An Example

[James Banta]

here is one more example of the poor Biblical interpretation of the LDS


Gen 6:2
That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Almost to a person the LDS will say "Angels came to earth and fathered a race of super human, giants." But the first LAW of Christian Biblical interpretation is to always interpret the OT in the light of the NT.. And what does Jesus say about angel taking wives?


Matthew 22:30
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Why is is that a prophet would make an error as HUGE as this? Why would a people lead by a prophet look to the people that rejected the clear prophesies of Jesus is their own books instead of looking to what Jesus teaches in the matter? In Gen 6 it is said that these "sons of God took the daughters of men as wives". Either these "Sons of God" are NOT angels as many of the LDS believe or Jesus lied.. Seems that most LDS would rather accept the teaching of the Jewish teachers on the interpretation of the OT than trust what Jesus clearly taught about at least this issue.. This gives reason to be concern that any of their interpretation have any authority from the Holy Spirit in any way.. IHS jim

[Snow Patrol]

Your first error is that the LDS believe that Gen. 6:2 is referring to angels. I certainly don't.

[James Banta]

Your first error is that the LDS believe that Gen. 6:2 is referring to angels. I certainly don't.

I showed my source.. All you have done is give a personal belief which means nothing.. IHS jim

[Snow Patrol]

Sources? What LDS sources have your provided? All you have done is shown two scriptures and then given us YOUR personal interpretation of our beliefs which in your words "mean nothing."

[Snow Patrol]

Here, I'll provide you with LDS sources....

Moses 8
12 And Noah was four hundred and fifty years old, and begat Japheth; and forty-two years afterward he begat Shem of her who was the mother of Japheth, and when he was five hundred years old he begat Ham.
13 And Noah and his sons hearkened unto the Lord, and gave heed, and they were called the sons of God.
14 And when these men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, the sons of men saw that those daughters were fair, and they took them wives, even as they chose.

Oh, darn it. I just proved your first post was in error. Sorry, not sorry.

[Sir]

Sources? What LDS sources have your provided? All you have done is shown two scriptures and then given us YOUR personal interpretation of our beliefs which in your words "mean nothing."

LOL....man, this is a perfect example of why I quit coming here on any regular basis. It doesn't take much to debunk James' posts, especially in this case where he debunks his own post!

Dude, the apologetics of the critics is so bad around here that even Jill hasn't logged-in here since October 4th!!! :D:p

[Snow Patrol]

LOL....man, this is a perfect example of why I quit coming here on any regular basis. It doesn't take much to debunk James' posts, especially in this case where he debunks his own post!

Dude, the apologetics of the critics is so bad around here that even Jill hasn't logged-in here since October 4th!!! :D:p

It is pretty bad. I rarely poke my head in the door but I've cleared a couple things off my plate so I thought I'd come take a look. I don't like well established threads so I picked this thread and was immediately surprised at the errors in it. Then, when I post that most LDS don't believe that I'm hit with "my opinion means nothing". But oh the HYPOCRISY. Interpretation of our beliefs (opinion) was all that was in the OP.

[Snow Patrol]

This place isn't very active. I just checked and it looks like out of all the different areas of WM only 4 have had posts in the month of November. There's no need for her to log in.

[Sir]

It is pretty bad. I rarely poke my head in the door but I've cleared a couple things off my plate so I thought I'd come take a look. I don't like well established threads so I picked this thread and was immediately surprised at the errors in it. Then, when I post that most LDS don't believe that I'm hit with "my opinion means nothing". But oh the HYPOCRISY. Interpretation of our beliefs (opinion) was all that was in the OP.

Yep. I rarely come here too.

And obviously the couple of LDS-critical posters remaining don't change at all.

[TheSword99]

Yep. I rarely come here too.

And obviously the couple of LDS-critical posters remaining don't change at all.


Looks like you're talking to yourself.

[TheSword99]

Here, I'll provide you with LDS sources....

Moses 8
12 And Noah was four hundred and fifty years old, and begat Japheth; and forty-two years afterward he begat Shem of her who was the mother of Japheth, and when he was five hundred years old he begat Ham.
13 And Noah and his sons hearkened unto the Lord, and gave heed, and they were called the sons of God.
14 And when these men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, the sons of men saw that those daughters were fair, and they took them wives, even as they chose.

Oh, darn it. I just proved your first post was in error. Sorry, not sorry.

Sorry, but the book of Moses is not inspired scripture. Do you think you can stick with God's Word, the Holy Bible? Otherwise, it's like a Jehovah's Witness using the NWT.

[theway]

Sorry, but the book of Moses is not inspired scripture. Do you think you can stick with God's Word, the Holy Bible? Otherwise, it's like a Jehovah's Witness using the NWT.You've got to be kidding... How could you have missed the obvious point of Snow Patrol's post?

Let me give you a hint.... The fact that you do not believe in the scriptures posted and we do, actually prove that James was wrong.

What's funny is that you miss such easy points, yet you want us to belive in YOUR interpretation of scriptures.

[theway]

Looks like you're talking to yourself.
LOL... talk about missing the obvious.

Who is it that is finally left talking to themselves on this forum?

[TheSword99]

You've got to be kidding... How could you have missed the obvious point of Snow Patrol's post?

Let me give you a hint.... The fact that you do not believe in the scriptures posted and we do, actually prove that James was wrong.

What's funny is that you miss such easy points, yet you want us to belive in YOUR interpretation of scriptures.

When you use uninspired writings to try and make a point, your whole point becomes moot. It's like always going to Wikipedia for spiritual Truth.

[TheSword99]

If a JW comes to my door and starts sprouting stuff from the NWT and claims "new revelations" do you really think a born again Christian is gonna believe any of it? It's no different with the lds who knock on our door and tries to use the BoM. The fact is, the lds on here have not been able to defend their faith. All you have left is this pitiful ridiculing that you do to those who can and do defend their faith and use God's Word to do it. This makes it look like some of you lds posters are really the same person.

[Snow Patrol]

Do you have a comprehension problem? James TRIED to present the LDS position as that we believe Genesis 6:2 says that "sons of God" means angels. I clearly showed that James' opinion of our beliefs is clearly in error by using LDS sources not opinion.

[TheSword99]

Do you have a comprehension problem? James TRIED to present the LDS position as that we believe Genesis 6:2 says that "sons of God" means angels. I clearly showed that James' opinion of our beliefs is clearly in error by using LDS sources not opinion.

I am not talking about Jim. I am talking about YOU and all the other lds on here using uninspired writings in an attempt to provide Truth. You tried to make a point by using the book of Moses, a book that neither Christ, His apostles or any of the 1st century Christians ever made note of.

Can you please try to defend your faith by using the Holy Scriptures?? If Jim is wrong in your view, then please use the Holy Scriptures to show where you believe he is in error.

[TheSword99]

I clearly showed that James' opinion of our beliefs is clearly in error by using LDS sources not opinion.

That's the problem right there when lds sources are not the word of God.

[Snow Patrol]

I am not talking about Jim.

Well, I am. James made a claim about LDS beliefs. I challenged him on it with my own personal beliefs. He said that my personal beliefs "mean nothing." Since he believes my beliefs "mean nothing" as to what the LDS believe then I showed him from LDS sources what the LDS believe. If you can't understand that then it is no use conversing with you.




You tried to make a point by using the book of Moses, a book that neither Christ, His apostles or any of the 1st century Christians ever made note of.


Again, the use of the Book of Moses was to PROVE that James' ***ertion was in error. Nothing more, nothing less.



Can you please try to defend your faith by using the Holy Scriptures?? If Jim is wrong in your view, then please use the Holy Scriptures to show where you believe he is in error.

Can you please wake up to the object of a discussion board and understand that if someone makes a false claim about the others beliefs it is completely relevant to use official sources to prove their claim is false.

[theway]

Well, I am. James made a claim about LDS beliefs. I challenged him on it with my own personal beliefs. He said that my personal beliefs "mean nothing." Since he believes my beliefs "mean nothing" as to what the LDS believe then I showed him from LDS sources what the LDS believe. If you can't understand that then it is no use conversing with you.


Again, the use of the Book of Moses was to PROVE that James' ***ertion was in error. Nothing more, nothing less.

Can you please wake up to the object of a discussion board and understand that if someone makes a false claim about the others beliefs it is completely relevant to use official sources to prove their claim is false.LOL... Like I said, the sad thing is that these are the people who plan on schooling us on Bible interpretation.

[James Banta]

Here, I'll provide you with LDS sources....

Moses 8
12 And Noah was four hundred and fifty years old, and begat Japheth; and forty-two years afterward he begat Shem of her who was the mother of Japheth, and when he was five hundred years old he begat Ham.
13 And Noah and his sons hearkened unto the Lord, and gave heed, and they were called the sons of God.
14 And when these men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, the sons of men saw that those daughters were fair, and they took them wives, even as they chose.

Oh, darn it. I just proved your first post was in error. Sorry, not sorry.

All this shows is that their offspring were considered to be men.. It doesn't show the false teaching that the sons of God in Genesis aren't believed to be angelic beings.. As a young man I was taught that these were angelic beings. That idea is widely help by the LDS.. I am glad you reject it, shows you have some correct thoughts in your interpretations..IHS jim

[James Banta]

Well, I am. James made a claim about LDS beliefs. I challenged him on it with my own personal beliefs. He said that my personal beliefs "mean nothing." Since he believes my beliefs "mean nothing" as to what the LDS believe then I showed him from LDS sources what the LDS believe. If you can't understand that then it is no use conversing with you.






Again, the use of the Book of Moses was to PROVE that James' ***ertion was in error. Nothing more, nothing less.




Can you please wake up to the object of a discussion board and understand that if someone makes a false claim about the others beliefs it is completely relevant to use official sources to prove their claim is false.


Let me lead you to another point on this subject.. The idea that angelic being were the subject of this verse is the same concept of believing that there are many real Gods based on psalm 82.. Both doctrines are held by many LDS.. was I wrong is bring this up? Yes, and no.. It's not you I see that but there are still many who hold a position that it does reflect.. I know, I was there.. IHS jim

[theway]

All this shows is that their offspring were considered to be men.. It doesn't show the false teaching that the sons of God in Genesis aren't believed to be angelic beings.. As a young man I was taught that these were angelic beings. That idea is widely help by the LDS.. I am glad you reject it, shows you have some correct thoughts in your interpretations..IHS jimPlease... now it's just apparent that you can't bring yourself to admit that you were wrong.
This is not a widely held belief amoung Mormons; in fact, every time I've heard it talked about in Church they go out of their way to make the point that it was not angels. The irony is that this is a widely help belief that they were angels amoung modern Christians. Just 2 months ago I got in an argument with an Evangelical that "Sons of God" only meant that they were righteous men, or God's choosen people. James, I think you need to spend time cleaning house first.

[James Banta]

LOL... Like I said, the sad thing is that these are the people who plan on schooling us on Bible interpretation.

Only when you are so far out of the Biblical meaning that you build new and false teachings.. IHS jim

[theway]

Only when you are so far out of the Biblical meaning that you build new and false teachings.. IHS jimSorry... not a clue as to what you are saying.

[RealFakeHair]

Please... now it's just apparent that you can't bring yourself to admit that you were wrong.
This is not a widely held belief amoung Mormons; in fact, every time I've heard it talked about in Church they go out of their way to make the point that it was not angels. The irony is that this is a widely help belief that they were angels amoung modern Christians. Just 2 months ago I got in an argument with an Evangelical that "Sons of God" only meant that they were righteous men, or God's choosen people. James, I think you need to spend time cleaning house first.

Okay, so they were not angels, so what does your church say they were?:confused:

[James Banta]

Okay, so they were not angels, so what does your church say they were?:confused:

Looks like I was wrong.. The closest thing to an official statement I can find on this p***age from the LDS is this:

President Joseph
Fielding Smith wrote:
Because the daughters of Noah married the sons
of men contrary to the teachings of the Lord, his
anger was kindled, and this offense was one cause
that brought to p*** the universal flood. You will see
that the condition appears reversed in the Book of
Moses. It was the daughters of the sons of God who
were marrying the sons of men, which was displeasing
unto the Lord. The fact was, as we see it revealed, that
the daughters who had been born, evidently under
the covenant, and were the daughters of the sons of
God, that is to say of those who held the priesthood,
were transgressing the commandment of the Lord
and were marrying out of the Church. Thus they were
cutting themselves off from the blessings of the
priesthood contrary to the teachings of Noah and the
will of God. (Answers to Gospel Questions, 1:136–37.)

So what I was told by my LDS teachers was wrong. A LDS teaching teaching a lie now there is a shock! The President of the LDS church gave this "Simple" explanation.. I guess it's simple to those that understand gibberish. Suddenly the daughters of men have become the daughters of the sons of God and they were marrying the sons of men? Sons of men? Where is there anything is Gen 6:2 about the sons of men? There does it say that the daughters of the sons of God married these sons of men? Doesn't the p***age say that the sons of God saw the daughters of men? How did these become the daughters of the sons of God, that is to say of those who held the priesthood, were transgressing the commandment of the Lord and were marrying out of the Church? That is much more reasonable than even the false teaching I was told of the sons of God being angelic beings.. even though it's false that idea can at least be understood.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Sorry... not a clue as to what you are saying.

You want gibberish try reading what your prophet had to say about this in Answers to Gospel Questions, 1:136–37.. I can see that you guys were right according to this official statement that is if I am reading it correctly. I am not sure since the daughters of men have been changes into the daughters of the sons of God and the sons of God changed into the sons of men.. I case you can't find this text Here it is again:


Joseph
Fielding Smith wrote:
“Because the daughters of Noah married the sons
of men contrary to the teachings of the Lord, his
anger was kindled, and this offense was one cause
that brought to p*** the universal flood. You will see
that the condition appears reversed in the Book of
Moses. It was the daughters of the sons of God who
were marrying the sons of men, which was displeasing
unto the Lord. The fact was, as we see it revealed, that
the daughters who had been born, evidently under
the covenant, and were the daughters of the sons of
God, that is to say of those who held the priesthood,
were transgressing the commandment of the Lord
and were marrying out of the Church. Thus they were
cutting themselves off from the blessings of the
priesthood contrary to the teachings of Noah and the
will of God.” (Answers to Gospel Questions, 1:136–37.)


IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

The "sons of God" are just normal people that have a relationship with their lord.....this in Genesis is found in the family tree of Seth.

"Daughters of men" are talking about people in the family tree of Cain, they do not have a relationship with God....

[TheSword99]

Well, I am. James made a claim about LDS beliefs. I challenged him on it with my own personal beliefs. He said that my personal beliefs "mean nothing." Since he believes my beliefs "mean nothing" as to what the LDS believe then I showed him from LDS sources what the LDS believe. If you can't understand that then it is no use conversing with you.






Again, the use of the Book of Moses was to PROVE that James' ***ertion was in error. Nothing more, nothing less.




Can you please wake up to the object of a discussion board and understand that if someone makes a false claim about the others beliefs it is completely relevant to use official sources to prove their claim is false.

Look, Jim's secondary point is that Jesus taught in the Holy Scriptures that we will NOT be married after death because we will be like the angels and angels do not marry. Yet the lds wants us to believe that Jesus later taught that yes we will be married for eternity. This is NOT "new revelations". This is saying Jesus lied. This is what happens when you use writings that are not by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. You have a complete conflict here that you are unable to resolve. So what does the lds do to try and fix this? They give a completely different meaning to what Jesus actually said in the Holy Bible.

[TheSword99]

Okay, so they were not angels, so what does your church say they were?:confused:

Ar least we have enough humility to admit when we make a mistake. I have been on this forum for 2 years and I honestly cannot recall any lds ever admitting when they were wrong.

[TheSword99]

At a meeting of the school of the prophet, President Young said Adam was Michael, the Archangel and he was the Father of Jesus Christ and is our God (Wilford Woodruff Journal, Dec. 16, 1867)



So here's my question:

If Adam was a god, why is his offspring fallen men?

BTW, 1 Cor. 15:47-48 tells us the first man Adam was taken from the earth he did not come from heaven.

[James Banta]

The "sons of God" are just normal people that have a relationship with their lord.....this in Genesis is found in the family tree of Seth.

"Daughters of men" are talking about people in the family tree of Cain, they do not have a relationship with God....

Is this what you were taught as a mormon? I was taught that this p***age was about angels that came to the earth and created a race of giants.. I guess those that taught me this were teaching false doctrine.. IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

Is this what you were taught as a mormon? I was taught that this p***age was about angels that came to the earth and created a race of giants.. I guess those that taught me this were teaching false doctrine.. IHS jim

Well rather than calling it a "false doctrine" I would say that such teachings are a sign of poor bible scholarship and a human tendency to want to hype a invented story that is sexy over the need to seriously study the bible's text.


The context of that whole section of genesis is all about two very different family trees that split-off from Adam and Eve.

There is the family tree of Cain , we read all about each person and a little about what they did.

And we read about the godly line stemming from Seth.
We learn about Seth's kids, and how one is so close to God he walks with the Lord.

So the Genesis 6 verses are not any different in subject than what we were just reading about in the many verses before.
We are still only dealing with the two different branches of Adam's family tree.

You can see this if you simply read the whole story as a unit, and not try to jump in to the story and only read a verse out of it's context.

The "sons of god' and the "daughters of men" verse is completely in-line with the Genesis story that had led us up to these verses....

There is no way to get "angels" out of these verses....

The "giants" term is quickly defined by the bible in the very next wording = "men of renown".

Once again if you stick to the context to where the verse sits in the Text then you dont need to invent wild stories of Big Foot or horny angels.

[TheSword99]

W

The "giants" term is quickly defined by the bible in the very next wording = "men of renown".

Once again if you stick to the context to where the verse sits in the Text then you dont need to invent wild stories of Big Foot or horny angels.

Are you saying there weren't any giants? What was Goliath?

[RealFakeHair]

Are you saying there weren't any giants? What was Goliath?

Okay, so Goliath, was a giant Leprechaun.
For the record though, the average height for a man was about 5'8", so an NBA star of Jesus's day would be about 6'6" feet tall.

[alanmolstad]

Are you saying there weren't any giants? What was Goliath?Im saying that the correct understanding of "giants" in that verse is defined in that verse as "men of renown".....case-closed!

Im saying that you dont need to jump into that verse and read it out of the fuller context of the surrounding verses that led up to it..
You dont need to do that to yet understand it.


Im saying that when you back up and read the whole Genesis story that led up to this verse you see that the Text is in-fact talking about two different blanches of Adam's family tree.

One side of the tree is the family that came from Cain...and it's an evil and dark side of the family and it has stories of murder and marring more than one wife and all kinds of other stuff that was evil in the sight of God.

The other side of the family tree deals with the children of Seth and how they were good and walked with God.

Thus when the text tells us that the "sons of God" (Seth's side) intermarried with the "daughters of men" (Cain's side) we are still simply talking about some goings on between the two different branches of the human race at that point in history.
This is not a trick verse.
You can understand it by sticking to the context it appears connected within


no need to invent a story about Big foot

no need to invent a story about horny angels

[alanmolstad]

If you have any doubts about what im saying, look it up, ask anything you wish....check things out for yourself.

I think that if you can find a good website on this topic that it should teach you the same as im saying...

It should also inform you that the word we translated as "giants' is a bit minsunderstood, and that the correct understanding is to mean it in the 'men of renown" understanding....

Like saying that in the world of science Stephen Hawking is a "giant"...
But what do we mean when we call Stephen Hawking a giant?

[alanmolstad]

What was Goliath?

The fact that you ask this tells me that you are allowing something that is not in this verse to force you into a false conclusion about what this verse is saying.

When you read in Genesis about "giants" you automatically think of the story of David and Goliath, and how small david was and how big Goliath was....and this story of them two guys has colored the way you look at this genesis story.

This is a bad way to study the Genesis story.....


The Genesis 6 story stands on it's own, and does not need help from other stories...and you invite error if you twist things from one story into others...

