PDA

View Full Version : It still bugs me



James Banta
07-28-2013, 06:27 PM
Today we were visiting a man in the hospital. Two very nice LDS men came in and gave the patient the elements of the LDS sacrament.. That's where I start to have trouble.. It's not that these men weren't committed to their church it is the elements themselves.. Levin bread, a symbol of sin, being the subst i tute for the body of the Lord? Mere water being used as a subst i tute for His blood? Is this a problem for anyone else? IHS jim

johnd
07-28-2013, 07:32 PM
I presume the patient was a Mormon. Still not good, just wondering if they were doing it to a non-mormon?

Sir
07-28-2013, 08:39 PM
Today we were visiting a man in the hospital. Two very nice LDS men came in and gave the patient the elements of the LDS sacrament.. That's where I start to have trouble.. It's not that these men weren't committed to their church it is the elements themselves.. Levin bread, a symbol of sin, being the subs***ute for the body of the Lord? Mere water being used as a subs***ute for His blood? Is this a problem for anyone else? IHS jim

Your hypercritical anti-Mormon nature is not really a problem for me. I just find it rather sad that even while visiting a man in the hospital you let your biggoted views of Mormons cloud your experience there with the man you saw.

As for the sacrament, ironic that anti-LDS claim the Mormons are the legalistic religion, while they pontificate on the substance of the symbols used to represent the atonement of Christ.

Symbols, by nature, mean to a person only what they want the symbol to mean. If the focus is on Jesus Christ and His atonement and the covenant that was made between the sinner and Christ, the material elements do not matter.

johnd
07-28-2013, 08:57 PM
Joseph Smith jr was the bigot, Sir.

Whether he actually had an ethereal experience or made it all up, he came out condemning the Church of Jesus Christ before taking that name for his religious contrivance. His actions before the experience with God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost (or Moromi depending on which version you believe) were that of a dishonest hoodlum. And the events surrounding his death suggest that he was killed by Masons whose deep secrets he swore to keep secret he divulged and incorporated into your religion proving he was dishonest his whole life.

And his legacy leading millions astray makes him on par with some of the worst people to have ever lived.

Well meaning most Mormons may be, but theologically wrong as proven by the Bible. It is not bigotry to warn people who are sincerely convinced that the bridge ahead is intact when in fact it is out. That's love and comp***ion.

Sir
07-28-2013, 09:02 PM
Joseph Smith jr was the bigot, Sir.

Whether he actually had an ethereal experience or made it all up, he came out condemning the Church of Jesus Christ before taking that name for his religious contrivance. His actions before the experience with God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost (or Moromi depending on which version you believe) were that of a hoodlum. And the events surrounding his death suggest that he was killed by Masons whose deep secrets he swore to keep secret he divulged and incorporated into your religion. And leading millions astray makes him on par with some of the worst people to have ever lived.

Yeah, I've heard it all before. And the same storyline has been chanted for 180 years.


Well meaning most Mormons may be, but theologically wrong as proven by the Bible. It is not bigotry to warn people who are sincerely convinced that the bridge ahead is intact when in fact it is out. That's love.

That one too. Anything an anti-Mormon does or syas is okay because they feel the ends justify the means. All out of love. Pfft...

johnd
07-28-2013, 09:05 PM
Well, are you willing to go toe to toe using the King James Bible to see where LDS is wrong or not?

Sir
07-28-2013, 09:08 PM
Well, are you willing to go toe to toe using the King James Bible to see where LDS is wrong or not?

No. Anti-LDS have been singing that line for 180 years as well.

The problem isn't the Bible. It's your interpretation of the Bible. So such an exercise is simply futile.

johnd
07-28-2013, 09:09 PM
2 Peter 1:20-21 (KJV)
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

johnd
07-28-2013, 09:09 PM
1 Thessalonians 5:21 (KJV)
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

johnd
07-28-2013, 09:10 PM
1 John 4:1 (KJV)
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

johnd
07-28-2013, 09:11 PM
Acts 17:11 (KJV)
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Sir
07-28-2013, 09:11 PM
2 Peter 1:20-21 (KJV)
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Great!!

So your saying every single Christian believes every single Bible p***age in the exact same way?

If not, my point stands.

johnd
07-28-2013, 09:11 PM
2 Timothy 3:15-16 (KJV)
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

johnd
07-28-2013, 09:12 PM
Great!!

So your saying every single Christian believes every single Bible p***age in the exact same way?

If not, my point stands.

No, your point fails on the say so of Joseph Smith jr.

Keep reading.

johnd
07-28-2013, 09:13 PM
John 16:13 (KJV)
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

johnd
07-28-2013, 09:13 PM
Smith was one man. He mislead millions. Based on his say so.

Sir
07-28-2013, 09:20 PM
Smith was one man. He mislead millions. Based on his say so.

I see you are simply going into your programmed responses of throwing out Bible verses in hopes of proving me wrong, even though I already stated it was futile and I wasn't interested.

Anti-LDS that "listen" that well in a conversation make me question what they are hearing to come up with their theological convictions. Simply hearing what they want to hear and ignoring anything that they don't.

Have fun!

johnd
07-28-2013, 09:29 PM
I see you are simply going into your programmed responses of throwing out Bible verses in hopes of proving me wrong, even though I already stated it was futile and I wasn't interested.

