baptism of Christ--that seemed like quite enough to teach us how we should be baptized. I used Maria Van Trapp because what she noticed is true . And if you notice all of these also involve our physcial bodies (except you want to exclude baptism)---birth, marriage and death all involve a physical manifestation. Even the Sacrament is a physical manifestation of our spiritual state. As Maria Van Trapp said, we wouldn't think to say we love someone and then deny them a hug. Why would we think we can tell God we love Him and then deny what He asks us to do?

And I rightly pointed out that John's baptism, the baptism that Jesus submitted to is not Christian baptism.. I used the scripture to make that point. Did you read what in written about John's baptism in Acts 19? It doesn't sound like you checked it out before you ran back in here with more posting when you haven't any biblical idea of what you are talking about.. You go out to show that a Austrian child had to say about what Love is.. Love doesn't require a hug any more than baptism is required for salvation.. Ho you don't hug anyone you don't love but you don't have to hug anyone to love them either.. She had a very childlike idea how to show love.. I ask you again, why do you say you love Jesus but you don't do as he commanded.. He commands perfection remember? Yet you have admitted many times that you are NOT perfect.. You must not love the Lord!

And your point was that you follow the teachings found within the Bible. When one group can say they see baptism by water and by the spirit and another by the spirit alone...and you are okay either way, I say, this is not following the Bible.

And I have told you that Baptism doesn't always require water.. A person can commit themselves to God and devote themselves to Him and being in His service without water baptism.. That life is also a baptism as I have shown you.. You have admitted to me that in the waters of baptism there is no power to cleanse a person of sin. That the power to do so in found only in the Blood that he shed. That is the baptism many that deny water baptism see where their baptism lays. They look to birth not baptism. One of water one of Spirit.. One natural one spiritual (John 3:6-6).. Baptism is becoming one with Him, being taking into the Body of Christ, the Church.. That is something Jesus does not man (Acts 2:47).. IHS jim

BigJulie

06-20-2011, 10:15 AM

[QUOTE=James Banta;90936]Just how does this show that the Church existed in the days that Able's sacrifice was accepted by the Lord?? That makes no sense. Please show where the Church existed at that time.. The Lord was involved and teaching the children of Adam how to follow Him. What exactly is your definition of Christ's church? Isn't it, those who are taught of and follow the Lord?

One Lord, NOT THREE, One faith in that Lord, and one baptism into that Lord.. I do hope one day you will come to know that.. I do--but it appears that you don't.

I see the meaning of Baptism is now in question so lets see what it means in the language we both speak..

Baptism
Ecclesiastical . a ceremonial immersion in water, or application of water, as an initiatory rite or sacrament of the Christian church.

Any similar ceremony or action of initiation, dedication, etc.

A trying or purifying experience or initiation. (Dictionary,com)

Looks like you are right in definition number one.. But that isn't the whole meaning. Looks like I am right as well saying that it can be an action of dedicating ones self or dedicating ones self to God.. The second and third meaning of the word don't seem to require water.. Yes, what ACTION or ceremony is that exactly then if it isn't baptism by immersion as taught by Christ? As I said--what is the difference with someone who says that living together is just the same as marriage as long as it in their heart?

No you can't be righteous if you don't obey Jesus in being baptized. But you can't be righteous if you don't obey Jesus is all that he commanded.. In short you can't ever be righteous! So, what are you saying then--never mind even trying to do as He did such as be baptized?

You can't be righteous and lust, lie, covet, or get angry. You can be righteous if you are perfect as the Father in heaven is perfect.. All these are His commandments and carry the same penalty as not being water baptized.. Don't you understand that we all are sinners? That we never see after God but go out of the way? (Romans 3:11-12).. Remember Jesus is the Way! As I said in the last post when you have obeyed Jesus in all things, then come back to me and tell me that baptism is required for salvation.. Until then I will rely on His grace though a faith that He Himself has provided for me.. Yes, we are all sinners, which is why are commanded to repent and be baptized. Christ is who saves and it is listening to Christ that changes us--and one of the things He tells us is to be baptized and even showed us how it is done. I don't think His intent was for us to throw our hands up in the air and say, well, since it is impossible to keep all He says, I might as well as not even try to do as He does.

So when I tell you that the Holy Spirit came on me as He did in Acts 2:1-4. Then there is the conversion of What??

It would seem that God doesn't always follow your pattern or require that the hand of one in "authority" touch a believer to give then the Gift of the Holy Spirit. In Caesarea, a Roman centurion, Cornelius, was taught by Peter and the Holy Spirit fell on him and all that heard Peter's words, as He had fallen on the diciples at Pentecost. Then they were offered baptism.. How did that work.. It broke all your rules (Acts 10). It doesn't--one receives a witness of the Holy Ghost before one receives a gift of the Holy Ghost--which is why I am sure after Cornelius was baptized, he received the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands as is taught in the Bible. I am sure that Paul did not feel like he needed to spell this out to those who already had and understood the gospel. What was needed to be taught is that God is not a respecter of persons and that a non-Jew can receive a witness of the Holy Ghost to the truthfullness of Christ as well and then proceed with baptism.