This reminds me of the conversation i had here when i tried to get people who believe that the sun was created on the 4h day of genesis to answer my question : "What does the Bible say God created first "In the beginning"?"

They could not bring themselves to answer that question because they already had a time-line worked out for the events of day 4....and if they answered my question according to the text alone it screwed up their Young Earth time-line......

Thus they had taken a story that happens later in the Bible, and allowed it to twist their understanding of the opening of Genesis, to the point where what they believed about Genesis was not connected to the story as written in Genesis.

IN THE SAME WAY....People that teach that genesis 6 is talking about Big foot and horny angels only do so because they have allowed other later bible stories to color what they are reading in Genesis to the point where what they teach is not connected to what was written in the Genesis story.

[glm1978]

The fact that you ask this tells me that you are allowing something that is not in this verse to force you into a false conclusion about what this verse is saying.

When you read in Genesis about "giants" you automatically think of the story of David and Goliath, and how small david was and how big Goliath was....and this story of them two guys has colored the way you look at this genesis story.

This is a bad way to study the Genesis story.....


The Genesis 6 story stands on it's own, and does not need help from other stories...and you invite error if you twist things from one story into others...

This reminds me of the conversation i had here when i tried to get people who believe that the sun was created on the 4h day of genesis to answer my question : "What does the Bible say God created first "In the beginning"?"

They could not bring themselves to answer that question because they already had a time-line worked out for the events of day 4....and if they answered my question according to the text alone it screwed up their Young Earth time-line......

Thus they had taken a story that happens later in the Bible, and allowed it to twist their understanding of the opening of Genesis, to the point where what they believed about Genesis was not connected to the story as written in Genesis.

IN THE SAME WAY....People that teach that genesis 6 is talking about Big foot and horny angels only do so because they have allowed other later bible stories to color what they are reading in Genesis to the point where what they teach is not connected to what was written in the Genesis story.


Deuteronomy 3:11 - For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of GIANTs; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.


2 Samuel 21:20 - And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the GIANT.

1 Chronicles 20:6 - And yet again there was war at Gath, where was a man of great stature, whose fingers and toes were four and twenty, six on each hand, and six on each foot: and he also was the son of the GIANT.

[alanmolstad]

ask......it is important to me you understand this stuff...

[glm1978]

When I was LDS I was taught that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2 were descendants of Adam in the line of Seth.

[alanmolstad]

once again, twisting other things to color the Genesis story.

Just read the gen story in IT"S context and there is no need to twist other stuff into it....

[glm1978]

ask......it is important to me you understand this stuff...

alan I seem to remember your refusal to tell us if you were born again. I hardly think you are qualified to tell us what the Bible teaches.

[glm1978]

once again, twisting other things to color the Genesis story.

Just read the gen story in IT"S context and there is no need to twist other stuff into it....

Just read the p***ages I gave you!

[alanmolstad]

When I was LDS I was taught that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2 were descendants of Adam in the line of Seth....while I dont know what the Mormons taught you about such things...I can tell you that the clear context is teaching that we are reading about the two different branches of the family tree from Adam and eve.

Cain's family, and Seth's family....

Thats all this is about....the two branches intermarried

[alanmolstad]

Just read the p***ages I gave you!

and Im saying that if You just stick to the context of the Genesis story we dont need to invent stories of Big Foot or horny angels...LOL|


The Bible tells us clearly right there in the verse what it means by the use of the word 'giants'.....
The wording tells us clearly that it means 'men of renown"

thats what the Bible defines the term as...not me....it's the bible's definition....

also if you can find a good study bible it should tell you that the word we see translated as 'giants" should be understood as talking about "importance'...like in:"Stephen Hawking is a giant in the world of science"

Its NOT talking about his height!...LOL

Look it up for yourself kids...Im not making this stuff up, Im simply telling you what the verse says....and does not say...

[alanmolstad]

We can all go though this verse by verse if you like....
I got my bible handy here....Im ready to show you what is being talking about if you have any doubts?

[alanmolstad]

alan I seem to remember your refusal to tell us if you were born again. ....

Your attempt to make this about me has "FAILED"

I do not take the bait.
I dont not get into personal stuff.....for such topics are none of anyone's business and only serve to side-track a topic.

We shall stick to the verse in question and stick to the context that it appears within thankyou....

[alanmolstad]

if you have a doubt as to what I have said, get your bibles out and we shall go over the verse and look at the whole context that the verse appears within...we shall read the whole story that led up to this verse, and it is there we shall see that what i am saying is the ONLY correct way to view the verse and stay within the genesis context



Just tell me when you got your Bible open and we shall begin.....

[Sir]

Your attempt to make this about me has "FAILED"

I do not take the bait.
I dont not get into personal stuff.....for such topics are none of anyone's business and only serve to side-track a topic.



The topic of whether or not he is born-again is irrelevant.

That's hilarious.

Some people are ashamed of the gospel they follow and would much rather hid their candle under a bushel. Plus, it is easier to criticize and attack others while hiding what you believe and who you are.

[RealFakeHair]

:confused:
The topic of whether or not he is born-again is irrelevant.

That's hilarious.

Some people are ashamed of the gospel they follow and would much rather hid their candle under a bushel. Plus, it is easier to criticize and attack others while hiding what you believe and who you are.

When LDS missionaries walk into a investigator's home do they carry their bushels with them?:confused:

[TheSword99]

The topic of whether or not he is born-again is irrelevant.

That's hilarious.

Some people are ashamed of the gospel they follow and would much rather hid their candle under a bushel. Plus, it is easier to criticize and attack others while hiding what you believe and who you are.

Its hilarious that Jesus said we MUST be born again or we cannot see the kingdom of God? Really? The Bible teaches that if one is not born again he is still unregenerate.

[TheSword99]

Some people are ashamed of the gospel they follow and would much rather hid their candle under a bushel. Plus, it is easier to criticize and attack others while hiding what you believe and who you are.


Seems like its the lds who are ashamed of their version of the gospel since you guys have been repeatedly incapable of discussing what your church teaches.

[James Banta]

The topic of whether or not he is born-again is irrelevant.

That's hilarious.

Some people are ashamed of the gospel they follow and would much rather hid their candle under a bushel. Plus, it is easier to criticize and attack others while hiding what you believe and who you are.



Any Gospel other than teaches anything but Jesus and His actions for our benefit, to save all who would believe in Him and know that He alone is God is another gospel and those that teach it are accursed.. Are Christian ashamed of what Jesus did for us? HARDLY, we shout is as His great gift for us. Instead of suffering the wrath of God, Jesus made it possible for us to rest in God's love.. IHS jim

[glm1978]

Any Gospel other that that of what Jesus did to save all who would believe in Him and know that He alone is God is another gospel and those that teach it are accursed.. Are Christian ashamed of what Jesus did for us? HARDLY, we shout is as His great gift for us. Instead of suffering the wrath of God, Jesus made it possible for us to rest in God's love.. IHS jim


It's interesting where the apostle Paul says that if an angel from heaven should bring a different gospel we are not to believe it for if we do we are eternally condemned. Yet this is exactly how Mormonism got its start..

[theway]

It's interesting where the apostle Paul says that if an angel from heaven should bring a different gospel we are not to believe it for if we do we are eternally condemned. Yet this is exactly how Mormonism got its start..What's interesting is how little you understand about the Bible, yet you plan on coming here to school us.
Paul's statement was nothing more than rhetorical hyperbole, and was never meant to be taken literally.
Such a statement is an impossibility, even your own Theologians will attest to that.

Therefore, it would be impossible for "Mormonism to get it's start" from such a scenario.
Keep up the good work, Mormonism looks better every day when compaired with people like you.

[glm1978]

What's interesting is how little you understand about the Bible, yet you plan on coming here to school us.
Paul's statement was nothing more than rhetorical hyperbole, and was never meant to be taken literally.
Such a statement is an impossibility, even your own Theologians will attest to that.

Therefore, it would be impossible for "Mormonism to get it's start" from such a scenario.
Keep up the good work, Mormonism looks better every day when compaired with people like you.

Rhetorical hyperbole??? Is that what your church told you? Just don't take Paul seriously? My goodness, Paul was making a clear warning that there is only one Gospel of Jesus Christ and to beware of those false religious groups that teach a different gospel. It was Moroni who somehow became an angel and directed Smith to the "gold plates". Its interesting that Moroni became an angel and not a god. Can you tell us why?

Galatians 1:6-9: "I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed."


If you could lay off the sarcasm just once, maybe we can all have a real discussion.

[James Banta]

What's interesting is how little you understand about the Bible, yet you plan on coming here to school us.
Paul's statement was nothing more than rhetorical hyperbole, and was never meant to be taken literally.
Such a statement is an impossibility, even your own Theologians will attest to that.

Therefore, it would be impossible for "Mormonism to get it's start" from such a scenario.
Keep up the good work, Mormonism looks better every day when compaired with people like you.

Yes, yes every time the Bible specifically condemns mormonism it isn't to be taken literally. Paul didn't mean that we shouldn't accept teachings other than those he had given to the Church. Because mormonism teaches a different Gospel (They have added to it, and even admit doing so).. Every one has heard them say "Oh but we have so much more than you do". It is taught by the LDS church that "In its fulness, the gospel includes all the doctrines, principles, laws, ordinances, and covenants necessary for us to be exalted in the celestial kingdom. The Savior has promised that if we endure to the end, faithfully living the gospel, He will hold us guiltless before the Father at the Final Judgment" (http://www.lds.org/topics/gospel?lang=eng) This is a major addition to the simple Gospel that was taught in the Bible


1 Cor 15:1-4
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures

Just where in that are the principles, laws, ordinances, and covenants. Where is the demand to endure to the end, faithfully living the gospel? The Gospel isn't something we do, it isn't something we conform to. The Gospel is all about Jesus and what He is doing for our salvation.. Because when we were lost in tresp*** and sin Jesus died for us.. That is very GOOD NEWS, that is the GOSPEL.. IHS jim

[TheSword99]

I have to agree with glm about the constant sarcasms we get from the lds making it nearly impossible for serious discussions. Funny how they tell us we don't understand the bible when its the lds who do not believe it's even reliable.

[James Banta]

LOL....man, this is a perfect example of why I quit coming here on any regular basis. It doesn't take much to debunk James' posts, especially in this case where he debunks his own post!

Dude, the apologetics of the critics is so bad around here that even Jill hasn't logged-in here since October 4th!!! :D:p

Are you blind? I said that what I was taught by my LDS teaches is not what is believed by the LDS church on this point.. You attack before you have read the whole of the thread.. You seem to be very prejudices in your post. But that is common for the LDS.. Read the whole thread stop acting S T U P I D.. IHS jim

[TheSword99]

Yes, yes every time the Bible specifically condemns mormonism it isn't to be taken literally. IHS jim

I agree completely. How is it that others can put words in Paul's mouth and tell us he didn't really mean what he said. Paul lived and died by this Gospel.

[James Banta]

LOL... talk about missing the obvious.

Who is it that is finally left talking to themselves on this forum?

Si with this the way admits that we can teach each other and don't need the LDS to keep the site in operation.. I have said that all along... You have leave way we don't need you.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

At a meeting of the school of the prophet, President Young said Adam was Michael, the Archangel and he was the Father of Jesus Christ and is our God (Wilford Woodruff Journal, Dec. 16, 1867)



So here's my question:

If Adam was a god, why is his offspring fallen men?

BTW, 1 Cor. 15:47-48 tells us the first man Adam was taken from the earth he did not come from heaven.

Notice how quite the LDS got about this now.. But wait, they will still howl about a teaching, that some of the LDS hold, that these beings were angelic. What is taught in the LDS church is nothing moire than shifting sand. They have no real root in their teaching.. As long as you believe that God is a glorified man, that Jesus is his first creation. and Joseph Smith his prophet nothing else really matters.. NOT EVEN IF THE BofM IS THE WORD OF GOD OR NOT.. IHS jim

[TheSword99]

Are you blind? I said that what I was taught by my LDS teaches is not what is believed by the LDS church on this point.. You attack before you have read the whole of the thread.. You seem to be very prejudices in your post. But that is common for the LDS.. Read the whole thread stop acting S T U P I D.. IHS jim

Its interesting how some lds keep tabs on Jill. I think the reason most of the lds posters stop coming here is because they have no defense for their false teachings. They have run out of answers as to why these teachings conflict with the Holy Scriptures. This is why the lds all sound alike with all this LOLing.

[James Banta]

Its interesting how some lds keep tabs on Jill. I think the reason most of the lds posters stop coming here is because they have no defense for their false teachings. They have run out of answers as to why these teachings conflict with the Holy Scriptures. This is why the lds all sound alike with all this LOLing.

This laughing is something I don't understand about them.. If they had the truth wouldn't it break their hearts, as it does ours, when the truth is rejected as being a lie? It isn't the Christian here that must explain away the teachings of the Bible as not being literal. We accept what the Bible teaches without any excuses.. We hold that the Gospel spoken of in the Bible is the Gospel and tells us what God did for us, and not what the LDS demand the gospel is, that it is what we do for God with his help..

They can stop coming here when ever they want.. We then can talk about how we can reach out to them and show then the Way, the Truth, and the Life JESUS.. And instead of laughing when we hear their lies we shed tears of deep and abiding lose.. Again it will require Jesus to wipe away these tears.. Until them I weep at they God hating teachings.. IHS jim

[glm1978]

This laughing is something I don't understand about them.. If they had the truth wouldn't it break their hearts, as it does ours, when the truth is rejected as being a lie? It isn't the Christian here that must explain away the teachings of the Bible as not being literal. We accept what the Bible teaches without any excuses.. We hold that the Gospel spoken of in the Bible is the Gospel and tells us what God did for us, and not what the LDS demand the gospel is, that it is what we do for God with his help..

They can stop coming here when ever they want.. We then can talk about how we can reach out to them and show then the Way, the Truth, and the Life JESUS.. And instead of laughing when we hear their lies we shed tears of deep and abiding lose.. Again it will require Jesus to wipe away these tears.. Until them I weep at they God hating teachings.. IHS jim

I think the bishops of the local wards that these LDS posters belong to would be appalled by their posts since the church teaches to always be respectful. When I was LDS I was never told to pray for the salvation of others. If they didn't want the "restored gospel" they rejected it at their own peril.

[theway]

Rhetorical hyperbole??? Is that what your church told you? Just don't take Paul seriously? My goodness,....
Barnes’ Notes on the Bible.
Or an angel from heaven - This is a very strong rhetorical mode of expression. It is not to be supposed that an angel from heaven would preach any other than the true gospel.

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
But though we, or an angel from heaven,.... The apostle, in order to ***ert the more strongly the truth, purity, and perfection of the Gospel, as preached by him; and to deter persons from preaching another Gospel, and others from receiving it, supposes a case impossible;…

Calvin’s Commentary
And thus, when he pronounces a curse on angels who should teach any other doctrine though his argument is derived from an impossibility, it is not superfluous.

Wesley’s Notes on the Bible
1:8 But if we - I and all the apostles. Or an angel from heaven - If it were possible. Preach another gospel, let him be accursed - Cut off from Christ and God.

People’s New Testiment.
8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, etc. He supposes an impossibility in order to make his statement emphatic.

[jdjhere]

Galatians 1:8 "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

Here it is in the KJV, TheWay.

Could you please, in your own words, re-work (or re-write) this verse and type it down for us so we can all see how you interpret it. How does the JST have it??

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

[TheSword99]

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible.
Or an angel from heaven - This is a very strong rhetorical mode of expression. It is not to be supposed that an angel from heaven would preach any other than the true gospel.

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
But though we, or an angel from heaven,.... The apostle, in order to ***ert the more strongly the truth, purity, and perfection of the Gospel, as preached by him; and to deter persons from preaching another Gospel, and others from receiving it, supposes a case impossible;…

Calvin’s Commentary
And thus, when he pronounces a curse on angels who should teach any other doctrine though his argument is derived from an impossibility, it is not superfluous.

Wesley’s Notes on the Bible
1:8 But if we - I and all the apostles. Or an angel from heaven - If it were possible. Preach another gospel, let him be accursed - Cut off from Christ and God.

People’s New Testiment.
8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, etc. He supposes an impossibility in order to make his statement emphatic.


it IS impossible that an angel OF GOD would preach a false gospel. Since Mormonism has a different gospel, then one can only conclude that Moroni was NOT an angel of God.

BTW. the question was asked and you avoided it. How is it that Moroni only became an angel and not a god???

[theway]

it IS impossible that an angel OF GOD would preach a false gospel. Since Mormonism has a different gospel, then one can only conclude that Moroni was NOT an angel of God.

BTW. the question was asked and you avoided it. How is it that Moroni only became an angel and not a god???I think we need to stop awhile and reflect on the fact that you guys were proven so utterly wrong in your interpretation of Gal. 1:6-9.

This way we will always remember and never forget, just how little we should care about your understanding of the Bible, or anything to do with Mormonism.

[jdjhere]

So, TheWay??

Galatians 1:8 "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

The above is the KJV, TheWay.

Could you please, in your own words, re-work (or re-write) this verse and type it down for us so we can all see how you interpret it?

How does the JST have it??
JST- " But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

What exactly IS this verse saying to you if it does NOT say that an angel could deliver a different or "other" Gospel to people?

[jdjhere]

By the way... Happy Thanksgiving (tomorrow) to ALL the posters here. We should all be thankful for what God has given us and how He takes care of us... and that we live in a free country. Amen!

[theway]

So, TheWay??

Galatians 1:8 "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

The above is the KJV, TheWay.

Could you please, in your own words, re-work (or re-write) this verse and type it down for us so we can all see how you interpret it?

How does the JST have it??
JST- " But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

What exactly IS this verse saying to you if it does NOT say that an angel could deliver a different or "other" Gospel to people?
I would interpret it exactly the same. What you fail to realize, and what I've already pointed out, is that it can not be taken literally; it is nothing more than exaggerated rhetoric or hyperbole.

Here's why....
Angel simply means "messenger" however in this case it says that this is a messenger from "Heaven" or in other words a messenger from God.
So we are left with two scenarios, both of which would contradict scripture if taken literally.
In the first scenario Paul would be saying "If a messenger from God was to come and preach another gospel than the one I (a messenger from God who just brought you another gospel than the gospel of the Old Testament which was also delivered to you by other messengers from God) that person is to be accursed."

Do you see how Paul would be contradicting himself?

In the second scenario where Angel means Divine messenger, Paul would be saying; "If a devine messenger was to give you a message straight from God, ignore him because my message brought to you by a mortal man is the right one. In this case, I don't know about you, but I would go with the messenger who came straight from God, and not Paul. It would be impossible for a divine messenger from God to lie a be a divine messenger from God.

Either way, it sets up an impossible or contradictory scenario if taken literally.

[James Banta]

I would interpret it exactly the same. What you fail to realize, and what I've already pointed out, is that it can not be taken literally; it is nothing more than exaggerated rhetoric or hyperbole.

Here's why....
Angel simply means "messenger" however in this case it says that this is a messenger from "Heaven" or in other words a messenger from God.
So we are left with two scenarios, both of which would contradict scripture if taken literally.
In the first scenario Paul would be saying "If a messenger from God was to come and preach another gospel than the one I (a messenger from God who just brought you another gospel than the gospel of the Old Testament which was also delivered to you by other messengers from God) that person is to be accursed."

Do you see how Paul would be contradicting himself?

In the second scenario where Angel means Divine messenger, Paul would be saying; "If a devine messenger was to give you a message straight from God, ignore him because my message brought to you by a mortal man is the right one. In this case, I don't know about you, but I would go with the messenger who came straight from God, and not Paul. It would be impossible for a divine messenger from God to lie a be a divine messenger from God.

Either way, it sets up an impossible or contradictory scenario if taken literally.