Anti-LDS that "listen" that well in a conversation make me question what they are hearing to come up with their theological convictions. Simply hearing what they want to hear and ignoring anything that they don't.

Have fun!

No, I was answering your objection to our dialogue with scriptures.

You seem comfortable in your "programmed" responses.

One day you will realize they are only programmed responses. Nothing more.

Perhaps then you will see that only the truth matters.

Sir
07-28-2013, 10:00 PM
No, I was answering your objection to our dialogue with scriptures.

You seem comfortable in your "programmed" responses.

One day you will realize they are only programmed responses. Nothing more.

Perhaps then you will see that only the truth matters.

No, in fact you dodged my question.

Care to try again?

Do all Christians hold every single Biblical verse with the same interpretation? If not, why not?

James Banta
07-29-2013, 08:20 AM
Your hypercritical anti-Mormon nature is not really a problem for me. I just find it rather sad that even while visiting a man in the hospital you let your biggoted views of Mormons cloud your experience there with the man you saw.

As for the sacrament, ironic that anti-LDS claim the Mormons are the legalistic religion, while they pontificate on the substance of the symbols used to represent the atonement of Christ.

Symbols, by nature, mean to a person only what they want the symbol to mean. If the focus is on Jesus Christ and His atonement and the covenant that was made between the sinner and Christ, the material elements do not matter.

Just where on my comments is there any attack on mormons? By calling me a hypercritical anti-Mormon by nature, you attack me wrongly.. I didn't say one word that attacked any LDS in my post. I said that leaven is a symbol of sin as stated by God through the Apostle Paul. Would it be ok if we decided to say that a Bishop of the Church can be a polygamist because we don't like his shepherding of the church being the symbol of the shepherding of Jesus over His Church? Can we do what ever we want with the symbols HE gave to us.. You insist that baptism by completed by completely emerging a person in water.. Why not just pour or sprinkle? It's because symbols are important. Mormonism still uses symbols for elements of the Lord's supper. It has just decide that those used by the Lord Himself doesn't really matter. But I am the hypocrite here, right? And here in your "sacred" ordinance You use a symbol for SIN to be a symbol for the body of the Lord. That IS flat blasphemy (1 Corinthians 5:7-8 ).. Don't come here and tell us that mormonism is THE one true Church and then ***ociate the Lord of Glory with a symbol that God has used as a symbol of sin.. This isn't hard or even expensive to fix. Just use triskets, or any unleavened cracker.. Someone could even bake a batch of unleavened bread.

So if the elements don't matter, then the necessity for baptism or the manor in which it is preformed doesn't matter either. The covenants that are there is all that matters.. IHS jim

James Banta
07-29-2013, 08:30 AM
Yeah, I've heard it all before. And the same storyline has been chanted for 180 years.



That one too. Anything an anti-Mormon does or syas is okay because they feel the ends justify the means. All out of love. Pfft...

Don't bother to address the problem brought up in the OP, just set all the evidence we bring here aside calling it anti mormon.. Sir there was not one word of an attack against the mormon people in any of this.. Yes we question mormonism but that is the man with the red flag trying to tell people that the bridge ahead is indeed out.. IHS jim

James Banta
07-29-2013, 08:46 AM
No, in fact you dodged my question.

Care to try again?

Do all Christians hold every single Biblical verse with the same interpretation? If not, why not?

I do!!! And I can..

On the subject of who God is and what He has done for our salvation (The Gospel) there is no difference among Christians. All Christian believe that God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Self existent, eternal and all powerful. They all deny that there is any other God since God is the creator of ALL thing whether we can see them, or feel them. That He in the person of the Son, became flesh, lived a sinless life, died for all our sins, and rose the third day for our justification. He did it all and asked only that we trust Him that 1. He is who He said He is, and 2. That He did what He promised to do. That is all a person must do to gain the blessing of His salvation, That is indeed GOOD NEWS, the Gospel.. Any additions to that removes a person from faith and a place in the family of God.. IHS jim

johnd
07-29-2013, 07:17 PM
Galatians 1:8-9 (KJV)
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.

If LDS held to the same Gospel preached by the Apostle Paul... why the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants?

johnd
07-29-2013, 09:38 PM
I'm not here to fight a fight win a war or a debate. Just getting to the truth.

John 17:17 (KJV)
17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

johnd
07-29-2013, 09:40 PM
Isaiah 43:10-11 (KJV)
10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

johnd
07-29-2013, 09:43 PM
Isaiah 44:24 (KJV)
24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;


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


John 1:3 (KJV)
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

LDS teaches that there are gods many. Jesus is the son of Elohim brother of Lucifer and that none of them created the heavens and the earth. They were already here if Elohim is as LDS teaches an exalted man.

The KJV Bible proves LDS false.

nrajeffreturns
07-29-2013, 11:11 PM
LDS teaches that there are gods many. .

Why did God become Man, according to St. Athanasius and other early Christians?


"God became man, so that man could become ______."

Can you fill in the blank with the correct answer?

James Banta
07-30-2013, 07:56 AM
Why did God become Man, according to St. Athanasius and other early Christians?


"God became man, so that man could become ______."

Can you fill in the blank with the correct answer?

I m told different things from different LDS sources. 1. That only the Father is God, in which case you deny the deity of Jesus and God never became man. 2. That Jesus is a god but not the only God in which case you are a polytheist and could believe that Jesus came here so we could all become Gods.. Both answers are totally unbiblical. The Bible directly answers this question..