God appointed anyone that goes out to teach His Gospel to baptize.. He has given all Power as the Holy Spirit can into them. A pastor of a church has no more authority from God than a person who has just proclaimed faith in Jesus.. Why is it an LDS woman who believes in a non professional clergy would have to hear that from a person who believe in having a paid professional clergy? What? Even in the NT, men were ordained. It is only when the break occured from Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy that Protestism EVENTUALLY gave up the belief in authority to baptize, etc. My catholic friend said that it took a bishop to do the "laying on of hands" to receive the Holy Ghost. I think it became a matter of convenience for Protestantism to believe "all believers" had authority. This is also the reason there are so many fractions within Protestantism--the minute you believe, you are an authority to do whatever you want and if you disagree--just start a new sect--as long as you agree with a few fundamentals--all the rest is up for debate.

And I rightly pointed out that John's baptism, the baptism that Jesus submitted to is not Christian baptism.. And I say, oh brother. Christ gave us the example--now you want to disqualify it?

I used the scripture to make that point. Did you read what in written about John's baptism in Acts 19? So, what do you think this second "baptism" looked like? Since they were already believers---shouldn't they just already be spiritually baptized and have no need of even a second baptism? These scriptures speak more to the need for baptism than for some automatic spiritual baptism once believed and that is enough. All I hear is that they had not yet heard the gospel of Jesus Christ, but merely the prophecying of Jesus Christ to come. Hence, they were baptized into the fold and received the Holy Ghost.

I ask you again, why do you say you love Jesus but you don't do as he commanded.. He commands perfection remember? Yet you have admitted many times that you are NOT perfect.. You must not love the Lord! Once again, oh brother. So, you excuse yourself from following Christ because you can't do ALL he commands you to do? Lame excuse.

And I have told you that Baptism doesn't always require water.. A person can commit themselves to God and devote themselves to Him and being in His service without water baptism.. Why on earth the second baptism then? Seems strange in light of this belief of yours.

That life is also a baptism as I have shown you.. You have admitted to me that in the waters of baptism there is no power to cleanse a person of sin. That the power to do so in found only in the Blood that he shed. That is the baptism many that deny water baptism see where their baptism lays. They look to birth not baptism. One of water one of Spirit.. One natural one spiritual (John 3:6-6).. Baptism is becoming one with Him, being taking into the Body of Christ, the Church.. That is something Jesus does not man (Acts 2:47).. IHS jim Yup, and there are plenty of people who view marriage in the same way--as long as they love each other and are committed, who needs a ceremony or piece of paper. They are "spiritually" bound and that is enough to them. The problem is--God seems to care about a physical manifestation of an inward decision. Christ, even being perfect, and in no need of any spiritual change was obedient and baptized to fulfill all righteousness. I guess your Christian friends see themselves as above this.

James Banta

06-20-2011, 04:55 PM

The Lord was involved and teaching the children of Adam how to follow Him. What exactly is your definition of Christ's church? Isn't it, those who are taught of and follow the Lord?

I do--but it appears that you don't.

Yes, what ACTION or ceremony is that exactly then if it isn't baptism by immersion as taught by Christ? As I said--what is the difference with someone who says that living together is just the same as marriage as long as it in their heart?

So, what are you saying then--never mind even trying to do as He did such as be baptized?

Yes, we are all sinners, which is why are commanded to repent and be baptized. Christ is who saves and it is listening to Christ that changes us--and one of the things He tells us is to be baptized and even showed us how it is done. I don't think His intent was for us to throw our hands up in the air and say, well, since it is impossible to keep all He says, I might as well as not even try to do as He does.

What??

It doesn't--one receives a witness of the Holy Ghost before one receives a gift of the Holy Ghost--which is why I am sure after Cornelius was baptized, he received the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands as is taught in the Bible. I am sure that Paul did not feel like he needed to spell this out to those who already had and understood the gospel. What was needed to be taught is that God is not a respecter of persons and that a non-Jew can receive a witness of the Holy Ghost to the truthfullness of Christ as well and then proceed with baptism.

What? Even in the NT, men were ordained. It is only when the break occured from Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy that Protestism EVENTUALLY gave up the belief in authority to baptize, etc. My catholic friend said that it took a bishop to do the "laying on of hands" to receive the Holy Ghost. I think it became a matter of convenience for Protestantism to believe "all believers" had authority. This is also the reason there are so many fractions within Protestantism--the minute you believe, you are an authority to do whatever you want and if you disagree--just start a new sect--as long as you agree with a few fundamentals--all the rest is up for debate.

And I say, oh brother. Christ gave us the example--now you want to disqualify it?

So, what do you think this second "baptism" looked like? Since they were already believers---shouldn't they just already be spiritually baptized and have no need of even a second baptism? These scriptures speak more to the need for baptism than for some automatic spiritual baptism once believed and that is enough. All I hear is that they had not yet heard the gospel of Jesus Christ, but merely the prophecying of Jesus Christ to come. Hence, they were baptized into the fold and received the Holy Ghost.