I disagree with your explanation of the contradictory nature of the p***age.. here is why..
1. Paul never preached a different Gospel from the Gospel first explained in the Person of Jesus
2. It is taught that Satan can transform Himself into what appears to a man would see as an angel of light.. Since God would never send a contradictory message in the form of another Gospel, it is clear that Paul was specking of a messenger of evil doing what they do best, LIE..
3. The Gospel was never preached in the Old Testament. The Gospel is from Jesus. Though His work the Gospel tells us how that work is made available to mankind. There was no teaching of the Gospel in the OT, just prophecies about the work Jesus would do. It was never explained there how we could access His works.

I agree that this p***age the angel could be any messenger. Yes and it could be a being that appeared in every way to be an angel or being that LIED saying that one is his beloved son and we should hear him.. If the message turns out different to the Gospel of the Jesus then the one who brings is is accursed..

Since you don't seem to like the obvious meaning of the p***age it is up to you to tell us what you see it teaching.. So way, what is the non literal meaning.. IHS jim

[theway]

I disagree with your explanation of the contradictory nature of the p***age.. here is why..
Naturally you do; only in this case you would be disagreeing with almost every Bible Commentary done on this p***age as well. But then, what else is new.

1. Paul never preached a different Gospel from the Gospel first explained in the Person of JesusBut Paul wasn't talking about "the person of Jesus" having brought them a message, Paul is clearly talking about the message that he and the other Apostles had brought.
So you first case does not even apply.


2. It is taught that Satan can transform Himself into what appears to a man would see as an angel of light.. Since God would never send a contradictory message in the form of another Gospel, it is clear that Paul was specking of a messenger of evil doing what they do best, LIE.. The scripture you are referencing is not even germane to the issue here, because Paul clearly says that it is a "Angel from Heaven". At this point Satan and those third that fell, are no longer Angels from Heaven, hence Paul is clearly not talking about Satan or any other Fallen Angel. But that begs the question... if Satan can transform himself into an Angel of light, how much easier would it be for him to appear as a man; a man like Paul?



3. The Gospel was never preached in the Old Testament. The Gospel is from Jesus. Though His work the Gospel tells us how that work is made available to mankind. There was no teaching of the Gospel in the OT, just prophecies about the work Jesus would do. It was never explained there how we could access His works.Please... even Paul said that the gospel was preached before Christ, they just did not understand it. Hebrews 4:2 “For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it”
Christ also said the same thing.

I agree that this p***age the angel could be any messenger. Yes and it could be a being that appeared in every way to be an angel or being that LIED saying that one is his beloved son and we should hear him.. If the message turns out different to the Gospel of the Jesus then the one who brings is is accursed..That's the problem for you. As has been demonstrated, you have no idea what the gospel of Jesus is; how then can you pretend to tell us what it is?

Since you don't seem to like the obvious meaning of the p***age it is up to you to tell us what you see it teaching.. So way, what is the non literal meaning.. IHS jimOnce again, it's not only me, but ever other Christian Theologian. The only ones who have a problem understanding it are LDS Critics, that's because they try to use an impossible scenario which was not meant to be taken literally, against the LDS Church.
The nonliteral meaning is clear; "don't listen to anybody but us".

[alanmolstad]

actually Paul was talking about any angel or spirit being that claimed to be "from Heaven" that would dare preach a different faith that what Paul was preaching.


Thus we are to be on the look out in the future for angels who some claim are from heaven but who teach a different faith....

They are to be rejected....

[James Banta]

[theway;139616]Naturally you do; only in this case you would be disagreeing with almost every Bible Commentary done on this p***age as well. But then, what else is new.
But Paul wasn't talking about "the person of Jesus" having brought them a message, Paul is clearly talking about the message that he and the other Apostles had brought.
So you first case does not even apply.

Jesus is the Gospel.. Ever word of the Gospel is about Jesus and His work here among men.. There are no Laws, no ordinances in the Gospel.. Show me were any Bible Commentary disagrees with that or retract your erred statement that says there are such references.


The scripture you are referencing is not even germane to the issue here, because Paul clearly says that it is an "Angel from Heaven". At this point Satan and those third that fell, are no longer Angels from Heaven, hence Paul is clearly not talking about Satan or any other Fallen Angel. But that begs the question... if Satan can transform himself into an Angel of light, how much easier would it be for him to appear as a man; a man like Paul?

Satan is an angelic creation of God.. When did God ever change that status? Sorry but he is still an angel. He was created as such in heaven and until sin was found in him there he served God as His messenger.. Satan is still an angel from heaven. He is just as we are now, he is in sin and is no longer is willing to be in God's service. Your insistence that my point in this matter is erred is flat out wrong.. Also I never said that Satan didn't have the power to be seen as a man.. What I am saying that there is no power under heaven that can change the Gospel from what Paul stated into anything else.. Smith tried that and the gospel he taught is false and he is accursed..


Please... even Paul said that the gospel was preached before Christ, they just did not understand it. Hebrews 4:2 “For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it”
Christ also said the same thing.

Oh yes the OT peoples did here the message and yet never heard it.. And the p***age you quote here admits that the access method of being included in the results of the Gospel was NOT OFFERED to them.. READ IT.


Heb 4:2
For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

Maybe you should read the p***ages you quote and see that the writer to the Hebrews here is agreeing with all other scripture saying that it is by faith that we profit from the Gospel.. This p***age doesn't help your point and again destroys the teaching of mormonism that salvation comes through both faith and works (and thereby by works and not of faith (Romans 11:6)). You use the scriptures very carelessly. You don't bother to read what they are teaching.. Or is it that your eyes are so tightly closed that they won't allow their light into your heart and mind?



That's the problem for you. As has been demonstrated, you have no idea what the gospel of Jesus is; how then can you pretend to tell us what it is? Once again, it's not only me, but ever other Christian Theologian. The only ones who have a problem understanding it are LDS Critics, that's because they try to use an impossible scenario which was not meant to be taken literally, against the LDS Church. The nonliteral meaning is clear; "don't listen to anybody but us".

This is the Gospel I teach.. You have another that includes laws and ordinances. As you can see such additions are not in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is you that is not teaching Jesus and thereby ignoring the Gospel. Your religion has invented a different Jesus and a different gospel that has more to do with what we must do than what God has already done..


1 Cor 15:1-4
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures


IHS jim

[Russianwolfe]

actually Paul was talking about any angel or spirit being that claimed to be "from Heaven" that would dare preach a different faith that what Paul was preaching.


Thus we are to be on the look out in the future for angels who some claim are from heaven but who teach a different faith....

They are to be rejected....

Paul did not use the word "claim". He just said an angel from Heaven. To say any more is to wrest the scripture and pervert it meaning.

Marvin

[alanmolstad]

Paul did not use the word "claim". He just said an angel from Heaven. To say any more is to wrest the scripture and pervert it meaning.

Marvin


Very true, the "claim" that an angel has come is made by they who tell the tale to be sure...LOL

I think he said "if"..........that "if" is important later when we hear that Paul was speaking very prophetically as there have been many claims that different angels have come and offered many false teachings in God's name.

I remember the verse that said many would come in His name and lead many astray.....and we are told that many "false Christ" would rise up.......and deceive many, even the elect if they could.


America has seen this type of stuff pop up from time to time in fulfillment of Paul's warning....

[TheSword99]

Barnes Notes On The Bible:

"Or an angel from heaven - This is a very strong rhetorical mode of expression. It is not to be supposed that an angel from heaven would preach any other than the true gospel. But Paul wishes to put the strongest possible case, and to affirm in the strongest manner possible, that the true gospel had been preached to them. The great system of salvation had been taught; and no other was to be admitted, no matter who preached it; no matter what the character or rank of the preacher: and no matter with what imposing claims he came. It follows from this, that the mere rank, character, talent, eloquence, or piety of a preacher does not of necessity give his doctrine a claim to our belief, or prove that his gospel is true. Great talents may be pros***uted; and great sanc***y of manner, and even holiness of character, may be in error; and no matter what may be the rank, and talents, and eloquence, and piety of the preacher, if he does not accord with the gospel which was first preached, he is to be held accursed."

So here we have it. Paul had preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ in its entirety. Any other is a false gospel. Paul taught salvation by faith alone in Christ alone. What does this say about Mormonism which teaches that salvation is found in their church, with the consent of Smith and by obedience to a myriad of laws, ordinances and commandments? Where is Jesus Christ in any of that?

[TheSword99]

1 Cor 15:1-4
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures


IHS jim


The lds religion hardly needs Jesus Christ. It seems they only needed a partial atonement and the rest is up to them to "work out their own salvation" just like they believe Heavenly Father had to. No wonder Young taught blood atonement because of their belief that Christ's sacrifice didn't cover all sins. Spilling the blood of a murderer makes one a murderer. That's all it does. It does not save anyone's soul.

[James Banta]

The lds religion hardly needs Jesus Christ. It seems they only needed a partial atonement and the rest is up to them to "work out their own salvation" just like they believe Heavenly Father had to. No wonder Young taught blood atonement because of their belief that Christ's sacrifice didn't cover all sins. Spilling the blood of a murderer makes one a murderer. That's all it does. It does not save anyone's soul.

And when anyone added to the Gospel anything such as "blood atonement", Baptism, laying on of hands, and enduring to the end in righteousness they have invented a different gospel. Adding any laws and ordinances to the Gospel corrupts it an those that do so are accursed of God.. IHS jim

[theway]

Barnes Notes On The Bible:

"Or an angel from heaven - This is a very strong rhetorical mode of expression. It is not to be supposed that an angel from heaven would preach any other than the true gospel. But Paul wishes to put the strongest possible case, and to affirm in the strongest manner possible, that the true gospel had been preached to them. The great system of salvation had been taught; and no other was to be admitted,no matter who preached it; no matter what the character or rank of the preacher: and no matter with what imposing claims he came. It follows from this, that the mere rank, character, talent, eloquence, or piety of a preacher does not of necessity give his doctrine a claim to our belief, or prove that his gospel is true. Great talents may be pros***uted; and great sanc***y of manner, and even holiness of character, may be in error; and no matter what may be the rank, and talents, and eloquence, and piety of the preacher, if he does not accord with the gospel which was first preached, he is to be held accursed."

So here we have it. Paul had preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ in its entirety. Any other is a false gospel. Paul taught salvation by faith alone in Christ alone. What does this say about Mormonism which teaches that salvation is found in their church, with the consent of Smith and by obedience to a myriad of laws, ordinances and commandments? Where is Jesus Christ in any of that?
As usual, you missed the entire argument. What we are arguing is the part of your post that I bolded above.
Notice how it says exactly what I have been saying; that Paul's use of rhetoric in the verse is a literal impossibility.

[glm1978]

As usual, you missed the entire argument. What we are arguing is the part of your post that I bolded above.
Notice how it says exactly what I have been saying; that Paul's use of rhetoric in the verse is a literal impossibility.

Nope, you aren't getting it at all. Paul was using the strongest possible case to show that since he had taught the complete Gospel of Christ, even if an angel were to teach a another gospel, we are to dismiss it or be condemned eternally.

By the way, you never did tell us why Moroni never progressed to godhood and only became an angel...:rolleyes:

[theway]

Jesus is the Gospel.. Ever word of the Gospel is about Jesus and His work here among men.. There are no Laws, no ordinances in the Gospel.. Show me were any Bible Commentary disagrees with that or retract your erred statement that says there are such references.There you go again spouting pla***udes and building straw-men in order to draw attention away from your erroneous comments. As I stated before, Paul is talking about a gospel that "he" preached to them, not one that Jesus preached to them.




Satan is an angelic creation of God.. When did God ever change that status? Sorry but he is still an angel. He was created as such in heaven and until sin was found in him there he served God as His messenger.. Satan is still an angel from heaven. He is just as we are now, he is in sin and is no longer is willing to be in God's service. Your insistence that my point in this matter is erred is flat out wrong.. Also I never said that Satan didn't have the power to be seen as a man.. What I am saying that there is no power under heaven that can change the Gospel from what Paul stated into anything else.. Smith tried that and the gospel he taught is false and he is accursed..It's fun to watch you wiggle around trying to keep from admitting that you were wrong. But as I already pointed out to you, Paul was talking in the present and future tense. In the present or future tense, Satan is not a messenger from Heaven.




Oh yes the OT peoples did here the message and yet never heard it.. And the p***age you quote here admits that the access method of being included in the results of the Gospel was NOT OFFERED to them.. READ IT.

[B][INDENT]Heb 4:2
For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.Now you are moving the Goal Posts in order to not have to admit you were wrong.
Your claim was that "the gospel was never preached in the Old Testament" All I did was prove you were wrong.
your ***ertion had nothing to do with whether they would understand it.



Maybe you should read ...

...IHS jimJust more useless soap boxing and ranting from you, which I deleted without ever even reading.

[glm1978]

It was a "supposed" angel that founded Mormonism. Yet no angel would ever found a church. And whatever happened to Smith's account about having been visited by something evil and dark. that he was so frightened by this presence and pleaded with God to remove it? This is something the LDS will not ever tell you about.

[theway]

Nope, you aren't getting it at all. Paul was using the strongest possible case to show that since he had taught the complete Gospel of Christ, even if an angel were to teach a another gospel, we are to dismiss it or be condemned eternally.No, you are not getting it. My aurgument is the same as what every other Bible commentary says about this verse; that it creates a contradictory and impossible scenario if taken literally.


By the way, you never did tell us why Moroni never progressed to godhood and only became an angel...:rolleyes:Because it's a silly argument that you are trying to create.
If you knew anything about the Bible or LDS doctrine, you would not be asking the question.
In the Bible an Angel simply means a "messenger" and even Jesus was called an Angel. This the same with the LDS except the D&C states that an Angel can be a resurrected being or a not-yet resurrected being.
Also the word "god" would have to be defined by you first; in the Old Testament a god meant a divine being... such as an Angel is.

[glm1978]

No, you are not getting it. My aurgument is the same as what every other Bible commentary says about this verse; that it creates a contradictory and impossible scenario if taken literally.
Because it's a silly argument that you are trying to create.
If you knew anything about the Bible or LDS doctrine, you would not be asking the question.
In the Bible an Angel simply mains a "messenger" and even Jesus was called an Angel. This the same with the LDS except the D&C states that an Angel can be a resurrected being or a not-yet resurrected being.
Also the word "god" would have to be defined by you first; in the Old Testament a god meant a divine being... such as an Angel is.

That was not my question. My question was very simple. Why didn't Moroni progress to godhood? Why did he become an angel? Where does the bible say we can become angels before the resurrection?

Jesus is not, was not, never will be, an angel. He is God. You dare to demote him and make him your brother and that of the devil!

God is GOD. Stop changing the definitions. There is only One God. Did he not tell us he knows of no other Gods?

[theway]

Jesus is not, was not, never will be, an angel. He is God. You dare to demote him and make him your brother and that of the devil!

This is why any further comunication with you will be useless until you know your Bible and your history.

Our Library Dictionaries Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology Angel of the Lord
Angel of the Lord
Angel of the Lord [S]
(Heb. mal'ak yehwah). Supernatural being who bears a message on behalf of God. In many p***ages in the Old Testament, the angel of the Lord is identified with God, while in other instances a distinction is made between the Lord and the angel. In general, however, the terms "the angel of the Lord, " "the Lord, " and "God" are interchangeable.

Acts 7:30-33
30 "After forty years had p***ed, an angel appeared to Moses in the flames of a burning bush in the desert near Mount Sinai. 31 When he saw this, he was amazed at the sight. As he went over to look more closely, he heard the Lord's voice: 32 'I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.' Moses trembled with fear and did not dare to look. 33 "Then the Lord said to him, 'Take off your sandals; the place where you are standing is holy ground.


Exodus 23:20 “Behold, I send an Angel before you to keep you in the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. 21 Beware of Him and obey His voice; do not provoke Him, for He will not pardon your transgressions; for My name is in Him. 22 But if you indeed obey His voice and do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. 23 For My Angel will go before you and bring you in to the Amorites and the Hit***es and the Perizzites and the Canaanites and the Hivites and the Jebusites; and I will cut them off.

1 Cor. 10:1-4
1 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all p***ed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.

[TheSword99]

This is why any further comunication with you will be useless until you know your Bible and your history.

Our Library Dictionaries Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology Angel of the Lord
Angel of the Lord
Angel of the Lord [S]
(Heb. mal'ak yehwah). Supernatural being who bears a message on behalf of God. In many p***ages in the Old Testament, the angel of the Lord is identified with God, while in other instances a distinction is made between the Lord and the angel. In general, however, the terms "the angel of the Lord, " "the Lord, " and "God" are interchangeable.

Acts 7:30-33
30 "After forty years had p***ed, an angel appeared to Moses in the flames of a burning bush in the desert near Mount Sinai. 31 When he saw this, he was amazed at the sight. As he went over to look more closely, he heard the Lord's voice: 32 'I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.' Moses trembled with fear and did not dare to look. 33 "Then the Lord said to him, 'Take off your sandals; the place where you are standing is holy ground.


Exodus 23:20 “Behold, I send an Angel before you to keep you in the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. 21 Beware of Him and obey His voice; do not provoke Him, for He will not pardon your transgressions; for My name is in Him. 22 But if you indeed obey His voice and do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. 23 For My Angel will go before you and bring you in to the Amorites and the Hit***es and the Perizzites and the Canaanites and the Hivites and the Jebusites; and I will cut them off.

1 Cor. 10:1-4
1 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all p***ed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.

Excuse me, but you belong to a church that distrusts God's Word. That claims its been tampered with, yet none of you can even tell us which p***ages. For the born again Christian, only the Holy Scriptures is the source of God's Truth. You don't even know who Jesus Christ is. He is not the mormon jesus who was married and fathered children. He is not the natural offspring of heavenly Father and Mary. Go ahead and deny your church ever taught such blasphemy.

The apostle Paul said there is only ONE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST. Its the gospel Paul taught. He said if anyone one or even an angel from heaven itself should bring another gospel he will be ****ed and so will those who follow that false gospel.

[theway]

Excuse me, but you belong to a church that distrusts God's Word. That claims its been tampered with, yet none of you can even tell us which p***ages. For the born again Christian, only the Holy Scriptures is the source of God's Truth. You don't even know who Jesus Christ is. He is not the mormon jesus who was married and fathered children. He is not the natural offspring of heavenly Father and Mary. Go ahead and deny your church ever taught such blasphemy.

The apostle Paul said there is only ONE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST. Its the gospel Paul taught. He said if anyone one or even an angel from heaven itself should bring another gospel he will be ****ed and so will those who follow that false gospel.In your above rant, is there even something remotely close to the argument at hand, or is this just another attempt at a diversion from the failed argument of one of your own fellow Critics?

[James Banta]

In your above rant, is there even something remotely close to the argument at hand, or is this just another attempt at a diversion from the failed argument of one of your own fellow Critics?

looks like to me that Sword is much closer to the topic of the OP then you have been lately.. This is your common response when mormon doctrine has failed you in a scriptural response to Christian's statements.. So address it or do what you are so good ay doing.. Ignore it and hope it goes away.. Statements like "That isn't to be taken literal" shows that many LDS just don't have any answers of Biblical doctrines.. Such as salvation by grace and not of works (Romans 11:6).. God is an invisible God (Colossians 1:15).. All not to be taken literal are they.. Remember this:


AofF 8
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly...

I left the BofM part out because this is about the LDS contempt for the Bible..

The only p***ages of the Bible that can be believed are those that can be twisted to support mormonism. If a p***age just doesn't fit the must be either mistranslated or thay can't be taken literal.. IHS jim

[theway]

looks like to me that Sword is much closer to the topic of the OP then you have been lately.. This is your common response when mormon doctrine has failed you in a scriptural response to Christian's statements.. So address it or do what you are so good ay doing.. Ignore it and hope it goes away.. Statements like "That isn't to be taken literal" shows that many LDS just don't have any answers of Biblical doctrines.. Such as salvation by grace and not of works (Romans 11:6).. God is an invisible God (Colossians 1:15).. All not to be taken literal are they.. Remember this:


AofF 8
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly...