John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Therefore Jesus entered mortality to reveal God to man in all His grace and His truth.. To complete your question (I don't care what the writings of St. Athanasius contain) God became man, so that man could become children of God.

John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

IHS jim

nrajeffreturns
07-30-2013, 12:57 PM
I m told different things from different LDS sources. ...
Maybe, but St. Athanasius isn't an LDS source. He's the co-founder of Trinitarianism.

MacG
07-30-2013, 06:50 PM
Since he is the co-founder of Trinitarianism then his use of divine had to mean something different to him than it does to TCJCLDS for to him there is no god formed either before or after the God he described.

James Banta
07-30-2013, 09:03 PM
Maybe, but St. Athanasius isn't an LDS source. He's the co-founder of Trinitarianism.

All That Trinitarianism is is a affirmation of what the Bible teaches about the nature of God.. I other words it is what God tells us about Himself.. God in the OT makes Himself clear that He is God and there are no other Gods like Him. He and He alone is God.. He taught Isaiah that He the God that knows all things doesn't know that any God like Him exists (Isaiah 44:8). But what does mormonism teach? That there are many God in exists that are as powerful or more powerful than the God that called Himself YHWH.. And more than this mormonism denies His testimony that no other God existed before Him and none will be formed after Him (Isaiah 43:10). I have even had LDS tell me that is just for this world, and yet they confirm that Jesus is the God of this world almost in the same breath as they say that the Father is the God if this world. But will insist that Jesus is a spirit child of the father and later became a God through obedience to the Father.. He was formed as a God after the Father was already God.. That violates the clear statement of God that this would never happen.. LDS insistence that Jesus is a creation of the Father and yet he became a God proves that Mormonism is NOT a Biblical religion, not of the OT or the New.. It calls God a liar and is therefore not of God..

If Jesus is God as the Bible tells us He is (John 1:1). If the Holy Spirit is God as the Bible tells us He is (Acts 5:3-4). If the Father is God as the Bible says He is (John 20:17) and there is one and only one God as the Bible says there is, then the Trinity is the only doctrine that explains the being of God.. Unlike the Modlist that would tell us that the same person is transformed into each person that is revealed is , I deny as you have so many times that Jesus wouldn't pray to Himself. And that He did again and again.. Modlism nor polytheism works when they are challenged by God's word. Only the truth that the separate Persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one essence, one nature can conform to the Biblical description of God..

So great you found a man that found a word that describes the Biblical doctrine of the unity of God. He didn't invent God's nature, just a word we can use to describe it.. IHS jim

nrajeffreturns
08-01-2013, 03:06 PM
So great you found a man that found a word that describes the Biblical doctrine of the unity of God. He didn't invent God's nature, just a word we can use to describe it.. IHS jim

And when he said that God became man so man could become God, he was just describing a Biblical doctrine THERE, too...right?

theway
08-01-2013, 05:04 PM
Today we were visiting a man in the hospital. Two very nice LDS men came in and gave the patient the elements of the LDS sacrament.. That's where I start to have trouble.. It's not that these men weren't committed to their church it is the elements themselves.. Levin bread, a symbol of sin, being the subst i tute for the body of the Lord? Mere water being used as a subst i tute for His blood? Is this a problem for anyone else? IHS jim
Don't you find it contradictory that you are saying unleaven bread is to be used because leaven is a symbol of sin; and then in the same speach tell us that wine is to be used even though wine is made by adding leaven to it?

What bugs me is you lack of understanding.
Leaven is a symbol for the Kingdom of Heaven in the Bible.
And leaven bread was used for the eucharist for the first thousand years by Christians.
Given that where do you come up with these silly notions?

nrajeffreturns
08-01-2013, 09:08 PM
Don't you find it contradictory that you are saying unleaven bread is to be used because leaven is a symbol of sin; and then in the same speach tell us that wine is to be used even though wine is made by adding leaven to it?

What bugs me is you lack of understanding.
Leaven is a symbol for the Kingdom of Heaven in the Bible.
And leaven bread was used for the eucharist for the first thousand years by Christians.
Given that where do you come up with these silly notions?

A good, informative post.

MacG
08-01-2013, 10:55 PM
And when he said that God became man so man could become God, he was just describing a Biblical doctrine THERE, too...right?
"...clarified in his third treatise against the Arians: ``To become as the Father is impossible for us creatures.''"

As I said, a promoter of the Trinity, there is but one God, he nust have meant something different than you as a Mormon would identify with.

http://www.angelfire.com/md/mdmorrison/hist/DIVINIZ.html

James Banta
08-02-2013, 07:40 AM
And when he said that God became man so man could become God, he was just describing a Biblical doctrine THERE, too...right?

I guess Mac showed you the problems of looking at the quotes IDS.INC has taken out of context from the ECG and the reformers to help them in their perversions. Try doing that in the scripture. You won't have any success there at all.. IHS jim

nrajeffreturns
08-02-2013, 12:07 PM
"...clarified in his third treatise against the Arians: ``To become as the Father is impossible for us creatures.''"
That doesn't clarify

"God became man so that men could become gods" or "God became man so that man could become God" (translations vary)

It doesn't, for example, do anything to clarify whether to become as the SON is impossible for us creatures.