Once again, oh brother. So, you excuse yourself from following Christ because you can't do ALL he commands you to do? Lame excuse.

Why on earth the second baptism then? Seems strange in light of this belief of yours.

Yup, and there are plenty of people who view marriage in the same way--as long as they love each other and are committed, who needs a ceremony or piece of paper. They are "spiritually" bound and that is enough to them. The problem is--God seems to care about a physical manifestation of an inward decision. Christ, even being perfect, and in no need of any spiritual change was obedient and baptized to fulfill all righteousness. I guess your Christian friends see themselves as above this.

The Church is the Body of Christ an organism that began the Day God came to live in those that believe.. It is called Pentecost. The Church are those in His body He called out of the world to be His Children. The Church is not those that lived on the other side of the cross.. The Church is not the children of Israel but all who are reborn of God, forgiven and made pure by His blood.. None of that happened before Pentecost.

We can do a "IS SO, IS NOT"argument all day about the one Lord, one Faith one Baptism.. I know you have a different Jesus than the Church holds to be Her Lord.. Her Lord is God, the God that is God from everlasting to everlasting.. Not was once a man who became a God by obedience to laws and ordinances.. One Lord? Not in mormonism for there are three with whom you have to do!

You are missing the definition that baptism is also a trying or purifying experience.. I allow people to hold that definition and don't try to force them to believe every point that I hold.. Since we are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus just how is baptism required in that statement.. And that was the statement of both Paul in Eph 2:8-9 and Jesus in John 3:15-16..No where in all the scripture is it said that salvation saves us by putting way the filth of the flesh.. But the scripture says that it gives us a good conscience toward God.. Just where is your authority to say that baptism is a saving ordinance.. In Mark 16? Do you also pick up snakes and drink poison to prove that you believe? Why not? It is just as much part of that context as "those who believe and are baptize" is..

You aren't listening again.. I never said "DON'T BE BAPTIZED". All I said was that Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Life and no one comes to the Father but by Him.. Not by water, not by someone's invented authority just by Faith in Jesus as He made Clear in John 3:15-16.. I said baptism has nothing to do with salvation.. Just like not being a murderer or a thief has nothing to do with it.. just like being perfect has nothing to do with it.. Salvation is not of works of righteousness it is of God's grace though faith in the Jesus who has always been God plus NOTHING!

That was a bit confusing and I understand your confusion.. But the Holy Spirit came on me as he did the believers in Acts 2:1-4. That happened at my conversion.. My conversion of how Jesus taught what baptism is and see it in his example.. We also see that the Holy Spirit came to Jesus as He did to the believers.. No one touched them. Only by the authority of God did this power from on high come to all who believe.. I hope that is better..

No where in the scripture is an important step of receiving the Holy Spirit not explained in the scripture.. This p***age says that Cornelius received the Holy Spirit the "same as we".. I am in agreement with the scripture here you are NOT.. Peter received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and no one had to touch Him! Cornrlius received the Holy Spirit and no one touched him. These are Biblical facts.. You can disagree but it is you out od agreement with scripture not I.
How about when Jesus gave Him the Holy Spirit (John 20:22). Why don't you breath on people to give them the Holy Spirit? The method or the timing isn't important.. The promise that He would come to us is. The promise was fulfilled at Pentecost and every time a person first believes.. What you are sure of totally disagrees with what the scripture teaches.. You actually think Paul was the teacher of these truths? You didn't check my references at all did you..

Yes men were ordained but you won't like that definition either.. To ordain was yo choose for a purpose.. Priesthood is NOT the power to act in God's name.. That is the reservation of the children of God.. Jesus said "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." (Matthew 28:18-20). See Jesus has all power if we are one with Him whether we are male, female, bond or free we share His power because we are His children, heirs of all He has. That isn't because of priesthood it;s because of our family connection to Him.. Priesthood was always spoken of in connection with sacrifice. Even is judging leprosy sacrifice is involved.. LDS priesthood is more priest craft than the power of God..

Unless you have recognized the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit as the the One true eternal God, the creator of all things including the elements, the sub atomic particles that all thing are built from you are not my sister for you are of your father (John 8:44). I do not claim even spiritual family relationship with those that deny God.. The example of christian baptism lays in those in acts that took their lives in their hands and be seen as a Christian in a Roman world. It was a death sentence..

This baptism of John was not a first baptism it was no baptism at all. The ordiance isn't to wash away sin.. How many times must you be told.. Only the blood of Jesus has that power. You are looking for the permission of men for everything you do, whether it's baptism, or marriage. So do it that way.. I look for the approval of my Lord.. The Bible tells us that the physical world doesn't matter it's what is spiritual that counts.

Eph 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
So fight for gaining physical victories in baptism, in marriage. Fight against pornography and ****sexuality. These are just somtyms of the real illness the evil hearts of men.. These can only be cured in the blood of Jesus only He can change the heart away fro sin and bring it toward God.. IHS jim