I left the BofM part out because this is about the LDS contempt for the Bible..

The only p***ages of the Bible that can be believed are those that can be twisted to support mormonism. If a p***age just doesn't fit the must be either mistranslated or thay can't be taken literal.. IHS jimOnce again... your own Bible commentaries say that it is not to be taken literally; do you know of even one that says it is to be taken literally?

[jdjhere]

Or an angel from heaven - This is a very strong rhetorical mode of expression. It is not to be supposed that an angel from heaven would preach any other than the true gospel. But Paul wishes to put the strongest possible case, and to affirm in the strongest manner possible, that the true gospel had been preached to them. The great system of salvation had been taught; and no other was to be admitted, no matter who preached it; no matter what the character or rank of the preacher: and no matter with what imposing claims he came. It follows from this, that the mere rank, character, talent, eloquence, or piety of a preacher does not of necessity give his doctrine a claim to our belief, or prove that his gospel is true. Great talents may be pros***uted; and great sanc***y of manner, and even holiness of character, may be in error; and no matter what may be the rank, and talents, and eloquence, and piety of the preacher, if he does not accord with the gospel which was first preached, he is to be held accursed.
So, Paul is saying here that HE HAS TAUGHT the TRUE GOSPEL , (or why even listen to ANYTHING he has said about it if he did not?) and then goes on to say NOT to believe ANYONE ELSE if they preach ANYTHING different and then he uses one of the strongest possible situations that would seem the most convincing to anybody... a messenger (or Angel) that appears to be from Heaven. LDS- BEWARE your messenger (that appears to be) from Heaven. An Angel that was TRULY from Heaven would deliver the SAME MESSAGE that Paul delivered.
Let him be accursed - Greek ἀνάθεμα anathēma (anathema). The object of Paul is to express the greatest possible abhorrence of any other doctrine than that which he had himself preached.
Moroni delivered a supposed "Restored Gospel" that is quite different (restored) than what Paul gave so the question is- do you believe the Apostle Paul or moroni, the messenger (or angel) supposedly from Heaven?
WAS moroni a messenger from Heaven, LDS? We should talk more about this angel I think...

[glm1978]

Once again... your own Bible commentaries say that it is not to be taken literally; do you know of even one that says it is to be taken literally?

Paul was making a very strong hypothetical case about an angel from heaven or anyone coming to preach a different gospel. His point was: don't believe anyone who teaches falsely no matter how godly they may appear. In the case of Mormonism, this is exactly what happened. An angel introduced another gospel and the LDS wonders why we keep hammering that home with the word of God.

[TheSword99]

In your above rant, is there even something remotely close to the argument at hand, or is this just another attempt at a diversion from the failed argument of one of your own fellow Critics?

This not a rant, but facts that you refuse to face. Did your church ever teach that Jesus was married with children, yes or no? Did your church ever teach that Heavenly father and Mary has Jesus in the natural way, yes or no?

You have all these teachings that the apostles never taught. Do you really believe they would leave out such important details? You try to make the claim that we don't know the Bible, yet many of the very things Mormonism teaches are not there! Even the BoM disagrees with Mormonism.

If you believe that you belong to the only true church, then don't you think you should give the world the whole truth and not just the milk?

[theway]

Or an angel from heaven - This is a very strong rhetorical mode of expression. It is not to be supposed that an angel from heaven would preach any other than the true gospel. But Paul wishes to put the strongest possible case, and to affirm in the strongest manner possible, that the true gospel had been preached to them. The great system of salvation had been taught; and no other was to be admitted, no matter who preached it; no matter what the character or rank of the preacher: and no matter with what imposing claims he came. It follows from this, that the mere rank, character, talent, eloquence, or piety of a preacher does not of necessity give his doctrine a claim to our belief, or prove that his gospel is true. Great talents may be pros***uted; and great sanc***y of manner, and even holiness of character, may be in error; and no matter what may be the rank, and talents, and eloquence, and piety of the preacher, if he does not accord with the gospel which was first preached, he is to be held accursed.
So, Paul is saying here that HE HAS TAUGHT the TRUE GOSPEL , (or why even listen to ANYTHING he has said about it if he did not?) and then goes on to say NOT to believe ANYONE ELSE if they preach ANYTHING different and then he uses one of the strongest possible situations that would seem the most convincing to anybody... a messenger (or Angel) that appears to be from Heaven. LDS- BEWARE your messenger (that appears to be) from Heaven. An Angel that was TRULY from Heaven would deliver the SAME MESSAGE that Paul delivered.
Let him be accursed - Greek ἀνάθεμα anathēma (anathema). The object of Paul is to express the greatest possible abhorrence of any other doctrine than that which he had himself preached.
Moroni delivered a supposed "Restored Gospel" that is quite different (restored) than what Paul gave so the question is- do you believe the Apostle Paul or moroni, the messenger (or angel) supposedly from Heaven?
WAS moroni a messenger from Heaven, LDS? We should talk more about this angel I think...That's the whole point... if you try to use this scripture, than you are saying that it "WAS" an Angel from Heaven. The only problem is that if it was an Angel from Heaven then it is God's message the Angel is preaching, hence it is the truth. The Bible commentaries saw this paradox and so they ***umed that Paul was not speaking literally as evidenced by your own post.

[jdjhere]

TheWay stated "That's the whole point... if you try to use this scripture, than you are saying that it "WAS" an Angel from Heaven. The only problem is that if it was an Angel from Heaven then it is God's message the Angel is preaching, hence it is the truth. The Bible commentaries saw this paradox and so they ***umed that Paul was not speaking literally as evidenced by your own post."

Why would the Apostle Paul state to let an Angel (messenger) be "anathama" (under the Divine Curse) if that being could not even do what he is being cursed for?? Could WE deliver a different message than what Paul delivered? Yes, we could, so I think it is logical that if WE, or YOU, receive a message from a messenger that APPEARS to be from Heaven that THIS is what the Apostle Paul is warning us about. We CAN BE DECEIVED and Paul is WARNING us about that.The Apostle Paul is saying IF an Angel (a fallen one that would logically give you a false message) or ANYONE gives you something different then LOOK OUT. Again, satan can appear as an angel of light and so can his SERVANTS. You can TRY to dismiss this verse away all you want by trying to "mucky up the waters" with your confusing explaining things away into non-existence but the meaning of the text is very clear and besides, if you want to get technical, satan IS an angel from Heaven (originally), as are his servants, and they will ALWAYS TRY to lead men and women astray and away from the Truth.

[jdjhere]

Galatians 1:8 (KJV 1611)
"But though we, or an Angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you, then that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

We= The Apostle Paul (and ALL men) ARE CAPABLE of delivering another Gospel but he WARNS not to believe him if he does.

an Angel from Heaven= a messenger from Heaven IS CAPABLE of delivering another Gospel but again, Paul WARNS not to believe him if he does because he may APPEAR TO BE from Heaven. (Read 2 Corinthians 11:14-15)

than that which we have preached unto you= The Apostle Paul PREACHED the True Gospel.

let him be accursed= Why would the Apostle Paul even say this IF the Angel FROM HEAVEN could not even GIVE "any other Gospel (or a "different" Gospel)??"
Why would he proclaim a divine curse on a messenger that cannot even do what it is being cursed for? Interesting that this same Apostle Paul tells us in
2 Corinthians 11:14-15 (KJV) "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works" and again 2 Corinthians 11:42 Corinthians 11:4 (KJV) "For if he that cometh (an Angel??) preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

I think the verse is very clear in context and I choose to believe Paul who is WARNING US and a follower of Jesus Christ, and NOT a "messenger" that appeared to someone and gave him a "restored" Gospel.

[TheSword99]

There are p***ages in the Holy Scriptures that Mormons hate because it conflicts with their teachings. The problem is that Paul taught the Gospel in its entirety and yet the mormon church wants the world to believe that there's another testament of Jesus Christ. They introduce a different gospel adding and piling on "requirements" that Christ never taught. Now the lds is at a loss to explain how it is that a supposed angel came claiming there were gold plates containing the "restored" gospel. A gospel that receives no support from the Dead Sea Scrolls or any place else.

No, the apostle Paul was very clear; there is no other Gospel.

[theway]

I think the verse is very clear in context and I choose to believe Paul who is WARNING US and a follower of Jesus Christ, and NOT a "messenger" that appeared to someone and gave him a "restored" Gospel.The irony with that, is that Paul was a "messenger" that brought another gospel than the one they knew.
So he was basically saying; "don't let anybody do what I just did".
It's funny when you think about it.

[James Banta]

The irony with that, is that Paul was a "messenger" that brought another gospel than the one they knew.
So he was basically saying; "don't let anybody do what I just did".
It's funny when you think about it.

I guess if you believe that these are really the writings from the mind of the man Paul that would be a reasonable point.. But if you believe even your our churches creed and hold that the Bible is the word of God (Even if you believe that most of it has been corrupted by men. Thereby denying the power of Jesus to keep Him promises That His word will never p*** away) Then it is reasonable to say that Paul taught a different Gospel than that which Jesus established. The Gospel that the OT just looked forward to as seen in Psalm 22, Isaiah 53 and even Gen 15:6.. It is all the same Gospel.. God would enter the world, live a perfect life in His mortality, die shedding His blood as a sacrifice for sin, then raise again the third day for our justification.. This is seen clearly in the NT and has the light of the OT confirming that Jesus is that God.. Paul didn't retract a thing from that gospel. Paul taught it he didn't develop it as Smith developed the "gospel" according to mormonism adding in all his laws and ordinances.. His is clearly another gospel, not the Gospel of God given in the Bible.. He must stand before God to be judged for doing that nasty work and be totally accursed.. IHS jim

[jdjhere]

Jdjhere stated: "I think the verse is very clear in context and I choose to believe Paul who is WARNING US and a follower of Jesus Christ, and NOT a "messenger" that appeared to someone and gave him a "restored" Gospel."

TheWay stated: "The irony with that, is that Paul was a "messenger" that brought another gospel than the one they knew. So he was basically saying; 'don't let anybody do what I just did'. It's funny when you think about it."

First, that is NOT what the Apostle Paul did. Yes, Paul was a messenger (but NOT an Angel OR from Heaven) and he did NOT deliver "another Gospel"... he delivered the one and only TRUE Gospel, once for all delivered to the Saints.
The New testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, NOT "another Gospel". It IS THE Gospel, the "last Adam" restoring what the "first Adam" lost. Even Jesus explained to his followers what was said about Him(self) written in the Scrolls (Old Testament). Jesus Christ IS the fulfillment of the Old Testament.
You can try to cloud what we have said here with what you see as humor ... that's OK ... but the focus here is what the Apostle Paul said and meant when he said he delivered and preached the GOSPEL, the TRUE GOSPEL, and that anything ELSE given is under the Divine Curse, including ANY MAN (or ANGEL, even one that might seem good) that would preach anything different. So that means that what moroni gave is supposedly what the Apostle Paul taught and the only record we have of what the Apostle Paul taught is the Bible. So, prove from the Bible that what the LDS hold as their doctrines are what Paul taught... prove that the Apostle Paul taught these things.

[TheSword99]

The irony with that, is that Paul was a "messenger" that brought another gospel than the one they knew.
So he was basically saying; "don't let anybody do what I just did".
It's funny when you think about it.

Everything is funny to you guys, but Paul's warning is anything but funny. Heed it or else you just may be eternally condemned. Paul was more than a messenger. He was called by Christ to teach His Gospel.

There is only ONE Gospel, the one Paul taught. Remember that on Judgment Day.

[theway]

Everything is funny to you guys, but Paul's warning is anything but funny. Heed it or else you just may be eternally condemned. Paul was more than a messenger. He was called by Christ to teach His Gospel.

There is only ONE Gospel, the one Paul taught. Remember that on Judgment Day.You can not heed an impossible warning.


Nice try though.

[TheSword99]

You can not heed an impossible warning.


Nice try though.

It's not impossible. Ask God to help you believe.

[theway]

It's not impossible. Ask God to help you believe.It still amazes me that you are just not getting it.
Paul's statement creates an impossible scenario; just about every Christian out there understands this.
Why is it Critics just cannot see it?
Are you afraid you will lose one of your scared cow scriptures against Mormonism?

[jdjhere]

TheWay stated: "just about every Christian out there understands this."

So, now you know the thoughts of "just about every Christian?" Thats a pretty loose statement. Prove HOW you know "just about every Christians" thoughts on this, TheWay. I will wait for the evidence. And while you are at it, please answer my question you avoided... prove from the Bible that what the LDS hold as their doctrines are the doctrines that Paul taught. Thanks.

[jdjhere]

TheWay stated "You can not heed an impossible warning."

True, but Pauls warning is NOT impossible, you only make it so with your incorrect interpretation. He would not have written it down under inspiration of the Holy Spirit and placed a condemned curse on a being when that being is incapable of doing something Paul stated he would be condemned for doing. You make Pauls warning "invaluable gibberish" by your interpretation.

[TheSword99]

It still amazes me that you are just not getting it.
Paul's statement creates an impossible scenario; just about every Christian out there understands this.
Why is it Critics just cannot see it?
Are you afraid you will lose one of your scared cow scriptures against Mormonism?


You think it's impossible because you read some bible commentaries such as Gill's Exposition which said: "...it, supposes a case impossible..." What exactly is he saying is impossible? Read Gill's again:

"that he, (Paul) or any of his fellow apostles, who had been so clearly led and so fully established in the Gospel of Christ, and of which they had had such a powerful and comfortable experience in their souls, could ever preach one different from it; nor was it possible that a good angel, one that is in heaven, that always beholds the face of God there, is ever ready to do his will, as he never could be employed by God in publishing another, so he never would."

What's impossible is for Paul and his fellow apostles to teach/believe in a false gospel and for an angel of God to bring a false gospel.

What is not impossible is for satan, who can appear as an angel of light, to teach a perverted gospel.

[glm1978]

You think it's impossible because you read some bible commentaries such as Gill's Exposition which said: "...it, supposes a case impossible..." What exactly is he saying is impossible? Read Gill's again:

"that he, (Paul) or any of his fellow apostles, who had been so clearly led and so fully established in the Gospel of Christ, and of which they had had such a powerful and comfortable experience in their souls, could ever preach one different from it; nor was it possible that a good angel, one that is in heaven, that always beholds the face of God there, is ever ready to do his will, as he never could be employed by God in publishing another, so he never would."

What's impossible is for Paul and his fellow apostles to teach/believe in a false gospel and for an angel of God to bring a false gospel.

What is not impossible is for satan, who can appear as an angel of light, to teach a perverted gospel.

YES, Amen! When I was LDS I would read the scriptures through the eyes of Mormonism which we see is happening here. I would read into the verses the very beliefs of the LDS church. Since I once believed that Moroni was a real angel and of God, I read Galatians 1:8 differently. To me, it was impossible for an angel to introduce a false gospel.

[glm1978]

Moroni allegedly appeared to Joseph Smith as an angel of light. What does the bible say about angels of light?

"And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works." (2 Cor. 11:14-15)

Bruce McConkie in Mormon Doctrine, verifies that the angel of light is indeed the devil. It says, "ANGEL OF LIGHT - See devil."

[James Banta]

Jdjhere stated: "I think the verse is very clear in context and I choose to believe Paul who is WARNING US and a follower of Jesus Christ, and NOT a "messenger" that appeared to someone and gave him a "restored" Gospel."

TheWay stated: "The irony with that, is that Paul was a "messenger" that brought another gospel than the one they knew. So he was basically saying; 'don't let anybody do what I just did'. It's funny when you think about it."

First, that is NOT what the Apostle Paul did. Yes, Paul was a messenger (but NOT an Angel OR from Heaven) and he did NOT deliver "another Gospel"... he delivered the one and only TRUE Gospel, once for all delivered to the Saints.
The New testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, NOT "another Gospel". It IS THE Gospel, the "last Adam" restoring what the "first Adam" lost. Even Jesus explained to his followers what was said about Him(self) written in the Scrolls (Old Testament). Jesus Christ IS the fulfillment of the Old Testament.
You can try to cloud what we have said here with what you see as humor ... that's OK ... but the focus here is what the Apostle Paul said and meant when he said he delivered and preached the GOSPEL, the TRUE GOSPEL, and that anything ELSE given is under the Divine Curse, including ANY MAN (or ANGEL, even one that might seem good) that would preach anything different. So that means that what moroni gave is supposedly what the Apostle Paul taught and the only record we have of what the Apostle Paul taught is the Bible. So, prove from the Bible that what the LDS hold as their doctrines are what Paul taught... prove that the Apostle Paul taught these things.

I totally agree with you.. I hope I didn't lead you in any other direction.. Paul is just the medium that God used to explain these truths to more and more believers. This isn't Paul's message to us this is God's word telling us that no one, under any circumstances can ever bring a different gospel other than His Gospel and nit be accursed is the effort. Was Smith accursed? many people of his day thought so.. I think so.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Once again... your own Bible commentaries say that it is not to be taken literally; do you know of even one that says it is to be taken literally?

I don't have a written Bible commentary.. I have the Bible and it stands alone. Commentaries are the words and thoughts of men, the Bible is the very word of God. I claim authority in the Bible you seem to claim authority in the words of men..

Ok now that you have been told the difference between the two what commentary are you telling me says that the p***age is not literal.. Please quote that statement and show me what commentary says that the Bible shouldn't be believed as God gave it to us..

Way, everything spoken by men that claim to be Christian is not binding on the Church.. Only that which came from God.. Many times what men teach is dangerous and give the impressions to the lost that just doesn't exist in reality.. You seem to be one that has found such a thing.. Now share with us all what commentary you are using to show that such a heresy is being taught by the Church and what false teacher is promoting this lie as truth.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Once again... your own Bible commentaries say that it is not to be taken literally; do you know of even one that says it is to be taken literally?

The Bible teaches this as truth.. you say some men said it isn't truth but that it means something else.. You have not told us what your mysterious commentary teaches the non literal meaning is, nor have you told us where it is found in a Christian commentary that the Bible isn't to be believed as it has been given to us.. Unless Jesus said specifically that he was teaching in a parable what was said and done in the Bible is LITERAL. Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem, He actually stayed in Jerusalem when He was 12 and was found in the temple speaking with the elders. He actually feed 5,000 with two loves and 5 fish, He actually did suffer and dies for the sins of the whole world.. If you brand one statement as not being literal why not the rest of the word?

You are being dishonest saying that "our" commentaries teach this heresy and yet deny to tell us which commentary you are getting this message from. I will tell you right now it isn't a well regarded work of a solid Christian teacher.. IHS jim

[theway]

First, that is NOT what the Apostle Paul did. Yes, Paul was a messenger (but NOT an Angel OR from Heaven) and he did NOT deliver "another Gospel"... he delivered the one and onlyTRUE Gospel, once for all delivered to the Saints.
The New testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, NOT "another Gospel". It IS THE Gospel, the "last Adam" restoring what the "first Adam" lost. Even Jesus explained to his followers what was said about Him(self) written in the Scrolls (Old Testament). Jesus Christ IS the fulfillment of the Old Testament.Hey don't blame me... James is the one who said the gospel was never preached in the Old Testament. But then, James is never right about anything when it comes to the Bible.


You can try to cloud what we have said here with what you see as humor ... that's OK ... but the focus here is what the Apostle Paul said and meant when he said he delivered and preached the GOSPEL, the TRUE GOSPEL, and that anything ELSE given is under the Divine Curse, including ANYMAN (or ANGEL, even one that might seem good) that would preach anything different.Once again, I provided at least 5 nonMormon sources that say that Paul rhetoric in this scripture is not to be taken literally. What have you provided other than your own opinion and wishful thinking?

[theway]

The Bible teaches this as truth.. you say some men said it isn't truth but that it means something else..No I did not... I said some things are not to be taken literally, the fact that others agree with me seems to get you upset for some reason.