MacG
08-02-2013, 02:17 PM
hate to block quote: " In several places, echoing Clement, Athanasius said that Christ became man so that man might become God, or gods, or divine, or exalted.21 What did he mean? At least once he felt ``the boldness of the formula'' and clarified in his third treatise against the Arians: ``To become as the Father is impossible for us creatures.'' ``There be one Son by nature...we too become sons, not as He in nature and truth, but according to the grace of Him that calleth, and though we are men from the earth, and yet called gods, not as the True God or His Word.... We are sons, not as the Son, as gods, not as He Himself. '' (Orat 3.19-20; Robertson 404-405). Similarly, in Orat 1.37 he briefly noted that we are children by grace, not by nature. We are like the Son ``not in essence but in sonship, which we shall partake from Him'' (De Syn 53; Robertson 479).

If we cannot be gods by nature or essence, in what way are we to be like God? ``We are as God by imitation, not by nature'' (Orat 3.20; Robertson 405). Jesus did not mean ``that we might be as God,'' but that we should imitate him (Orat 3.19; Robertson 404). ``Albeit we cannot become like God in essence, yet by progress in virtue imitate God'' (Ad Afros 7; Robertson 492)."

nrajeffreturns
08-02-2013, 09:23 PM
So is that the only area where we can't be like God and Christ--in the area of essence? And by the way, isn't God, in His essence, spirit? And aren't we also essentially spirits?

What are the limits to our potential if we become, along with Christ, joint heirs of God's kingdom? What won't we be able to do or to know, given a billion years in God's presence as His students?

James Banta
08-03-2013, 07:46 AM
So is that the only area where we can't be like God and Christ--in the area of essence? And by the way, isn't God, in His essence, spirit? And aren't we also essentially spirits?

What are the limits to our potential if we become, along with Christ, joint heirs of God's kingdom? What won't we be able to do or to know, given a billion years in God's presence as His students?

God's essence is DIVINE Creator, or is sinful creation. By His power though the works of Jesus we can become children of God. Then what we are and always will be in CHILDREN.. We could spend the rest of eternity with Him learning about Him being loved by Him and yet He will always be greater, more intelligent, greater in all ways than we can discover.. We are finite we had a beginning even after being His child living with Him in His house for 100 billion years we will have just been there for an eye blink compared to the timelessness that exists within Him. Yes we are Joint heir with Jesus of all God has. We will be kings and priests always in that Kingdom. There is nothing He has that will be kept from us except to share His essence. He alone is God. Never has and never will there be any other God formed. I can't become you, you can't become me, and no one can become God. He is God there is no other (Isaiah 45:5).. BTW we won't be with Him as His students will well be there as His Children. Subjects of His Love and grace. learn as we might knowing the unknowable will not be in our power.. IHS jim

James Banta
08-03-2013, 08:40 AM
Don't you find it contradictory that you are saying unleaven bread is to be used because leaven is a symbol of sin; and then in the same speach tell us that wine is to be used even though wine is made by adding leaven to it?

What bugs me is you lack of understanding.
Leaven is a symbol for the Kingdom of Heaven in the Bible.
And leaven bread was used for the eucharist for the first thousand years by Christians.
Given that where do you come up with these silly notions?

Here is the commandment concerning the feasts of unleaven bread.

Exodus 12:15
Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel..

Jesus warns us in Luke 12:1 about leaven: "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy." Throughout Matthew 23, Jesus lists a mul***ude of Pharisaical sins that could be grouped as their legalism. In Matthew 16:6, Jesus warns of the leaven of the Sadducees. The Sadducees' sins are not listed, but elsewhere we find they at least denied the supernatural and the resurrection of the dead (Acts 23:8). Jesus also warns of the leaven of Herod (Mark 8:15). Herod was involved in a great deal of lying in his political wheeling and dealing, abusing the power of his office, adultery, and general all-around worldliness.

The leaven that Jesus spoke of in Matthew 13:33 represents God’s work and the bread is the world. This means that the Church is the leaven working inside the world, as yeast spreads in bread leavening the whole lump of dough The leaven that is the Church spreads Her influence throughout the world. This picture repeats the lesson of the previous parable, the parable of the mustard seed (Matthew 13:31-32). There we saw that the influence of the church will be pervasive in the world. So it is the ability of leaven to spread that caused Jesus to use it as an example.

By using leaven bread the Eastern churches like the LDS were introducing sin as a symbol of the Perfect.. As for leaven being seen as a symbol for sin I have shown by the scripture where I get that idea. I don't believe this is the first, nor will it be the last, that you call the scripture silly.. IHS jim

James Banta
08-03-2013, 08:48 AM
A good, informative post.

Informative, nonsense it throws out details that are unclear and clearly unstudied especially IN QUOTING THE SCRIPTURE.. . Remember God doesn't change (Mal 3:6) Calling leaven a symbol of sin once(1 Corinthians 5:8) means that it always will be.. IHS jim

nrajeffreturns
08-03-2013, 04:18 PM
God's essence is DIVINE Creator, or is sinful creation.
Where did you get your definition? Do all Christians agree with you? What if most Christians believe that God is spirit, and therefore that's what His essence is?

nrajeffreturns
08-03-2013, 04:20 PM
Informative, nonsense it throws out details that are unclear and clearly unstudied especially IN QUOTING THE SCRIPTURE.. . Remember God doesn't change (Mal 3:6) Calling leaven a symbol of sin once(1 Corinthians 5:8) means that it always will be.. IHS jim

If leaven always equals sin, then what do you say about Leviticus 23:17?

Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth deals: they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baken with leaven; they are the firstfruits unto the Lord.

If God never changes anything He says, then why did God used to say "You shall execute any witches, gays, and disrespectful children you find among you" but He doesn't say that anymore?

nrajeffreturns
08-03-2013, 04:26 PM
Matthew 13:33

Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

MacG
08-03-2013, 05:30 PM
So is that the only area where we can't be like God and Christ--in the area of essence? And by the way, isn't God, in His essence, spirit? And aren't we also essentially spirits?

What are the limits to our potential if we become, along with Christ, joint heirs of God's kingdom? What won't we be able to do or to know, given a billion years in God's presence as His students?

From the same block quote: "If we cannot be gods by nature or essence, in what way are we to be like God? ``We are as God by imitation, not by nature''

James Banta
08-03-2013, 06:28 PM
Maybe, but St. Athanasius isn't an LDS source. He's the co-founder of Trinitarianism.

As I have shown the Bible DEMANDS that God is one Lord (Deut 6:4). The Bible teaches that the Father is God (John 20:17), that Jesus is God (John 1:1), and that the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4). These Persons are all called God in Scripture. Therefore these are One Lord.. These all are coeternal, co-creative.. They are one God.. That isn't an invention of any man it is the word given to us by God Himself. The founder of the Trinity of God is God though His word.. Anything beyond that is an invention of men, anything beyond Biblical truth are man's lies.. To deny that Jesus was with the Father in the beginning as He created the HEAVENS (All three of them) and the earth is to deny God in His word and therefore deny God Himself.. Isn't that what mormonism does? IHS jim

nrajeffreturns
08-03-2013, 10:05 PM
No. That is not what Mormonism does, Jim. But I understand how you could believe that the Bible teaches Trinitarianism. After all, many Christians through the centuries believed it. But many other Christians believed that the Bible teaches Modalism, or Arianism, or Tritheism. How do you know they were wrong? They were Christians just like you.

James Banta
08-04-2013, 09:07 AM
No. That is not what Mormonism does, Jim. But I understand how you could believe that the Bible teaches Trinitarianism. After all, many Christians through the centuries believed it. But many other Christians believed that the Bible teaches Modalism, or Arianism, or Tritheism. How do you know they were wrong? They were Christians just like you.

Mostly by the same p***ages you would use to try to prove your polytheism. I would show the Modalist the three separate manifestations of God at the baptism of Jesus. Jesus telling Mary that she wasn't to touch Him because He hadn't presented His resurrection body to the Father. I would show the Arianist that Jesus is called the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, I would show His that no God was formed before the Father and none would be formed after. To the Tritheist I would again show that the Lord our God is One Lord.. All they can tell me is what they FEEL is right.. They have no support in the Bible..

So Jeff remember the plan of salvation. Jesus is taught to be the first born spirit child of the Father, does it not? That would mean that before Jesus existed as a being capable to be called a god, the father was already a god. This would mean that the father the god of this world existed as god before Jesus was formed as a god for this world. That is a clear denial of Isaiah 43:10 no matter how you interpret it. Mormonism is not supported at all in the Bible but the doctrines of the Trinity is.. I am glade to know that you see the doctrine of the Trinity being supported there as I do.. IHS jim

nrajeffreturns
08-04-2013, 12:07 PM
Jim, according to your interpretation of the Bible in Matthew 13:33, the kingdom of heaven is like SIN.

So how can I trust your interpretation when it comes to your feelings about Trinitarianism? :)

James Banta
08-04-2013, 05:20 PM
[nrajeffreturns;146985]Jim, according to your interpretation of the Bible in Matthew 13:33, the kingdom of heaven is like SIN.

So how can I trust your interpretation when it comes to your feelings about Trinitarianism? :)

Look at the context of the p***age for the answer (I know that is hard for you).. See where Jesus teaches that "The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed"? It means the same thing as the leaven comment.. He means it will grow an fill the whole earth.. The Kingdom of God is not a seed, it is not leaven bread dough.. But like these two things it has grown until it has filled the whole earth.. You ever heard of a simile? That is what you are trying to use to tell me that that leaven bread is not the symbol for evil that it is said to be in the OT and the New.. Remember Jesus inst i tuted the Lord Supper at the P***over meal. There is no leaven bread offered at that meal.. IHS jim

nrajeffreturns
08-04-2013, 08:24 PM
But you said that in the Bible, leaven is ALWAYS equated with SIN.

So you need to explain why Jesus would say that His kingdom is like leaven, if leaven is a simile for SIN.

Try to defend your claim with logic (I know that is hard for you) :)

theway
08-05-2013, 06:58 AM
Look at the context of the p***age for the answer (I know that is hard for you).. See where Jesus teaches that "The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed"? It means the same thing as the leaven comment.. He means it will grow an fill the whole earth.. The Kingdom of God is not a seed, it is not leaven bread dough.. But like these two things it has grown until it has filled the whole earth.. You ever heard of a simile? That is what you are trying to use to tell me that that leaven bread is not the symbol for evil that it is said to be in the OT and the New.. Remember Jesus inst i tuted the Lord Supper at the P***over meal. There is no leaven bread offered at that meal.. IHS jimActually, I already knew you are wrong when it comes to leaven always meaning sin in the Bible, what I'm more interested in is how you can justify leaven in wine but not in the bread?
Is "sin" OK in the blood of Christ, as long as there is no "sin" in His body?

Face it James, you are not going to win this one. Best to once again just admit you were wrong and that you have no idea what the Bible is saying on any subject.

James Banta
08-05-2013, 07:25 AM
Actually, I already knew you are wrong when it comes to leaven always meaning sin in the Bible, what I'm more interested in is how you can justify leaven in wine but not in the bread?
Is "sin" OK in the blood of Christ, as long as there is no "sin" in His body?

Face it James, you are not going to win this one. Best to once again just admit you were wrong and that you have no idea what the Bible is saying on any subject.

In the OT we are taught that the Priests were not allowed to approach the alter after having used intoxicating drink (Lev 10:9). Because Jesus was acting as High Priest at the Table of His body and blood it is most probable that the wine used was NOT fermented but was the pure wine of the grape. Wine was wine before it was fermented and refereed to as such as Jesus tells us that new Wing should be placed in new bottles so that both the wine and the bottles can be preserved (Matt 9:17).. Therefore unfermented wine was called wine as was fermented wine.. There is no Biblical insistence that the wine of the p***over had to be fermented. In fact because of the prohibition against leaven it is doubtful that the wine of the P***over was fermented.. I agree with your thinking that leaven would be used to symbolize the pure and cleansing blood of Jesus. Since all leaven was prohibited during the P***over that would also include the wine.. So why not conform to the sacrament of the Lord's supper as it is given in the NT? Do you also believe it would be proper to change baptism to become sprinkling, or include infants? You changed the elements of the Lord's supper to meet your needs why not change baptism too.. It costs a lot less to use a baptism bowl than a faunt.. IHS jim

theway
08-05-2013, 09:32 AM
In the OT we are taught that the Priests were not allowed to approach the alter after having used intoxicating drink (Lev 10:9). Because Jesus was acting as High Priest at the Table of His body and blood it is most probable that the wine used was NOT fermented but was the pure wine of the grape. Wine was wine before it was fermented and refereed to as such as Jesus tells us that new Wing should be placed in new bottles so that both the wine and the bottles can be preserved (Matt 9:17).. Therefore unfermented wine was called wine as was fermented wine.. There is no Biblical insistence that the wine of the p***over had to be fermented. In fact because of the prohibition against leaven it is doubtful that the wine of the P***over was fermented.. I agree with your thinking that leaven would be used to symbolize the pure and cleansing blood of Jesus. Since all leaven was prohibited during the P***over that would also include the wine.. So why not conform to the sacrament of the Lord's supper as it is given in the NT? Do you also believe it would be proper to change baptism to become sprinkling, or include infants? You changed the elements of the Lord's supper to meet your needs why not change baptism too.. It costs a lot less to use a baptism bowl than a faunt.. IHS jimOnce again James your lack of knowledge about the scriptures erodes your theology.
There is nothing in the scriptures which says that the Sacrement given by Christ was during the P***over. In fact, one gospel makes that impossible. Also subsequent sacraments by the Apostles were not part of a P***over also. Add to that the fact that they had no problem using leaven bread for the sacrament for the first thousand years of the Church.

nrajeffreturns
08-05-2013, 12:59 PM
What I found interesting was Jim's agreement with groups of Christians, including many LDS, on the idea that non-alcoholic wine (grape juice) was what was used by Jesus.

This idea gets attacked a lot by Jim's friends at Carm. They insist that the only acceptable stuff for today's Eucharist in Christian churches, is real wine, and unleavened bread, because that's what Jesus used at the last supper. Using anything else is blasphemy and evidence that your church isn't Christian.

So it's cool, but surprising, to see Jim contradicting the usual Carm crowd, and to see him agreeing with the LDS on something.

James Banta
08-05-2013, 02:11 PM
What I found interesting was Jim's agreement with groups of Christians, including many LDS, on the idea that non-alcoholic wine (grape juice) was what was used by Jesus.

This idea gets attacked a lot by Jim's friends at Carm. They insist that the only acceptable stuff for today's Eucharist in Christian churches, is real wine, and unleavened bread, because that's what Jesus used at the last supper. Using anything else is blasphemy and evidence that your church isn't Christian.

So it's cool, but surprising, to see Jim contradicting the usual Carm crowd, and to see him agreeing with the LDS on something.

Did Jesus drink fully fermented wine? I believe that there is no doubt of that. Was fermented wine even available during the p***over? Now that is the question.. Since leaven is a symbol of sin and wickedness, it is doubtful that it would be used in one of the commanded holy feasts unto God.. The Lord even commanded Aaron not to come near the alter after drinking (Lev 10:9).. Why would God allow it at the P***over when it is a clear commandment not to use leaven? Sir brought it up and made a very good point.. I agree.. There was no alcoholic wine served because of the leaven needed to make it.. I don't care what they think on CARM.. I go with the scripture over the desires of any man. It makes no difference, the LDS are far from the example given by Jesus. Unleaven bread and wine.. Not leaven bread and water.. I still ask that if the Lord's supper is so easily modified why can't baptism be modified just as simply? Maybe infant baptism, or baptism by sprinkling is just as authoritative.. Still agree with me? I think the LDS modifications to the celebration of the last Supper is beyond merely being unbiblical is has become out and out Pagan.. IHS jim

MacG
08-05-2013, 04:20 PM
Don't know if he did but he could have and been kosher:

http://www.chabad.org/holidays/p***over/pesach_cdo/aid/508672/jewish/Why-is-it-permitted-to-drink-wine-on-P***over-when-it-is-fermented-with-yeast.htm

nrajeffreturns
08-06-2013, 05:17 AM
Since leaven is a symbol of sin and wickedness, it is doubtful that it would be used in one of the commanded holy feasts unto God..