You have not told us what your mysterious commentary teaches the non literal meaning is,Yes I did, I told you exactly what it is.


nor have you told us where it is found in a Christian commentary that the Bible isn't to be believed as it has been given to us..Why should I when I never said that; this is just one of you diversionary straw-men that has never fooled anyone

Unless Jesus said specifically that he was teaching in a parable what was said and done in the Bible is LITERAL. Another straw-man; I never said Jesus said anything about this verse of scripture, nice try.

Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem, He actually stayed in Jerusalem when He was 12 and was found in the temple speaking with the elders. He actually feed 5,000 with two loves and 5 fish, He actually did suffer and dies for the sins of the whole world.. If you brand one statement as not being literal why not the rest of the word?
Those with the spirit will know. For instance "water baptism" = literal, born of the water = not literal.
The scriptures can do you more harm than good if you can not tell the difference James.

You are being dishonest saying that "our" commentaries teach this heresy and yet deny to tell us which commentary you are getting this message from. I will tell you right now it isn't a well regarded work of a solid Christian teacher.. IHS jimJames, James, James... don't pretend you didn't see the ones I listed in Post #68

[James Banta]

[theway;139764]No I did not... I said some things are not to be taken literally, the fact that others agree with me seems to get you upset for some reason.

I'm not upset at the idea that people disagree with me.. That's ok but to say they disagree and say a p***age isn't literal but give no non literal interpretation is without any reason at all.. That is what you have done.. So if it isn't literal what does the p***age mean?


Yes I did, I told you exactly what it is.

Yes you did.. You said it isn't literally what it says.. You NEVER said what it's non literal meaning is..


Why should I when I never said that; this is just one of you diversionary straw-men that has never fooled anyone
Another straw-man; I never said Jesus said anything about this verse of scripture, nice try.

A Strawman is bringing a weaker argument into a discussion and insisting that it is the correct meaning.. My meaning for the p***age is just what it says.. Direct from the Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul without any human interpretation. You adds human teaching and says what again.. I never saw what you says the p***age means if it isn't what it says..


Those with the spirit will know. For instance "water baptism" = literal, born of the water = not literal.
The scriptures can do you more harm than good if you can not tell the difference James.
James, James, James... don't pretend you didn't see the ones I listed in Post #68

John 3 is not the p***age in question.. But if it were I would say it is much easier to say baptized than born if you wanted the p***age to mean baptism.. Baptism is discussed in the same chapter in the next context.. It doesn';t make since that Jesus would call it birth when it was mere water baptism.. Anyway the context under discussion here is Galatians 2:8-9. Not once did you give a non literal interpretation of the p***age.. I don't believe there is one.. Just saying that an angel of God might give a different gospel based on a faulty understanding is not a different interpretation.. I don't know what it could mean other than any Gospel that doesn't conform to the teaching Paul taught by the Holy Spirit is corrupt no matter who brings it.. That means mormonism brought by what they were taught was an angel of God, a gospel that is based in faith and works is a false gospel.. I have already pointed out that salvation can't be by both grace and works Read Romans 6:11.. IHS jim

[TheSword99]

Hey don't blame me... James is the one who said the gospel was never preached in the Old Testament. But then, James is never right about anything when it comes to the Bible.

Once again, I provided at least 5 nonMormon sources that say that Paul rhetoric in this scripture is not to be taken literally. What have you provided other than your own opinion and wishful thinking?

What's interesting is that I explained very clearly what the commentary meant and you completely ignored the post and went on to attack others. I have read all of those commentaries and they do not mean what YOU have claimed.

Since you are lds, do you really think you can understand what we believe? Or what Christian bible commentators mean when you read everything through the eyes of mormonism? Yet, these men knew nothing about mormonism. It was never taught to them or taught by Paul. Not one commentator said NOT to take Paul literally. Paul was an apostle chosen by Christ to preach His Gospel. What was rhetorical was that Paul repeated his warning about others bringing a different gospel. That's how serious Paul was about false teachers.

[TheSword99]

No I did not... I said some things are not to be taken literally, the fact that others agree with me seems to get you upset for some reason.
Yes I did, I told you exactly what it is.

Why should I when I never said that; this is just one of you diversionary straw-men that has never fooled anyone
Another straw-man; I never said Jesus said anything about this verse of scripture, nice try.

Those with the spirit will know. For instance "water baptism" = literal, born of the water = not literal.
The scriptures can do you more harm than good if you can not tell the difference James.
James, James, James... don't pretend you didn't see the ones I listed in Post #68

I read those commentaries and they do not mean what theway says. The gist is that Paul, who was very concerned about some leaving what he had taught to follow a different gospel, used the strongest, hypothetical example to warn people that there is NOT another gospel and anyone who teaches a false gospel is accursed. Paul repeats this warning because he was very serious and the lds would have us believe this is an impossible warning to heed...

[glm1978]

It still amazes me that you are just not getting it.
Paul's statement creates an impossible scenario; just about every Christian out there understands this.
Why is it Critics just cannot see it?
Are you afraid you will lose one of your scared cow scriptures against Mormonism?

I used to read the Scriptures filtered through the teachings of the LDS church. Its amazing how one can make the scriptures fit one's belief system. One day I decided to put down the book of Mormon and just read the bible and let the bible teach me. That's when my spiritual eyes were opened. Christians are not "critics." They believe in the power of the word of God and will use it to combat falsehood.

By the way, what is a scared cow?

[jdjhere]

TheWay stated: "Once again, I provided at least 5 non-mormon sources that say that Paul rhetoric in this scripture is not to be taken literally. What have you provided other than your own opinion and wishful thinking?

You can give me a million and one non-mormon sources and I will take the one source over THOSE any day, the Bible.

Galatians 1:8 "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

Lets look at the "we" and "an Angel from Heaven." Obviously, first, the "we" COULD preach any other Gospel , and Paul warns about this and states the "we" would be "anathama" or under the Divine Curse if they did so. Secondly, the "an Angel FROM HEAVEN" is in the same boat as the "we", as it is part of the same verse. So, the "an Angel from Heaven (or appearing to be in OUR EYES)" COULD INDEED give "something different." The apostle Paul is WARNING us not to listen to them OR ANY Angel that appears and gives something that is "any other Gospel."

ALL Angels are originally FROM Heaven and satan and his minsters can "appear as angels of light" (2 Cor 11:14) and LIE and DECEIVE you, its what they do. satan is the "father of lies" and in 1 Peter 5:8 there is a warning "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour."

LDS- If you believe moroni IS from Heaven then HEED Galatians 1:8 and PROVE that what the Apostle Paul taught is the same thing as the LDS church's doctrines of today. If moroni is NOT from Heaven then of course don't listen to him or the person that delivered his message.

[James Banta]

It still amazes me that you are just not getting it.
Paul's statement creates an impossible scenario; just about every Christian out there understands this.
Why is it Critics just cannot see it?
Are you afraid you will lose one of your scared cow scriptures against Mormonism?

Strange that if just about ever Christian out there understands that this verse "creates an impossible scenario" why is it that EVERY CHRISTIAN HERE disagrees that is is not to be taken literally.. Even if we are visited by what appears in every way way to be an angel from heaven and this being come teaching a different gospel than the Gospel we have already received that being is accursed..

Will a satanic being try to trick someone in to believing them to destroy their soul? Will they appear as an angel of light (2Cor 11:14) to receive worldly glory? Trust God that the only way to defend against such as these is to put on the full armor of God (Eph 6:11).. A hand shake just won't do you must have the breastplate of righteousness, the shoes of preparation in prayer, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. Other wise anyone can be tricked into believing that an angel from God has brought them a new witness, a new revelation, a new law..

This is the case of ever mormon I have ever met.. They deny the imputation of righteousness of God through faith in Jesus. That faith in a shield against all the fiery darts of life. That salvation can be God gift to then here in this life, or that the word of God can be their sword and nit a stick. This leaves the LDS as a easy target for any new wind of doctrine (James 1:6) that can carry them away from the truth of the one true and living God..

Yes, way even though a angel from God teaches anything other than what has already been preaches he is accursed.. The problem is if you believe such you will be accursed as well.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

I read those commentaries and they do not mean what theway says. The gist is that Paul, who was very concerned about some leaving what he had taught to follow a different gospel, used the strongest, hypothetical example to warn people that there is NOT another gospel and anyone who teaches a false gospel is accursed. Paul repeats this warning because he was very serious and the lds would have us believe this is an impossible warning to heed...

Yes that is how I saw these teaching. But we are also weak flesh and can be fooled by any that might appear to us as angels sent from God.. Is this not how mormon is said to have begun? Two beings that could have been nothing more than satanic beings TRICKED not just him but the gullible millions that would swallow these obvious lies, only to be followed by other "angelic visitors whose message would twist the simple truth of imputed righteousness into the lies of a works based, earned, salvation.. IHS jim

[theway]

Strange that if just about ever Christian out there understands that this verse "creates an impossible scenario" why is it that EVERY CHRISTIAN HERE disagrees that is is not to be taken literally..
As I already stated in my first post on this issue; Critics on this forum are nowhere close to what regular "Christians" believe, that is why I call what is taught here Critic Theology. It's a theology whose whole dogma teaches that "whatever the LDS believe; we believe the opposite". You can see that just in this issue... look how easy it is for you to throw your fellow Christians under the bus so as not to lose one of your favorite AntiMormon scripture, even though your interpretation makes no sense to anybody else.
LOL… in fact if you remember, after having visited the webpage for the church that you go to, the only testimony or constant theme which stood out to me was; “Well… at least we’re not Mormon”.


Even if we are visited by what appears in every way way to be an angel from heaven and this being come teaching a different gospel than the Gospel we have already received that being is accursed.. Will a satanic being try to trick someone in to believing them to destroy their soul? Will they appear as an angel of light (2Cor 11:14) to receive worldly glory? Trust God that the only way to defend against such as these is to put on the full armor of God (Eph 6:11).. A hand shake just won't do you must have the breastplate of righteousness, the shoes of preparation in prayer, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. Other wise anyone can be tricked into believing that an angel from God has brought them a new witness, a new revelation, a new law..
The problem for you is that Paul did not say "if someone who "APPEARS" to be an Angel from Heaven" Paul made the positive ***ertion that it was indeed an Angel from Heaven. As has been already shown, messengers sent by God from Heaven would not lie, therefore, Paul created an impossible scenerio in order to make a point.



<Blah... Blah... Blah... rant... rant... rant...> IHS jimJust useless soapboxing.... nothing of value.

[TheSword99]

As I already stated in my first post on this issue; Critics on this forum are nowhere close to what regular "Christians" believe, that is why I call what is taught here Critic Theology. It's a theology whose whole dogma teaches that "whatever the LDS believe; we believe the opposite". You can see that just in this issue... look how easy it is for you to throw your fellow Christians under the bus so as not to lose one of your favorite AntiMormon scripture, even though your interpretation makes no sense to anybody else.
LOL… in fact if you remember, after having visited the webpage for the church that you go to, the only testimony or constant theme which stood out to me was; “Well… at least we’re not Mormon”.

The problem for you is that Paul did not say "if someone who "APPEARS" to be an Angel from Heaven" Paul made the positive ***ertion that it was indeed an Angel from Heaven. As has been already shown, messengers sent by God from Heaven would not lie, therefore, Paul created an impossible scenerio in order to make a point.

Just useless soapboxing.... nothing of value.

Then you stand alone in your skewered interpretation.

Paul turned from the hypothetical to the actual as he reiterates his concern. AS WE HAVE SAID BEFORE, SO I SAY AGAIN NOW, IF ANY MAN IS PREACHING TO YOU A GOSPEL CONTRARY TO THAT WHICH YOU RECEIVED, LET HIM BE ACCURSED. The repe***ion reflects the p***ion of the apostle for the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. That's the rhetoric which you believe is a literal impossibility because you need to explain to those who ask about your faith why you would have the world believe an angel of God has introduced a different gospel which mormonism espouses.

[jdjhere]

TheWay stated: "The problem for you is that Paul did not say "if someone who "APPEARS" to be an Angel from Heaven" Paul made the positive ***ertion that it was indeed an Angel from Heaven. ??As has been already shown??, messengers sent by God from Heaven would not lie, therefore, Paul created an impossible scenerio in order to make a point."

BUT Paul DID say satan can appear as an angel of light and his servants as well. PROVE to me moroni was NOT one of these servants since he delivered "another gospel", or prove to me that what moroni gave (the "restored" gospel) is what Paul taught.

A case could be made that satan IS an angel from Heaven. (Isaiah 14:12 "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!") A case could also be made that human beings can be tricked into thinking a fallen angel is a good angel, sent from God FROM HEAVEN. TheWay, your attempt to "explain away" the clear meaning of this verse is obvious for anyone to see. You "change" the Word of God by taking a "simple to understand" verse in its context and put your "twist" on it. The natural reading and breakdown of Galatians 1:8 is this:

1. "But though we preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed

AND

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

The structure and meaning of the sentence makes "we" and "an Angel from Heaven" interchangeable. If "another Gospel" is given, the Apostle Paul says the divine curse will be on men (including themselves) OR Angels (ALL of them). Just because you are saying this is an impossibility for an angel from Heaven to lie does not prove that moroni WAS an angel from Heaven anyway. Lets talk about moroni and why he is an angel in the first place (since he was a human being on earth) because when people die they do NOT become angels. We are forbidden in Scripture to try to communicate with the dead as well, so deceased human beings are not even "messengers" to us who are still alive. So please explain to me firstly why moroni is an angel and secondly why Joseph Smith was communicating with the dead... :confused:

[TheSword99]

TheWay stated: "The problem for you is that Paul did not say "if someone who "APPEARS" to be an Angel from Heaven" Paul made the positive ***ertion that it was indeed an Angel from Heaven. ??As has been already shown??, messengers sent by God from Heaven would not lie, therefore, Paul created an impossible scenerio in order to make a point."

BUT Paul DID say satan can appear as an angel of light and his servants as well. PROVE to me moroni was NOT one of these servants since he delivered "another gospel", or prove to me that what moroni gave is what Paul taught.

A case could be made that satan IS an angel from Heaven. A case could also be made that human beings can be tricked into thinking a fallen angel is a good angel, sent from God. TheWay, your attempt to "explain away" the clear meaning of this verse is obvious for anyone to see. You "change" the Word of God by taking a "simple to understand" verse in its context and put your "twist" on it. The natural reading and breakdown of Galatians 1:8 is this:

1. "But though we preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed

AND

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

The structure and meaning of the sentence makes "we" and "an Angel from Heaven" interchangeable. If "another Gospel" is given, the Apostle Paul says the divine curse will be on men (including themselves) OR Angels (ALL of them). Just because you are saying this is an impossibility for an angel from Heaven to lie does not prove that moroni WAS an angel from Heaven anyway. Lets talk about moroni and why he is an angel anyway. When people die they do NOT become angels. We are forbidden in Scripture to try to communicate with the dead as well, so deceased people are not even "messengers" to us who are still alive. So please explain to me firstly why moroni is an angel and secondly why Joseph Smith was communicating with the dead... :confused:


Amen! Every time I mention about satan appearing as an angel of light, my posts get ignored. Seems the lds will not go there.

[TheSword99]

So please explain to me firstly why moroni is an angel and secondly why Joseph Smith was communicating with the dead... :confused:


I believe Moroni became an angel and not a god because he was disobedient and thus didn't progress to godhood. This being the case, he would be a fallen angel, would he not?

[jdjhere]

That is one way to look at it, Sword. I personally believe moroni is a fallen angel that has tricked millions of people into thinking they can become gods, possibly even satan himself.

Ezekiel 28:15 "Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee."

What WAS this iniquity??

Ezekiel 28:17 "Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee."

Isaiah 14:13 "For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High."

satan is still trying as are the LDS people.

As man now is, God once was:
As God now is, man may be.
(Lorenzo Snow-1840)

Joseph Smith:

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and ... God ... (were) to make himself visible ... if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form -- like yourselves in all the person, image, and the very form as a man."

"You have got to learn to become Gods yourselves, the same as all Gods before you have done."

Enough said.

[TheSword99]

That is one way to look at it, Sword. I personally believe moroni is a fallen angel that has tricked millions of people into thinking they can become gods, possibly even satan himself.

Ezekiel 28:15 "Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee."

What WAS this iniquity??

Ezekiel 28:17 "Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee."

Isaiah 14:13 "For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High."

satan is still trying.

I totally agree. Remember, Joseph Smith claimed he had a visit from something dark and frightening and he pleaded with God to remove it. Then he had a visit from what he believed was an angelic being. It's similar to Muhammad's experience in a cave. The first vision was very evil and then a very bright light and Islam was born.

[jdjhere]

TheSword99 stated: 'Every time I mention about satan appearing as an angel of light, my posts get ignored. Seems the lds will not go there."

They never have with me either, Sword. They just say "Nope, you are wrong" without even having consideration for what that verse in Gods Word is warning everybody about. I constantly get that I am a critic of LDS theology. Yes, I am, because I am commanded in Scripture to "defend the faith, once for ALL delivered to the Saints" and that there will be all sorts of erroneous teachers and teachings in the last days. I personally KNOW MANY LDS people and they are a FINE people whom Jesus Christ died for... I just disagree with their theology and see NO proof that their theology is Biblical Theology OR that first century Christianity was anything NEAR to what they hold as doctrine. I pray they see the simplicity that is in Christ Jesus and that He did it ALL for us. I believe when Jesus said, on the cross, "It is finished" that He meant that the plan of salvation was finished completely and all we need to do is accept the FREE gift of God reaching down and saving us. I believe works FOLLOW being saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and what He did for us. The works are evident in the TRULY saved.

If I am a critic, so was the Apostle Paul, who said in 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works."

And John as well, who states in 1 John 4:1 under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits (put the spirits and their teachings to the test) whether they are of God: because many (not the few, but many) false prophets are gone out into the world."

Even Jesus Christ Himself said Matthew 7:21-23:
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many (again note that Christ said "MANY") will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

[theway]

Amen! Every time I mention about satan appearing as an angel of light, my posts get ignored. Seems the lds will not go there.That’s because your use of the verse in question is just plain silly in trying to prove your case against the LDS.
And when read in context it actually works against your argument, that’s why you’ll never post the next verse.

2Cor. 11:
14. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

This means that even if Satan can appear as an Angel, it is infinitely easier for him to appear as a “man” spreading false doctrine.

Even this scripture admits that when given a choice; an Angel is harder to fake than a man like Paul would be; or Calvin, or a televangelist, or even a respected Christian Theologian.
So when I’m ignoring you… I’m just saving you from further embarr***ment over your lack of scripture knowledge.

When given the choice as to whom to believe; I would pick the Angel sent from God, over a MAN claiming to be sent from God.

[James Banta]

That’s because your use of the verse in question is just plain silly in trying to prove your case against the LDS.
And when read in context it actually works against your argument, that’s why you’ll never post the next verse.

2Cor. 11:
14. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

This means that even if Satan can appear as an Angel, it is infinitely easier for him to appear as a “man” spreading false doctrine.

Even this scripture admits that when given a choice; an Angel is harder to fake than a man like Paul would be; or Calvin, or a televangelist, or even a respected Christian Theologian.
So when I’m ignoring you… I’m just saving you from further embarr***ment over your lack of scripture knowledge.

When given the choice as to whom to believe; I would pick the Angel sent from God, over a MAN claiming to be sent from God.

The p***age tells us that Satan can appear as an angel from heaven. It doesn't say it's difficult for him to do so.. Then it goes on to say that his followers can be transformed as the ministers of righteousness.. Neither action tells us that doing so is difficult in any way.. You are making up your own scripture even as the real meaning lays right before your eyes..