So, Jim, you're accusing most of the Christian churches of the world of being guilty of a serious sin: the sin of breaking the Bible's commandment to avoid leaven in the Eucharist. Are you sure you want to brand 99% of Christianity as being unbiblical?

Back in the year 1820, how many churches used alcoholic wine for their Eucharist? Probably all of them.

So aren't you saying, Jim, that at the time of Joseph Smith's first vision, all of Christianity had gone astray, and had replaced the doctrines of God with doctrines of men??

Wow! What happened to your (and JohnT's) claim that anyone who would make such claims about Christianity is teaching hatred towards Christians????

:0 :O


(P.S. to Mac: thanks for providing some useful info on the subject)

James Banta
08-06-2013, 09:42 AM
[nrajeffreturns;147026]So, Jim, you're accusing most of the Christian churches of the world of being guilty of a serious sin: the sin of breaking the Bible's commandment to avoid leaven in the Eucharist. Are you sure you want to brand 99% of Christianity as being unbiblical?

Please show me where you found this statistic? really 99% of all Christian churches use leaven in the celebration of the Lords supper? I have been to many that do use alcoholic wine at the Lord's table and a non alcoholic wine is also offered.. Guess you didn't know that..


Back in the year 1820, how many churches used alcoholic wine for their Eucharist? Probably all of them.

How do you know that were you there?


So aren't you saying, Jim, that at the time of Joseph Smith's first vision, all of Christianity had gone astray, and had replaced the doctrines of God with doctrines of men??

Did the Lord Jesus say that all those that use only non alcoholic wine would be saved or did he say, all those that believe would not perish but have everlasting life? Yes I believe that if a ordinance is going to be preformed it should be done properly. But even if it isn't it should be seen as a sin that is covered by the blood of Christ to all that believe in Him.. The Church was NOT dead even if you are correct and everyone used alcoholic wine. But if someone denies that Jesus is God, the physical image of the invisible God. That His sacrifice for sin isn't sufficient to paid the price of the sin if all who believe. That other Gods beside the God who is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist. That God himself was once a man and became a God though obedience to laws and ordinances.

Is it sin to replace the symbolic elements of the Lords flesh and blood with those that symbolize sin.. I think so.. Does doing so make you anti God? I think not.. But if you do so knowing that leaven is in the bread and in the wine and CALL IT GOOD, you give reason to question id saving faith is within you..


Wow! What happened to your (and JohnT's) claim that anyone who would make such claims about Christianity is teaching hatred towards Christians????

I claim that adding leaven to the elements of the Lord's Supper is sin. Hatred toward Christians seen by the acts of violence against them, even if that violence is just calling them corrupt with nothing to show that they are acting in a corrupt manner.. That makes Smith statement that Christian teaches are corrupt a lie without a firm base in reality. When we say Smith was corrupt we point to his crimes of polygamy, his banking fraud, even his false prophecies, and unbiblical teachings of God's grace and the way that grace is given to men. I short we base it on FACTS.

Using leaven in the performance of the Lord's Supper is just sin in that it is calling the Body, or blood of Jesus an object or sin.. If doing so bugs you as it should ask your bishop to fix the problem and remove leaven from the ordinance. Add in the pure wine of the grape and this sin will disappear from your life. IHS jim

nrajeffreturns
08-06-2013, 11:01 AM
Please show me where you found this statistic? really 99% of all Christian churches use leaven in the celebration of the Lords supper? I have been to many that do use alcoholic wine at the Lord's table and a non alcoholic wine is also offered.. Guess you didn't know that..
I was aware that a relative FEW churches offer the OPTION of grape juice for recovering alcoholics who don't want to EVER touch a drop of alcohol. But in all likelihood it's far fewer that use ONLY grape juice because they have BANNED the "evil leaven wine" from their regular communion.


How do you know that were you there?
The way I know that probably no church in 1820 used grape juice, is because I know that the process of pasteurizing grape juice so it wouldn't ferment wasn't invented until 1869.

Pastor Welch was a Wesleyan. Wesleyans thought like you--that only nonalcoholic grape juice should be used for communion. But they didn't exist in 1820. The Wesleyan movement was created in 1843.

To further your education, see the Wikipedia articles on Welch's and on Thomas Bramwell Welch.

In 1820, virtually none of the Christian churches on earth used unfermented grape juice. The Catholic Church REQUIRES that the communion wine be wine, or mustum--grape juice that has at least started to ferment. (Mustum is wine that started to "leaven" and then had the fermentation process stopped)

AFAIK, ZERO Protestant churches had switched to grape juice until AFTER 1820. Even today, the only ones that have such a policy are the United Methodist church, most Baptists, the 7th Day Adventists, and some Reformed/Presbyterian churches offer it as an option.