Paul is warning you that no angel no man has the authority to bring a different gospel other than the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith.. If anyone does they are accursed.. Mormonism is a different gospel brought on the testimony of one man that an angel gave it to Him.. This is exactly the warning of the Holy Spirit through Paul.. Mormonism is another Gospel that the Bible does NOT teach.. It and the ministers that invented it are accursed.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

[theway;139782]As I already stated in my first post on this issue; Critics on this forum are nowhere close to what regular "Christians" believe, that is why I call what is taught here Critic Theology. It's a theology whose whole dogma teaches that "whatever the LDS believe; we believe the opposite". You can see that just in this issue... look how easy it is for you to throw your fellow Christians under the bus so as not to lose one of your favorite AntiMormon scripture, even though your interpretation makes no sense to anybody else.
LOL… in fact if you remember, after having visited the webpage for the church that you go to, the only testimony or constant theme which stood out to me was; “Well… at least we’re not Mormon”.


You have not shown one word from any Christian or Christian organization that disagrees with what has been said here as to what the p***age means or that it is an impossible statement.. Way, this is scripture was given through the Holy Spirit and preserved by the power of God.. It is truth.. You denial of the word of God is noted but shows you in the spirit of antichrist..
There is no different meaning is all of the Christian Church other than anyone that brings another gospel other than the one found in the Bible is accursed..


The problem for you is that Paul did not say "if someone who "APPEARS" to be an Angel from Heaven" Paul made the positive ***ertion that it was indeed an Angel from Heaven. As has been already shown, messengers sent by God from Heaven would not lie, therefore, Paul created an impossible scenerio in order to make a point.

No he didn't you are right.. But it is correct to say that someone that appears as an angel is also covered in the meaning of the p***age.. And if an angel came from God and taught a different gospel he would be as much accursed as a being who was appearing as such.. The p***age also doesn't say that the message would be from God, only that the angel would be.. Any message other than the one we already have would being a curse on anyone that brings it.. It is NOT an impossible scenario.. I don't believe that an angel would do such a thing but Satan committed graves sins to fall to his place of accursement. I guess that shows that an angel could commit this sin as well..


Just useless soapboxing.... nothing of value.

It is your antichrist statements that have no value.. I fact all they are is blasphemy.. Jesus promised that His word would never p*** away.. If it has been contaminated by contradictory or impossible teachings it would be seriously diminished.. Jesus would be a liar and none of us would have any hope.. You statements are worse than any nasty thing you say about what I teach here, yours are words of DEATH.. IHS

[jdjhere]

TheWay stated: "When given the choice as to whom to believe; I would pick the Angel sent from God, over a MAN claiming to be sent from God."

So... you think the Apostle Paul was just CLAIMING to be sent from God?? Is this what you are saying TheWay or am I misunderstanding you?? You are saying you believe moroni over the Apostle Paul? Lets be clear on this so there are no misunderstandings. I am only asking and not puting words in your mouth so please clarify this.

And in another statement, TheWay stated: "This means that even if Satan can appear as an Angel, it is infinitely easier for him to appear as a “man” spreading false doctrine."

Are you saying HERE that the Apostle Paul may have actually been satan??? And that he was spreading false doctrine?? If so, please clarify this as well as, again, I do not want to put words in your mouth.

Thank you.

[TheSword99]

2Cor. 11:
14. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

This means that even if Satan can appear as an Angel, it is infinitely easier for him to appear as a “man” spreading false doctrine.





The p***age nowhere even hints that its easier for satan to appear as a man. Nor does it say anything about satan appearing as a man.

Paul compares false teachers to Satan: If Satan can masquerade as an angel, certainly false teachers will also pretend to be godly men. They are actually servants of the devil.

[jdjhere]

I have only one question that I would love to have answered by you, TheWay. It is a SIMPLE yes or no question, and it is this-

Do you believe satan can appear as an angel of light?

D&C 129:8 "If it be the devil as an angel of light…"

Joseph Smith did.

[jdjhere]

I believe the ministers in 2 Cor 11:14-15 can be either men in the church who are not really Christians OR the 1/3rd of the angels that fell with satan.

[jdjhere]

TheWay stated: "This means that even if Satan can appear as an Angel, it is infinitely easier for him to appear as a “man” spreading false doctrine."

Uhhhhh.... how can this be if satan is ALREADY an angel???

[James Banta]

TheWay stated: "This means that even if Satan can appear as an Angel, it is infinitely easier for him to appear as a “man” spreading false doctrine."

Uhhhhh.... how can this be if satan is ALREADY and angel???

Good point!

[theway]

TheWay stated: "This means that even if Satan can appear as an Angel, it is infinitely easier for him to appear as a “man” spreading false doctrine."

Uhhhhh.... how can this be if satan is ALREADY and angel???

Read it again... it says “Angel of light” not just “Angel”.
Light in the Bible is almost always synonymous with truth and righteousness.
James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights,
1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
So then to be an Angel of light means to be an Angel of truth and purity (see verse 15)… I don’t think this describes Satan at all… do you?

[TheSword99]

Read it again... it says “Angel of light” not just “Angel”.
Light in the Bible is almost always synonymous with truth and righteousness.
James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights,
1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
So then to be an Angel of light means to be an Angel of truth and purity (see verse 15)… I don’t think this describes Satan at all… do you?

Satan masquerades as an angel of light. This is why we have false teachers. What don't you understand about that?

[TheSword99]

Read it again... it says “Angel of light” not just “Angel”.
Light in the Bible is almost always synonymous with truth and righteousness.
James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights,
1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
So then to be an Angel of light means to be an Angel of truth and purity (see verse 15)… I don’t think this describes Satan at all… do you?

BTW, you guys are still avoiding the question: what kind of being was it that visited Smith that was dark and evil?

[jdjhere]

TheWay stated: 2Cor. 11:14-15: "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works."

The verse PLAINLY STATES that "Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." This is from one of YOUR posts, TheWay.

TheWay stated: "Read it again... it says “Angel of light” not just “Angel”.

True

TheWay stated: "Light in the Bible is almost always synonymous with truth and righteousness."

Yes, but in this case it is a COUNTERFEIT to TRICK you.

TheWay stated: "James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights."

This verse has NOTHING to do with 2 Cor 11:14-15

TheWay stated: "1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all."

This verse has NOTHING to do with 2 Cor 11:14-15

TheWay stated: "So then to be an Angel of light means to be an Angel of truth and purity (see verse 15)… I don’t think this describes Satan at all… do you?"

Of course not! but he is not "being" an angel of light, he is "being" a COUNTERFEIT angel of light… THAT is what we are being WARNED ABOUT!

Do you believe satan can "appear" an an angel of light (but NOT really BE ONE?), TheWay, as scripture says he can? Was moroni an angel of light when he appeared to Joseph Smith? Do you believe in fallen angels or demons, TheWay?

[jdjhere]

Revelation 12:9
"And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the devil, and satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."

Fallen angels CAN appear to us as angels of light TO DECEIVE us, plain and simple.

[theway]

Revelation 12:9
"And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the devil, and satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."

Fallen angels CAN appear to us as angels of light TO DECEIVE us, plain and simple.And???? what is your whole point here?

[jdjhere]

Just that fallen angels CAN appear to us as angels of light TO DECEIVE us, plain and simple.

[theway]

Just that fallen angels CAN appear to us as angels of light TO DECEIVE us, plain and simple.I have never disagreed with that, so I don't see what the point is?

[jdjhere]

Ok, I thought you did. Sorry, my mistake. So, now I guess the discussion is about moroni. What does the LDS church know and teach about moroni? Can you please share with us, TheWay? Thanks.

[theway]

Ok, I thought you did. Sorry, my mistake. So, now I guess the discussion is about moroni. What does the LDS church know and teach about moroni? Can you please share with us, TheWay? Thanks.Moroni is a resurrected Being sent back to Joseph Smith to reveal where the Gold Plate were. He is called an Angel because he was a "Messenger" sent by God.

[jdjhere]

So, moroni was a resurrected human being, is that accurate? And he is NOT an actual Angel in the sense of THOSE created Beings, such as satan?

[theway]

So, moroni was a resurrected human being, is that accurate?Correct...

[jdjhere]

Ok... I added more above

[theway]

Ok... I added more aboveI'm not sure what you mean in the second part of your question.

[jdjhere]

Could you show me in the Bible where we are permitted by God to contact the dead or to have conversations with them? So the LDS church believes people here on earth that are deceased can come back and talk to us?

[jdjhere]

TheWay stated: "I'm not sure what you mean in the second part of your question."

Well, God created OTHER beings that are spirits and do not have bodies. satan is an example and the 1/3rd of the angels that fell with him. They are spirits. Human Beings are spirit AND have a PHYSICAL body. So, you are saying moroni was the second type... human first...resurrected and sent back from God, correct? Kind of like, well, Jesus... correct?

[theway]

TheWay stated: "I'm not sure what you mean in the second part of your question."

Well, God created OTHER beings that are spirits and do not have bodies. satan is an example and the 1/3rd of the angels that fell with him. They are spirits. Human Beings are spirit AND have a body. So, you are saying moroni was the second type... human first...resurrected and sent back from God, correct? Kind of like, well, Jesus... correct?Yes...

Only one small clarification; Moroni was spirit first, than spirit plus a physical body, then spirit plus a resurrected body.

[jdjhere]

By the way this is very interesting for me, TheWay. I have never been on this subject with LDS before so thank you for sharing your views.

[jdjhere]

TheWay stated: "Only one small clarification; Moroni was spirit first, then spirit plus a physical body, then spirit plus a resurrected body."

Ok. So, to the LDS, deceased Human Beings are already getting resurrected bodies? Are these bodies physical, just spirit or do you know? Does the LDS church teach on this?

[theway]

Could you show me in the Bible where we are permitted by God to contact the dead or to have conversations with them?
Matt. 27:52. And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
Mark 9:4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.




So the LDS church believes people here on earth that are deceased can come back and talk to us? Only if it allowed or if they are sent by God.

[jdjhere]

But how do you explain Deuteronomy 18:10-13?

"Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you. You must be blameless before the LORD your God." (NIV)

Matt. 27:52. And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

This verse, in my opinion, only shows the power of Jesus's Resurrection and is a pre-curser of what is to come at Jesus's second coming, when we will be "like" Him. This verse does not specifically say the saints talked to anybody it just says they appeared unto many. It also does not say they were in their resurrected (Glorified) bodies, just in their bodies. They were not eternal, like Jesus, and the saints died again but Jesus lives forever (as we will) in our Resurrected (Glorified) bodies at the second coming.

Mark 9:4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.

But they ONLY talked to Jesus, who is God (and who was Glorified), and NOT to the disciples. There is a BIG difference between God the Son talking to deceased people and us talking to deceased people. We are forbidden from doing so in Deut 8:10-13.

[theway]

But how do you explain Deuteronomy 18:10-13?

"Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you. You must be blameless before the LORD your God." (NIV) This is merely talking about a specific type of person or Medium of the Old Testament times. But if you notice, I said if it is allowed, or if sent by God then it is OK.




Matt. 27:52. And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

This verse, in my opinion, only shows the power of Jesus's Resurrection and is a pre-curser of what is to come at Jesus's second coming, when we will be "like" Him. This verse does not specifically say the saints talked to anybody it just says they appeared unto many. It also does not say they were in their resurrected bodies, just in their bodies. The saints died again but Jesus lives forever (as we will) in our Resurrected (Glorified) bodies at the second coming.There are two resurrections, one for the just and one for the unjust. The one for the just (The First Resurrection) started at the time of the resurrection of Christ because He was the "First to rise" or "first fruits". (Acts 26:22-23),(James 1:18) But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. The Second Resurrection comes after the Millennium, after all is done.
BTW, This is not uniquely LDS Doctrine.




Mark 9:4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.

But they ONLY talked to Jesus, who is God, and NOT to the disciples. There is a BIG difference in God talking to deceased people and us. We are forbidden from doing so in Deut 8:10-13.
There is nothing to say that they didn't talk to the disciples, or that it wasn't allowed. The Early Christian writings state that they did, but we all know how you hate the Early Christian writings.

[jdjhere]

Saul did not have much luck talking to a "dead" Samuel either.
Interesting view, TheWay. Touche, but I disagree immensely. In any case, sometimes angels are indeed sent here, by God, to advise people of His will.
On the converse however, demons, or fallen angels, serve Satan (the father of lies). These beings can, and will, deceive people at every turn and are already present HERE, on earth. This includes appearing to be the ghost of a loved one or some other haunting apparition... THAT is the danger. Demons do not have to appear as scaly monsters, as they are typically portrayed in art and pictures. Remember that demons used to be angels of God.

http://www.gotquestions.org/ghosts-hauntings.html

[TheSword99]

Bump for theway who is still trying to wiggle out of having to answer what was that being that visited Smith which was dark and foreboding?

[jdjhere]

"Early Christian Writings" are a whole other subject for a different thread. Start one if you would like.

[jdjhere]

Give TheSword99 a go, TheWay. He has been dying for an answer from you and I would be interested too. I have taken enough of your time. Thank you for the answers (even if I strongly disagree with you.) :)

[TheSword99]

This is merely talking about a specific type of person or Medium of the Old Testament times. But if you notice, I said if it is allowed, or if sent by God then it is OK.


.

Consulting familiar spirits or having anything to do with the occult is an abomination before God. It will never be OK. But I guess because you believe in "new revelations" you probably think God may allow it sometime. Just like polygamy which both the Bible and the BoM said is an abomination, but Smith got this "revelation" that God said its OK.

[theway]

Consulting familiar spirits or having anything to do with the occult is an abomination before God. It will never be OK.
Who said it was???... I'm guessing then that you don't know what a "familiar spirit" is.

But I guess because you believe in "new revelations" you probably think God may allow it sometime. Just like polygamy which both the Bible and the BoM said is an abomination, but Smith got this "revelation" that God said its OK. Sorry, but both the BOM and the Bible say it is allowed sometimes.

(Maybe you need to take some time off and study Mormonism apart from Anti-Mormon sites).

[TheSword99]

Who said it was???... I'm guessing then that you don't know what a "familiar spirit" is.
Sorry, but both the BOM and the Bible say it is allowed sometimes.

(Maybe you need to take some time off and study Mormonism apart from Anti-Mormon sites).

The BoM is not inspired Scripture. Where does the Holy Scriptures say that consulting familiar spirits are ever ok?

[theway]

Saul did not have much luck talking to a "dead" Samuel either.
Interesting view, TheWay. Touche, but I disagree immensely. In any case, sometimes angels are indeed sent here, by God, to advise people of His will.
On the converse however, demons, or fallen angels, serve Satan (the father of lies). These beings can, and will, deceive people at every turn and are already present HERE, on earth. This includes appearing to be the ghost of a loved one or some other haunting apparition... THAT is the danger. Demons do not have to appear as scaly monsters, as they are typically portrayed in art and pictures. Remember that demons used to be angels of God.

http://www.gotquestions.org/ghosts-hauntings.htmlI agree. However, you seem to be saying that because Moroni was sent as an Angel, that he cannot be from God and must be from the Devil; this I disagree with.

[theway]

The BoM is not inspired Scripture.
Useless opinion...

Where does the Holy Scriptures say that consulting familiar spirits are ever ok? It doesn't... but then I never said it did. I can only ***ume you think a "familiar spirit" is someone who is dead that you are "familiar" with; if that is the case you are incorrect. A familiar spirit is specifically the spirit of a dead person who a Witch or Medium calls on for help from the other side.

[jdjhere]

TheWay stated: "you seem to be saying that because Moroni was sent as an Angel, that he cannot be from God and must be from the Devil..."

Well, when you have a verse in the Bible like Galatians 1:8 "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed"
it certainly, at the very least, opens up the possibility of it. God at times DOES send angels from Heaven to give messages but the Bible also warns of counterfeiting by satan and his servants, that they can appear as angels of light. Do you believe there are these types of beings here on earth, TheWay? Answer at your leisure since I do not want to take you away from TheSword99.

[TheSword99]

Useless opinion...
It doesn't... but then I never said it did. I can only ***ume you think a "familiar spirit" is someone who is dead that you are "familiar" with; if that is the case you are incorrect. A familiar spirit is specifically the spirit of a dead person who a Witch or Medium calls on for help from the other side.

A familiar spirit is not a deceased loved one. They are demons. The Bible never refers to humans as spirits. Only demons and angels.

[TheSword99]

Useless opinion...
I

If the BoM is inspired by the Holy Spirit as the Bible is, then why do you need to pray and see? Can you show me where in the Holy Bible it says that prayer is ever a test to use to see if something is of God?

[theway]

If the BoM is inspired by the Holy Spirit as the Bible is, then why do you need to pray and see? Can you show me where in the Holy Bible it says that prayer is ever a test to use to see if something is of God?There is, but I would ask you a question instead.

How do you know if something is from God?

[theway]

A familiar spirit is not a deceased loved one. They are demons. The Bible never refers to humans as spirits. Only demons and angels.

I never said it had to be a loved one.

You seem to be trying real hard to win at least one point... keep trying:)

[TheSword99]

There is, but I would ask you a question instead.

How do you know if something is from God?

Don't waste my time answering my question with a question..:rolleyes:

[theway]

Well, when you have a verse in the Bible like Galatians 1:8 "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed"
it certainly, at the very least, opens up the possibility of it. God at times DOES send angels from Heaven to give messages but the Bible also warns of counterfeiting by satan and his servants, that they can appear as angels of light. Do you believe there are these types of beings here on earth, TheWay? Answer at your leisure since I do not want to take you away from TheSword99.We are going in circles again; this scripture is not to be taken literally because it creates an impossible scenario, as shown by the multiple commentaries written on it. Like I stated in my post 78? These two verses you are trying to put together are completely different.
One involves an actual Angel from Heaven; the other deals with a being that only “appears” like an Angel from Heaven.

[TheSword99]

I never said it had to be a loved one.

You seem to be trying real hard to win at least one point... keep trying:)

Were these not your words: "A familiar spirit is specifically the spirit of a dead person who a Witch or Medium calls on for help from the other side."

[theway]

Don't waste my time answering my question with a question..:rolleyes:Well I've answered a lot of yours; are you saying there is no quid pro quo or comunication here?

[theway]

Were these not your words: "A familiar spirit is specifically the spirit of a dead person who a Witch or Medium calls on for help from the other side."And???????

[jdjhere]

Post #78 is James Banta. You are right though and this is a total waste of time because of our circular conversation. I answer you and you say I don't and you answer me and I say you don't, though I WILL say the conversation about being in contact with the dead was an interesting one. Where do we go from here? Agree to disagree agreeably I guess. This is why I hardly ever come here anymore. So... goodbye again. Be back sometime, who knows when.

[theway]

Post #78 is James Banta. You are right though and this is a total waste of time because of our circular conversation. I answer you and you say I don't and you answer me and I say you don't, though I WILL say the conversation about being in contact with the dead was an interesting one. Where do we go from here? Agree to disagree agreeably I guess. This is why I hardly ever come here anymore. So... goodbye again. Be back sometime, who knows when.Post #76 (I was going by memory)
I already stated that we will be in disagreement.. I just merely pointed out that you would not only be in disagreement with me, but also with the vast majority of people you view as Christian as well.

[TheSword99]

And???????

You said a spirit doesn't have to be a loved one. Yet a "familiar spirit" is never a deceased human. Its demons in disguise.

God may have allowed Samuel to be summoned up from the dead in this particular case, but God declared such practices to be abhorrent to Him, and those who did practice such things in Israel were to be put to death (Lev.20:27; Deut. 18:10-12).

Nor can a familiar spirit ever be an angel because of God's strong condemnation against consulting them.

[TheSword99]

We are going in circles again; this scripture is not to be taken literally because it creates an impossible scenario, as shown by the multiple commentaries written on it. Like I stated in my post 78? These two verses you are trying to put together are completely different.
One involves an actual Angel from Heaven; the other deals with a being that only “appears” like an Angel from Heaven.

The only thing that is impossible is for an angel of God to teach falsely. However, the devil, by appearing as an angel of light, is not only possible but satan has done and still does this. You even admitted that Smith was visited by a demonic presence. Later, Smith claims an angel of light came to him.

How I ask can you even believe Smith was a true prophet of God and that Mormonism restored original Christianity?

True Christianity has only one Prophet, the LORD Jesus Christ, God the Son.

[James Banta]

Read it again... it says “Angel of light” not just “Angel”.
Light in the Bible is almost always synonymous with truth and righteousness.
James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights,
1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
So then to be an Angel of light means to be an Angel of truth and purity (see verse 15)… I don’t think this describes Satan at all… do you?

Satan was an Angel.. An Angel called Lucifer the bearer of LIGHT.. He was an angel of light, but still he sinned.. Even angels have the knowledge of good and evil. They are without a sin nature such as we posses but they can sin and Satan is proof of that.. So if even an angel OF LIGHT teaches another gospel let them be accursed!! This p***age should make sense even to a LDS. Any person or thing that teaches another gospel other than the one we have receive should be seen as accursed. This goes from any source from an angel of light down to a child of Satan, and anything in between.. Paul is clear that nothing and no one can bring a different gospel and escape being cursed. To misunderstand that is the act of a fool.. IHS jim

[theway]

Satan was an Angel.. An Angel called Lucifer the bearer of LIGHT.. He was an angel of light, but still he sinned.. Even angels have the knowledge of good and evil. They are without a sin nature such as we posses but they can sin and Satan is proof of that.. So if even an angel OF LIGHT teaches another gospel let them be accursed!! This p***age should make sense even to a LDS. Any person or thing that teaches another gospel other than the one we have receive should be seen as accursed. This goes from any source from an angel of light down to a child of Satan, and anything in between.. Paul is clear that nothing and no one can bring a different gospel and escape being cursed. To misunderstand that is the act of a fool.. IHS jimLOL... Still trying to find a way to twist it so it comes out in your favor I see...


Keep trying...

[James Banta]

LOL... Still trying to find a way to twist it so it comes out in your favor I see...


Keep trying...

Done Satan was an angel of Light.. He sinned!! If he can sin any angel of light can sin.. So Paul rightly said that even if an angel of light came with a different Gospel he is accursed.. Mormonism teaches that an angel of light did come with another gospel.. The only testimony not from men accused by the prophet of being liars and thieves is Smith himself.. It is a one man testimony and because of what Jesus said about a testimony of oneself (John 5:31), it is NOT reliable.. The only twisting here is you saying that the scripture in not reliable.. Your blasphemy continues.. IHS jim

[jdjhere]

TheWay Stated: "We are going in circles again; this scripture is not to be taken literally because it creates an impossible scenario, as shown by the multiple commentaries written on it. Like I stated in my post 78? These two verses you are trying to put together are completely different.
One involves an actual Angel from Heaven; the other deals with a being that only “appears” like an Angel from Heaven.

No. I already broke the sentence down for you. You don't know what you are talking about. It is "if WE preach to you another (different, restored) gospel" OR "If an Angel from Heaven" preaches another (different, restored) gospel" which only PROVES an angel from Heaven (satan) (or even one that appears to be from heaven) COULD INDEED preach another gospel to trick you. And it HAS. Why would Paul put a divine curse on a being for something that being could NOT even do? You keep spouting the same answer after you have been refuted with the CLEAR MEANING of the text. You can say all you want that almost ALL Christians do not believe this because this is only your opinion. PROVE it. Every Christian HERE AGREES it is a warning and SHOULD be taken literally. You ignore that satan CAN appear as an angel of light and your faith is founded on this exact scenario. All the "explaining away" in the world will not change this and Gods word stands true. Do you believe what God had told us, that satan CAN appear as an angel of light to lead us away from the true gospel? I know that you do NOT because you have already tried to explain that an angel of light could ONLY be good so you have dismissed away the clear meaning of the text. For anybody that is reading this... PLEASE BEWARE the angel moroni, the angel delivering a "restored" (different) gospel than the one that the apostle Paul delivered once for all to the saints. There is ONLY one God, His message DOES NOT CHANGE and Jesus Christ did it ALL for us on the cross. " It is finished." THIS IS first century Christianity.

[James Banta]

TheWay Stated: "We are going in circles again; this scripture is not to be taken literally because it creates an impossible scenario, as shown by the multiple commentaries written on it. Like I stated in my post 78? These two verses you are trying to put together are completely different.
One involves an actual Angel from Heaven; the other deals with a being that only “appears” like an Angel from Heaven.

No. I already broke the sentence down for you. You don't know what you are talking about. It is "if WE preach to you another (different, restored) gospel" OR "If an Angel from Heaven" preaches another (different, restored) gospel" which only PROVES an angel from Heaven (satan) (or even one that appears to be from heaven) COULD INDEED preach another gospel to trick you. And it HAS. Why would Paul put a divine curse on a being for something that being could NOT even do? You keep spouting the same answer after you have been refuted with the CLEAR MEANING of the text. You can say all you want that almost ALL Christians do not believe this because this is only your opinion. PROVE it. Every Christian HERE AGREES it is a warning and SHOULD be taken literally. You ignore that satan CAN appear as an angel of light and your faith is founded on this exact scenario. All the "explaining away" in the world will not change this and Gods word stands true. Do you believe what God had told us, that satan CAN appear as an angel of light to lead us away from the true gospel? I know that you do NOT because you have already tried to explain that an angel of light could ONLY be good so you have dismissed away the clear meaning of the text. For anybody that is reading this... PLEASE BEWARE the angel moroni, the angel delivering a "restored" (different) gospel than the one that the apostle Paul delivered once for all to the saints. There is ONLY one God, His message DOES NOT CHANGE and Jesus Christ did it ALL for us on the cross. " It is finished." THIS IS first century Christianity.

Have you noticed how the way switched off when his comments were so Biblically canceled? The only path left open to him on these point is to condemn the scripture.. But wait, he even tried that and his attack was met with the logic of God direct for His word yet again.. The fact that mormonism is another gospel is undisputed. All way could come up with was that it didn't make sense that an angel of light from God couldn't commit such and evil.. After reminding him that this has already happened in the person of Satan the way ran off.. May God use this exchange to convict way's heart and mind and bring him to Jesus.. IHS jim

[jdjhere]

New International Version- "And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light."
New Living Translation- "But I am not surprised! Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light."
English Standard Version- "And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light."
New American Standard- "No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light."
King James Bible (Cambridge) "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light."
International Standard Version- "And no wonder, since Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light."
Aramaic Bible in Plain English- And not to wonder at this, for if he who is Satan resembles an Angel of light,"
Gods Word Translation- "And no wonder, even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light."
King James 2000- "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light."
Barnes, Clarkes, Gills, notes on the Bible: And no marvel - And it is not wonderful, 2 Corinthians 11:15. Since Satan himself is capable of appearing to be an angel of light, it is not to be deemed strange that those who are in his service also should resemble him.
For Satan himself is transformed ... - That is, he who is an apostate angel; who is malignant and wicked; who is the prince of evil, ***umes the appearance of a holy angel. Paul ***umes this as an indisputable and admitted truth, without attempting to prove it, and without referring to any particular instances. Probably he had in his eye cases where Satan put on false and delusive appearances for the purpose of deceiving, or where he ***umed the appearance of great sanc***y and reverence for the authority of God. Such instances occurred in the temptation of our first parents Genesis 3:1-6, and in the temptation of the Saviour, Matthew 4. The phrase "an angel of light," means a pure and holy angel, light being the emblem of purity and holiness. Such are all the angels that dwell in heaven; and the idea is, that Satan ***umes such a form as to appear to be such an angel.
In whatever form Satan appeared to our first mother (Eve), his pretensions and professions gave him the appearance of a good angel; and by pretending that Eve should get a great increase of light, that is, wisdom and understanding, he deceived her, and led her to transgress. It is generally said that Satan has three forms under which he tempts men:
1. The subtle serpent.
2. The roaring lion.
3. The angel of light.
And by means of our senses and p***ions, as the subtle serpent, he is frequently deceiving us, so that often the workings of corrupt nature are mistaken for the operations of the Spirit of God.
now Satan, the enemy of mankind, sometimes appears in the form of one of these; as he did to Eve in the garden, and to Christ in the wilderness; and by such appearances he often imposes on mankind; pretends the greatest friendship, when he designs nothing but ruin; and under a notion of good, either honest, or pleasant, or profitable, draws on into the commission of the greatest evils; and, under a show of truth, introduces the most notorious falsehoods and errors; and, under a pretence of religion, all sorts of idolatry, supers***ion, and impiety; it is in this way he has succeeded in his enterprises and temptations; these are his wiles, stratagems, and cunning devices.
Geneva Study Bible- "By light is meant the heavenly glory, of which the angels are partakers.
Peoples New Testament- "For Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Even Satan can take the shape of an angel of light. He always seeks to destroy by coming in a false guise.

Galatians 1:8 "But though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Yes, I can see almost ALL Christians and ALL commentaries disagree with the fact that this verse should be taken "literally." ?? :0| ??

[jdjhere]

Fallen Angels

Like the Bible, the Book of Mormon also describes some fallen angels who rebelled against God and now work under the command of Satan, a demon who was once the angel Lucifer. Those angels, whom God had created for good, now tragically can only accomplish evil because they’re separated from God.

Book of mormon: 2 Nephi 9:9 describes the fallen angels: "And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness."

Well, at least the BOM got THAT right and disagrees with you, TheWay.

[jdjhere]

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
(the LDS gospel is NOT "more information" or "another testament to" the Gospel... it is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT Gospel all together and THAT is what we are debating here)
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Above from http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/gal/1?lang=eng (Galatians 1: 6-9)

Devil:
Latter-day revelation confirms the biblical teaching that the devil is a reality and that he does strive to lead men and women from the work of God. One of the major techniques of the devil is to cause human beings to think they are following God’s ways, when in reality they are deceived by the devil to follow other paths.
He is miserable in his situation, and “stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness” (2 Ne. 9:9). He tries to imitate the work of God by transforming himself nigh unto an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:12–15; 2 Ne. 9:9; D&C 128:20).

Above from http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/devil.p5?lang=eng&letter=d

[jdjhere]

JamesBanta noted (of TheWay): "The only path left open to him (theWay) on these point is to condemn the scripture."

AND try to dismiss it all away by… well… dismissing away the CLEAR MEANING of what the text actually SAYS. TheWay did this earlier with the Apostle Paul as well, and said he would choose the angel moroni over the Apostle Paul. So, NOW he attacks an APOSTLE!
TheWay states: (Post #134 in this thread)
"This means that even if Satan can appear as an Angel, it is infinitely easier for him to appear as a “man” spreading false doctrine. (note: even though satan is already an angel!)
"Even this scripture admits that when given a choice; an Angel is harder to fake than a man like Paul would be; or Calvin, or a televangelist, or even a respected Christian Theologian." (note: or a 19th century farm boy)
"So when I’m ignoring you… I’m just saving you from further embarr***ment over your lack of scripture knowledge." Nice. Post 134 of this thread: "When given the choice as to whom to believe; I would pick the Angel sent from God, over a MAN claiming to be sent from God." And NOW TheWay attacks the Apostle Paul.

[jdjhere]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/rick-warren-fundamental-differences-between-mormons-and-christians/

Some good stuff here on the differences between LDS beliefs and Evangelical Christian beliefs.

[theway]

New International Version- "And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light."
New Living Translation- "But I am not surprised! Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light."
English Standard Version- "And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light."
New American Standard- "No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light."
King James Bible (Cambridge) "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light."
International Standard Version- "And no wonder, since Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light."
Aramaic Bible in Plain English- And not to wonder at this, for if he who is Satan resembles an Angel of light,"
Gods Word Translation- "And no wonder, even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light."
King James 2000- "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light."
Barnes, Clarkes, Gills, notes on the Bible: And no marvel - And it is not wonderful, 2 Corinthians 11:15. Since Satan himself is capable of appearing to be an angel of light, it is not to be deemed strange that those who are in his service also should resemble him.
For Satan himself is transformed ... - That is, he who is an apostate angel; who is malignant and wicked; who is the prince of evil, ***umes the appearance of a holy angel. Paul ***umes this as an indisputable and admitted truth, without attempting to prove it, and without referring to any particular instances. Probably he had in his eye cases where Satan put on false and delusive appearances for the purpose of deceiving, or where he ***umed the appearance of great sanc***y and reverence for the authority of God. Such instances occurred in the temptation of our first parents Genesis 3:1-6, and in the temptation of the Saviour, Matthew 4. The phrase "an angel of light," means a pure and holy angel, light being the emblem of purity and holiness. Such are all the angels that dwell in heaven; and the idea is, that Satan ***umes such a form as to appear to be such an angel.
In whatever form Satan appeared to our first mother (Eve), his pretensions and professions gave him the appearance of a good angel; and by pretending that Eve should get a great increase of light, that is, wisdom and understanding, he deceived her, and led her to transgress. It is generally said that Satan has three forms under which he tempts men:
1. The subtle serpent.
2. The roaring lion.
3. The angel of light.
And by means of our senses and p***ions, as the subtle serpent, he is frequently deceiving us, so that often the workings of corrupt nature are mistaken for the operations of the Spirit of God.
now Satan, the enemy of mankind, sometimes appears in the form of one of these; as he did to Eve in the garden, and to Christ in the wilderness; and by such appearances he often imposes on mankind; pretends the greatest friendship, when he designs nothing but ruin; and under a notion of good, either honest, or pleasant, or profitable, draws on into the commission of the greatest evils; and, under a show of truth, introduces the most notorious falsehoods and errors; and, under a pretence of religion, all sorts of idolatry, supers***ion, and impiety; it is in this way he has succeeded in his enterprises and temptations; these are his wiles, stratagems, and cunning devices.
Geneva Study Bible- "By light is meant the heavenly glory, of which the angels are partakers.
Peoples New Testament- "For Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Even Satan can take the shape of an angel of light. He always seeks to destroy by coming in a false guise.

Galatians 1:8 "But though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Yes, I can see almost ALL Christians and ALL commentaries disagree with the fact that this verse should be taken "literally." ?? :0| ??LOL... REALLY!????
Tell me you didn’t just use the commentary for 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 to prove that Galatians 1:8 should be taken literally??? LOL…
That is either the lamest argument I’ve seen; or the most dishonest.

[jdjhere]

Whatever you say, TheWay. I expected a personal attack from you about these verses and you did not let me down. I guess we are even since I said you do not know what you were talking about. I still hold to that, though, and that is different than saying someone is dishonest (that is the same as calling me a liar). I merely said that you were mistaken. The LAST thing I am is dishonest (maybe a little lame sometimes!) These things I posted say what they say and I did not write them, the Apostle Paul did inspired by the Holy Spirit. So, good luck with all your "explaining clear texts away" with your incorrect "interpretations" of Biblical p***ages. You are stuck with a different gospel (not me) delivered by an "angel from Heaven" and it is warned about in Galatians 1:6-9 and explained how this can happen in 2 Corinthians 11:14-15.



Devil:
"Latter-day revelation confirms the biblical teaching that the devil is a reality and that he does strive to lead men and women from the work of God. One of the major techniques of the devil is to cause human beings to think they are following God’s ways, when in reality they are deceived by the devil to follow other paths.
He is miserable in his situation, and “stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness” (2 Ne. 9:9). He tries to imitate the work of God by transforming himself nigh unto an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:12–15; 2 Ne. 9:9 )

Above from http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/dev...g=eng&letter=d

20 "And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophets—the book to be revealed. A voice of the Lord in the wilderness of Fayette, Seneca county, declaring the three witnesses to bear record of the book! The voice of Michael on the banks of the Susquehanna, detecting the devil when he appeared as an angel of light! The voice of Peter, James, and John in the wilderness between Harmony, Susquehanna county, and Colesville, Broome county, on the Susquehanna river, declaring themselves as possessing the keys of the kingdom, and of the dispensation of the fulness of times!"
(D&C 128:20) Joseph Smith

These are LDS sources stating satan "appears as an angel of light." You stated an angel of light could ONLY be from Heaven and could ONLY be good. I challenge this.

[jdjhere]

TheWay stated: "LOL... REALLY!????
Tell me you didn’t just use the commentary for 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 to prove that Galatians 1:8 should be taken literally??? LOL…
That is either the lamest argument I’ve seen; or the most dishonest."

Actually I only used 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 to show everybody that when you said "almost ALL" Christianity disagrees that Galatians 1:8 should NOT be taken "literally" was an incorrect statement and that "virtually EVERY commentary" states it should not be either. Then I merely showed you from 2 Corinthians how this could happen. No intentional dishonesty and I would say when you said an angel of light from Heaven could ONLY be a good angel I have shown you from your own "prophet" that satan CAN appear as an angel of light. Keep following the prophet, TheWay.

[RealFakeHair]

TheWay stated: "LOL... REALLY!????
Tell me you didn’t just use the commentary for 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 to prove that Galatians 1:8 should be taken literally??? LOL…
That is either the lamest argument I’ve seen; or the most dishonest."

Actually I only used 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 to show everybody that when you said "almost ALL" Christianity disagrees that Galatians 1:8 should NOT be taken "literally" was an incorrect statement and that "virtually EVERY commentary" states it should not be either. Then I merely showed you from 2 Corinthians how this could happen. No intentional dishonesty and I would say when you said an angel of light from Heaven could ONLY be a good angel I have shown you from your own "prophet" that satan CAN appear as an angel of light. Keep following the prophet, TheWay.

Joseph Smith jr, Had been visited by Victoria Angels, Blue Angels or Angels in the outfield, but no he was visited by his great imaginary mind. Did I say great?:eek:

[TheSword99]

Whatever you say, TheWay. I expected a personal attack from you about these verses and you did not let me down. I guess we are even since I said you do not know what you were talking about. I still hold to that, though, and that is different than saying someone is dishonest (that is the same as calling me a liar). I merely said that you were mistaken. The LAST thing I am is dishonest (maybe a little lame sometimes!) These things I posted say what they say and I did not write them, the Apostle Paul did inspired by the Holy Spirit. So, good luck with all your "explaining clear texts away" with your incorrect "interpretations" of Biblical p***ages. You are stuck with a different gospel (not me) delivered by an "angel from Heaven" and it is warned about in Galatians 1:6-9 and explained how this can happen in 2 Corinthians 11:14-15.



.

A lot of the lds on these forums are not here to study the bible with us. They don't believe they have anything to learn from us since they belong to a church that believes it alone has all the truth.

[jdjhere]

LOL at Realfakehair! Where in the world do you come up with these things?? :)

I personally believe, that since joseph smith was an uneducated farm boy, that he WAS INDEED visited by "something." I don't think he was intelligent enough to have put this all together and to make it "work." There had to be a mind in this that is far beyond anything a mere man could do. So, the REAL question is- WAS IT the God of the Bible or the "god" of this age, satan, or one of his servants? And again, the real issue here is about LDS THEOLOGY and NOT the LDS people, though when they say they have a "restored" gospel I take issue when it is a completely "different" message- stating there are MANY gods (this makes God VERY angry!) and that we can BECOME one (this makes satan VERY happy!). God is an "uncreated Being" and we are NOT. He is the Creator and we are the created. It will always be so.

[TheSword99]

LOL at Realfakehair! Where in the world do you come up with these things?? :)

I personally believe, that since joseph smith was an uneducated farm boy, that he WAS INDEED visited by "something." I don't think he was intelligent enough to have put this all together and to make it "work." There had to be a mind in this that is far beyond anything a mere man could do. So, the REAL question is- WAS IT the God of the Bible or the "god" of this age, satan, or one of his servants? And again, the real issue here is about LDS THEOLOGY and NOT the LDS people, though when they say they have a "restored" gospel I take issue when it is a completely "different" message- stating there are MANY gods (this makes God VERY angry!) and that we can BECOME one (this makes satan VERY happy!). God is an "uncreated Being" and we are NOT. He is the Creator and we are the created. It will always be so.


Satan can use anyone. Look at Muhammad who had a similar experience. He too was visited by an evil spirit before he claimed to see an angelic being. Then Islam was born. I believe Smith borrowed from many sources.

[James Banta]

LOL... REALLY!????
Tell me you didn’t just use the commentary for 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 to prove that Galatians 1:8 should be taken literally??? LOL…
That is either the lamest argument I’ve seen; or the most dishonest.

Maybe for those that say it isn't literal it's the sticking of one's head in the sand to try to avoid truth. Making it possible to believe that a lie is the truth..

Couldn't we say the same thing about the first vision? It wasn't a literal visitation of the Father and the Son just a feeling Smith held within His mind that he explained by saying he saw a vision of the Father and the Son.

According to your denial of the scripture NOTHING about it must be literal. The death of Jesus on the cross, the resurrection, His appearance in the upper room. really the creation could be allegoric and we don't actually exist at all.. Your denial of a literal interpretation of the Bible has as much truth to it as any of these other points of scripture are nothing but allegoric .. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Satan can use anyone. Look at Muhammad who had a similar experience. He too was visited by an evil spirit before he claimed to see an angelic being. Then Islam was born. I believe Smith borrowed from many sources.

Christians should understand that with all the different versions of Smith report of the first vision that it was a work of fiction his mind was organizing into a story that would glorify him and therefore belittle God.. It denies the Bible and changes God from the Spirit the Bible attests Him to be, and makes Him a mere glorified man.. IHS jim

[theway]

Actually I only used 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 to show everybody that when you said "almost ALL" Christianity disagrees that Galatians 1:8 should NOT be taken "literally" was an incorrect statement and that "virtually EVERY commentary" states it should not be either. I have no idea what post you are refering to here, or what you are trying to say.


Then I merely showed you from 2 Corinthians how this could happen. No intentional dishonesty and I would say when you said an angel of light from Heaven could ONLY be a good angel I have shown you from your own "prophet" that satan CAN appear as an angel of light. Keep following the prophet, TheWay.Please show me where I ever stated that an angel of light from Heaven could ONLY be a good angel.

I suspect that you simply misread it again.

[jdjhere]

TheWay stated: "Please show me where I ever stated that an angel of light from Heaven could ONLY be a good angel."
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________________

TheWay stated: (post #143 in this thread)

"Read it again... it says “Angel of light” not just “Angel”.

"Light in the Bible is almost always synonymous with truth and righteousness."

James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights,

1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

TheWay stated: "So then to be an Angel of light means to be an Angel of truth and purity (see verse 15)… I don’t think this describes Satan at all… do you?"

No, but he tries to trick us in 2 Cor 11:14 (NIV): "And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light."
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________

TheWay stated: "Please show me where I ever stated that an angel of light from Heaven could ONLY be a good angel."

Why,TheWay? Do you believe that an angel of light from Heaven could be a "bad" angel??

[James Banta]

TheWay stated: "Please show me where I ever stated that an angel of light from Heaven could ONLY be a good angel."
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________________

TheWay stated: (post #143 in this thread)

"Read it again... it says “Angel of light” not just “Angel”.

"Light in the Bible is almost always synonymous with truth and righteousness."

James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights,

1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

TheWay stated: "So then to be an Angel of light means to be an Angel of truth and purity (see verse 15)… I don’t think this describes Satan at all… do you?"

No, but he tries in 2 Cor 11:14 (NIV): "And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light."
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________

TheWay stated: "Please show me where I ever stated that an angel of light from Heaven could ONLY be a good angel."

Why,TheWay? Do you believe that an angel of light from Heaven could be a "bad" angel??

This line of discussion has been a GREAT example of the OP. The interpretation of the LDS church doesn't aline at all with the real meaning of the Bible.. Though I was wrong in my understanding of what I was taught in my life long ago in the LDS church, a memory that began this thread, this interpretation of the p***age now being discussed proves that the interpretation of Bible by the LDS is totally off the mark. The teaching of the LDS church has proven to be totally unbiblical.. Remember here in the p***age under consideration, the way called the scripture so impossible so contradictive he made me believe he didn't see a place for it in God's word..

Since then we have shown him that an angel of light could bring a perverted message that is meant to distort the real gospel.. I for one agree with the Bible. Even if a ANGEL OF LIGHT is the one that brings a different gospel let him be accursed! That goes for anyone else that brings such lies.. IHS jim

[jdjhere]

Amen, James. That is the meaning of the warning- Let NO BEINGS give you any other Gospel or they are cursed of God. Simple and straight forward. Paul gave it and that settles it. If LDS can show us that their gospel is the same one that the Apostle Paul preached and THAT is the same gospel moroni gave to Joseph Smith then that would be a start. The BOM, Pearl of Great Price and D&C's were "added" to "clarify" according to LDS (Proverbs 30:6 "Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar" and Revelation 22:18-19 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book") but without LDS "scriptures" the Bible by itself tells a COMPLETELY different story.

[James Banta]

Amen, James. That is the meaning of the warning- Let NO BEINGS give you any other Gospel or they are cursed of God. Simple and straight forward. Paul gave it and that settles it. If LDS can show us that their gospel is the same one that the Apostle Paul preached and THAT is the same gospel moroni gave to Joseph Smith then that would be a start. The BOM, Pearl of Great Price and D&C's were "added" to "clarify" according to LDS (Proverbs 30:6 "Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar" and Revelation 22:18-19 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book") but without LDS "scriptures" the Bible by itself tells a COMPLETELY different story.

I am sorry for those deceived by the teachings of Joe Smith but mormonism is a gospel about what we must do to be with God while the Gospel of Jesus Christ is a Gospel of what God has done so that we can be with Him.. They do we receive. That makes the messages incompatible. They do, we receive. That makes mormonism another gospel, and those that brought it accursed. The way has done what LDS all over the world do when confronted with the Bible.. The attack it as corrupt and false.. Instead they do what they accuse the Church of, and that is they teach for doctrines the commandments of men while denying the power of God in HIS WORD.. IHS jim

[jdjhere]

My heart goes out to the LDS people as well. Most LDS people I know are wonderful people but that does not save them. I also know plenty of wonderful Evangelicals and their good works and actions do not save them either. It is a belief and trust in the Son of God and His sacrifice on the cross that saves us, Him "boring our sins in His body on the tree" is what does it and I am thankful to Him every day until I meet Him in person. You are correct, James. RELIGION is mans attempt to do good works to try to please God enough to "make it" to Heaven while a relation with Jesus Christ is simply accepting what He has done FOR US and doing the good works led by the Spirit of God to please the Master and because it is the right thing to do.

[jdjhere]

TheWay stated (post #207): "Please show me where I ever stated that an angel of light from Heaven could ONLY be a good angel."
__________________________________________________ _______
TheWay stated: (post #143)

"Read it again... it says “Angel of light” not just “Angel”.

"Light in the Bible is almost always synonymous with truth and righteousness."

James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights,

1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

TheWay stated: "So then to be an Angel of light means to be an Angel of truth and purity (see verse 15)… I don’t think this describes Satan at all… do you?"
__________________________________________________ ___
No, but he tries to deceive us in 2 Cor 11:14 (NIV): "And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light."
__________________________________________________ _________
TheWay stated: "Please show me where I ever stated that an angel of light from Heaven could ONLY be a good angel."

Why,TheWay? Do you believe that an angel of light from Heaven could be a "bad" angel??

Could you please answer this last question, TheWay? I have waited since yesterday afternoon now. Thanks.

[James Banta]

TheWay stated (post #207): "Please show me where I ever stated that an angel of light from Heaven could ONLY be a good angel."
__________________________________________________ _______
TheWay stated: (post #143)

"Read it again... it says “Angel of light” not just “Angel”.

"Light in the Bible is almost always synonymous with truth and righteousness."

James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights,

1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

TheWay stated: "So then to be an Angel of light means to be an Angel of truth and purity (see verse 15)… I don’t think this describes Satan at all… do you?"
__________________________________________________ ___
No, but he tries to deceive us in 2 Cor 11:14 (NIV): "And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light."
__________________________________________________ _________
TheWay stated: "Please show me where I ever stated that an angel of light from Heaven could ONLY be a good angel."

Why,TheWay? Do you believe that an angel of light from Heaven could be a "bad" angel??

Could you please answer this last question, TheWay? I have waited since yesterday afternoon now. Thanks.

The way knows that his point is lost.. I doubt he will be back to try to defend this point that has train wrecked on the truth of the scripture.. IHS jim

[jdjhere]

And after TheWay is done explaining his position on angels of light he can also explain why Joseph Smith (as well as other LDS) originally called the angel in the first encounter "Nephi…"

Which "angel of light" was it exactly... moroni or nephi??

The Times and Seasons Vol. III pp. 749, 753
"When I first looked upon him I was afraid, but the fear soon left me. He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi. That God has a work for me to do, ... He said there was a book deposited written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang."

*Note that Joseph Smith was the editor of the Times and Seasons. In modern printings of the History of the Church, this has been changed to read " Moroni". It is interesting to note that Joseph Smith lived for two years after the name "Nephi" was printed in Times and Seasons and he never published a retraction.

In August, 1842, the Millennial Star, printed in England , also published Joseph Smith's story stating that the angel's name was "Nephi" (see Millennial Star, vol. 3, p.53). On page 71 of the same volume we read that the "...message of the angel Nephi ... opened a new dispensation to man...."

Lucy Mack Smith
In 1853, Joseph's mother, Lucy Mack Smith, also said the angel's name was Nephi (Biographical Sketches, p. 79).

Pearl of Great Price, 1851 edition
The name was also published in the 1851 edition of the Pearl of Great Price as "Nephi." ("He called me by name and said unto me, that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi." (Pearl of Great Price, 1851 edition, page 41)

The original handwritten m****cript of the PofGP dictated by Joseph Smith reveals that the name was originally written as "Nephi," but that someone at a later date has written the word " Moroni" above the line. All evidence indicates that this change was made after Joseph Smiths death.

Walter L. Whipple, in his thesis written at BYU, stated that Orson Pratt "published The Pearl of Great Price in 1878, and removed the name of Nephi from the text entirely and inserted the name Moroni in its place" (Textual Changes in the Pearl of Great Price, typed copy, p.125).

[jdjhere]

But first things first:

Post #207 TheWay stated: "Please show me where I ever stated that an angel of light from Heaven could ONLY be a good angel."

Post #143 TheWay stated: "So then to be an Angel of light means to be an Angel of truth and purity ...

Why do you want me to do this anyway, TheWay? Do you believe that an angel of light from Heaven could be a "bad" angel??

2 Cor 11:14 "And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light...." The Apostle Paul taught that satan could (but you ATTACK Paul) so....

2 Nephi 9:9 (describes the fallen angels) "And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light...

So does 2 Nephi...... will you attack your own "scripture" as well?

Hellloooooooooo?

[jdjhere]

TheWay stated in Post #13 "Who is it that is finally left talking to themselves on this forum?"

Apparently...:confused: me?

[James Banta]

TheWay stated in Post #13 "Who is it that is finally left talking to themselves on this forum?"

Apparently...:confused: me?

Nor at all I am here.. I read everything.. We have been teaching, lifting up, and fellowshipping all along.. We can continue doing that or fold up as the way would have us do.. Hang in there we can tell each other of how God touched us and brought out of the darkness of mormonism and into the light of Jesus.. IHS jim

[TheSword99]

TheWay stated in Post #13 "Who is it that is finally left talking to themselves on this forum?"

Apparently...:confused: me?

If you still wish to converse with theway, he is posting quite a bit on CARM.

[jdjhere]

Thanks Sword but I will just wait until he comes back in here so it is less confusing and we can just continue this thread. :)

[James Banta]

If you still wish to converse with theway, he is posting quite a bit on CARM.

He'll be back here as soon as he gets banned there again.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Thanks Sword but I will just wait until he comes back in here so it is less confusing and we can just continue this thread. :)

You put the way down showing that he did indeed insist that an angel of light always must speak truth.. He hasn't an argument left to attack this p***age of the scripture. Instead of it being IMPOSSIBLE his eyes now start to understand that this is a serious warning. A curse from God will follow any one that brings a different gospel. Maybe he also learned that just because his unenlightened eyes can't see the truth of the scripture doesn't mean that the truth isn't there to be seen by those who have had the Holy Spirit in them as their guide, and teacher.. IHS jim

[jdjhere]

When TheWay posts things like these:

Post #13 "Who is it that is finally left talking to themselves on this forum?"
Post #20 "LOL... Like I said, the sad thing is that these are the people who plan on schooling us on Bible interpretation."
Post #23 "Please... now it's just apparent that you can't bring yourself to admit that you were wrong."
Post #57 "What's interesting is how little you understand about the Bible, yet you plan on coming here to school us." "Keep up the good work, Mormonism looks better every day when compaired with people like you.
Post #71 "I think we need to stop awhile and reflect on the fact that you guys were proven so utterly wrong in your interpretation of Gal. 1:6-9. This way we will always remember and never forget, just how little we should care about your understanding of the Bible, or anything to do with Mormonism."
Post #86 "It's fun to watch you wiggle around trying to keep from admitting that you were wrong."
Post #90 "This is why any further comunication with you will be useless until you know your Bible and your history."
Post #71 "James is never right about anything when it comes to the Bible."
Post #126 "Critics on this forum are nowhere close to what regular "Christians" believe…"
Post #178 "You seem to be trying real hard to win at least one point... keep trying "

And THIS is just in THIS thread!

It is very belittling as far as I am concerned. He states "who is left talking to themselves?" but then wont come back in and answer my questions. So, I guess ME, but not for lack of trying. He proves NOTHING, claims he does, then claims he knows more about the Bible than Evangelical do while denying the Bible when it is teachings something VERY clearly. The Bible ALONE is Gods Word and tells a COMPLETELY different story when the BOM and their other "scripture" are laid aside. Their "insofar as it is correctly translated" ACTUALLY means if it does not agree with LDS "scripture" then it is incorrect and since LDS "scripture" is newer the older must be "corrected." This is obviously an attack on the Bible and what God has already told us, not too hard to figure THAT one out. If you read TheWays above comments most of them are personal attacks on people for defending what the Bible ALONE says. All of his above posts are just a bunch of incorrect false "gloating" and I would urge people to read them carefully and prayerfully. I especially abhor his attacks on JamesBanta who obviously needs NO HELP in handling Gods Word, the Bible ALONE. Come back and answer Gods warning to YOU, TheWay, about an angel of light delivering a different gospel to you and if you believe this could happen. You asked me to show you where you stated that an angel of light from Heaven could ONLY be a good angel and I showed you. Then I asked you why you wanted to know this because I was curious IF you believed an angel of light from heaven could really be satan masquerading as one? So, I will wait, and the readers can decide who actually answers questions in the WM website.

[jdjhere]

TheSword99 posted: "If you still wish to converse with theway, he is posting quite a bit on CARM."

Well, how convenient for him. He needs to come back HERE and face Gods Word and answer my questions about them.

[jdjhere]

And wait....and wait....and wait....

[James Banta]

And wait....and wait....and wait....


I think the mormons are on a break.. Maybe they have all gone to CARM.. when they get bounced again they will be back.. IHS jim

[RealFakeHair]

I think the mormons are on a break.. Maybe they have all gone to CARM.. when they get bounced again they will be back.. IHS jim

Perhaps they are hiding with Romney, and wondering why their mormon god sent Sandy just at the wrong time.
Who would have thought the mormon god prefered a muslin over a mormon?
:eek:

[James Banta]

Perhaps they are hiding with Romney, and wondering why their mormon god sent Sandy just at the wrong time.
Who would have thought the mormon god prefered a muslin over a mormon?
:eek:

One anti Christian that holds that good is evil and evil is good is as bad ans another to me.. The WORLD is an evil place.. Both the mormon and the Muslim were poor choices.. All we as Christian can do is keep our eyes on Jesus and point others to Him as their ONLY HOPE.. IHS jim

[jdjhere]

And when TheWay comes back we can start a new thread and he can answer this too:
TheWay stated (post #78 in another thread) "Great... I've been to plenty of digs in South America and have tons of Precolumbian artifacts from the Book of Mormon times (most from Peru). The average price I have put on them is about 2000$ I have some nice stone war club heads and stone throwing slings, used by the Lamanites, Lots of pottery and textiles from the Nephites etc... Care to purchase any? Which one would you like?

This was a question of "Where is the Hill Cumorah" that NO LDS seems to want to deal with. If it is in NY, why not dig it up to PROVE to critics once and for all there was a great war there? I can hardly see how joseph smith went to Peru every time he went to the "hill Cumorah"...

This is why I say the LDS NEVER answer my questions, they just conveniently leave and then show up posting in another thread. THAT is why I don't come here much anymore.

[James Banta]

And when TheWay comes back we can start a new thread and he can answer this too:
TheWay stated (post #78 in another thread) "Great... I've been to plenty of digs in South America and have tons of Precolumbian artifacts from the Book of Mormon times (most from Peru). The average price I have put on them is about 2000$ I have some nice stone war club heads and stone throwing slings, used by the Lamanites, Lots of pottery and textiles from the Nephites etc... Care to purchase any? Which one would you like?

This was a question of "Where is the Hill Cumorah" that NO LDS seems to want to deal with. If it is in NY, why not dig it up to PROVE to critics once and for all there was a great war there? I can hardly see how joseph smith went to Peru every time he went to the "hill Cumorah"...

This is why I say the LDS NEVER answer my questions, they just conveniently leave and then show up posting in another thread. THAT is why I don't come here much anymore.

The Hill Cumorah exists just like the plates exist.. It is a fine example of the mythical thinking of Joseph Smith.. That which the LDS call the Hill Cumorah couldn't be the right hill because there is a remarkable lack of evidence per-Columbian artifacts being located there.. If the story had any truth to it the plates would have been presented to Smith there nit dug up from it.. This has more to do with his life as a money digger and less as a prophet.. IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

here is one more example of the poor Biblical interpretation of the LDS


Gen 6:2
That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Almost to a person the LDS will say "Angels came to earth and fathered a race .....

While Im not at all interested in what the Mormons may or may not teach on Genesis 6..I am interested that someone talk about what is really being taught in this verse at Gen 6:2

The way to approach this verse is to use it in context of the verses that came before it.
if you dont do this, and if you just drop on this verse from out of nowhere then you can get very mixed up as to what it is teaching.

however, lets back-up in Genesis and notice what is actually the correct "CONTEXT" so as to understand the correct meanings.


In Genesis 3 mankind falls in the Garden.

In Genesis 4 we read about the first murder. Following this we follow the line of sons in Cain's family tree.
As we read about the children of Cain we come to yet another murder , cursings, and polygamy.....(So this shows you how far down this side of the human race has fallen)

However right at the ending of Genesis 4 we read about a different family tree of mankind, starting with the birth of Seth.


In Genesis 5 we begin to see just how different this family is compared to the other family stemming from Cain.
In Seth's family we see men "Calling on the Lord" and this holy reliance on God grows and grows and shows up in the life of Enoch, who is said to "Walk with God"|

Now we have the correct context to move next to Genesis 6,,,where once again we see two very different family trees being talked about.

The Context of Genesis 6 is building on the same topics and subjects and people we were dealing with in Genesis 3, 4, and 5.

There are clearly two DIFFERENT families being talked about here.
Cain's side, being evil
Seth's side being godly.

Thus when we come to a verse that talks about the "Sons of God" we can clearly understand that we are only talking about the godly family of Seth.
And also when we are talking about "Daughters of men" we understand this to be just a name for the children of Cain.


So, the evil side of mankind was bad enough, but when it started to intermarry with the good side it caused the whole of humanity to slide into darkness and evil.
The good side did not make the bad side "better" , rather the goodness of Seth's family was deluded and removed.

Only evilness remained.

This is why we read the very sad words of God about men - "My Spirit will not contend with humans ..."
This statement is a judgement by God on what men had done to themselves.
The goodness had been lost....we had become only a force of evil on the face of the earth.



So now we can see that when you look at Genesis 6 in the correct context of it being read in connection with Genesis 4and 5 before it, that there is No Need For Angels in this story.
Genesis 6 is about humans, not angels.