(According to the wiki article on Eucharist, "The bread and "fruit of the vine" indicated in Matthew, Mark and Luke as the elements of the Lord's Supper[38] are interpreted by many Baptists as unleavened bread (although leavened bread is often used) and, in line with the historical stance of some Baptist groups (since the mid-19th century) against partaking of alcoholic beverages, grape juice, which they commonly refer to simply as "the Cup."

So in the case of the Baptists, switching to grape juice was not because they believed that leaven means sin. It's because many Baptists were part of the Temperance movement that was against recreational alcohol consumption to the point of total abstinence....like the LDS had already done.


Is it sin to replace the symbolic elements of the Lords flesh and blood with those that symbolize sin.. I think so..

So you are saying that the majority of Christian churches of the world "lieth in sin" every time they perform the Eucharist.
Can you imagine what anti-LDS people would say about JOSEPH SMITH if HE had said that the churches of 1820 had changed the biblical way of doing things, and had replaced them with sinful doctrines and ordinances?

Why, they'd say that Joseph Smith was....teaching hatred of Christians!!!

James Banta
08-07-2013, 10:03 AM
[nrajeffreturns;147045]I was aware that a relative FEW churches offer the OPTION of grape juice for recovering alcoholics who don't want to EVER touch a drop of alcohol. But in all likelihood it's far fewer that use ONLY grape juice because they have BANNED the "evil leaven wine" from their regular communion.

The way I know that probably no church in 1820 used grape juice, is because I know that the process of pasteurizing grape juice so it wouldn't ferment wasn't invented until 1869.

Pastor Welch was a Wesleyan. Wesleyans thought like you--that only nonalcoholic grape juice should be used for communion. But they didn't exist in 1820. The Wesleyan movement was created in 1843.

To further your education, see the Wikipedia articles on Welch's and on Thomas Bramwell Welch.

In 1820, virtually none of the Christian churches on earth used unfermented grape juice. The Catholic Church REQUIRES that the communion wine be wine, or mustum--grape juice that has at least started to ferment. (Mustum is wine that started to "leaven" and then had the fermentation process stopped)

AFAIK, ZERO Protestant churches had switched to grape juice until AFTER 1820. Even today, the only ones that have such a policy are the United Methodist church, most Baptists, the 7th Day Adventists, and some Reformed/Presbyterian churches offer it as an option.

(According to the wiki article on Eucharist, "The bread and "fruit of the vine" indicated in Matthew, Mark and Luke as the elements of the Lord's Supper[38] are interpreted by many Baptists as unleavened bread (although leavened bread is often used) and, in line with the historical stance of some Baptist groups (since the mid-19th century) against partaking of alcoholic beverages, grape juice, which they commonly refer to simply as "the Cup."

So in the case of the Baptists, switching to grape juice was not because they believed that leaven means sin. It's because many Baptists were part of the Temperance movement that was against recreational alcohol consumption to the point of total abstinence....like the LDS had already done.



So you are saying that the majority of Christian churches of the world "lieth in sin" every time they perform the Eucharist.
Can you imagine what anti-LDS people would say about JOSEPH SMITH if HE had said that the churches of 1820 had changed the biblical way of doing things, and had replaced them with sinful doctrines and ordinances?

Why, they'd say that Joseph Smith was....teaching hatred of Christians!!!

I have attended man Christian Church services and have shared with them at the Lord's table. At each one ONLY unfermented wine was offered. I have been to a few other that have offered both. It is far more common to fine unfermented wine used rather that alcoholic wine.. You make some rather HUGE ***umption in your post. Statements you neither supported with any reference nor could you have any personal knowledge of the facts in question.. I asked how you knew the information about the use of wine was the real truth and you gave me more "I know that probably". That is your ***umption AGAIN. The fact is you DON'T KNOW.. Since you were there and there is no record from ALL the churches that explain what wine they used for communion you are guessing making ***umptions, you have no facts to support those beliefs.. Even in your ***umption that then use of non alcoholic wine had more to do with the Temperance movement than with the requirements of the P***over is your ***umption. How many Baptist churches existed before 1820? I don't know, you don't either. Neither do you know how they celebrated at the Lord's table. Your argument is mote. What is clear is that mormonism used leaven bread and water to symbolize the body and blood of the Lord.. He has access to both water and leaven bread and yet He didn't use them. why do do you.. Let me make an ***umption. You do so because you put little stock is the Body and Blood of Jesus offered as a sacrifice for our sin.. You therefore hate my Lord and by extension His children.. IHS jim

nrajeffreturns
08-07-2013, 12:55 PM
Sorry, Jim, but your ***umption about whether the info I taught you is mere ***umption, is itself an ***umption made by you. And since your ***umption is just that--***umption--it should be rejected.

Again, sorry about the need to reject anything you say, but that's the new rules of Jim, apparently....


By the way: Do you remember the recurring accusation against the LDS by your Carm buddies--the one that said the LDS were WRONG to use non-alcoholic ANYTHING in the eucharist "because Jesus used real wine, He had no access to unfermented grape juice because they didn't have refrigerators back then, so anyone who DOESN'T use real wine is guilty of being non-biblical" ?

Remember those threads? What do you say to your Carm buddies NOW?

James Banta
08-07-2013, 04:28 PM
Sorry, Jim, but your ***umption about whether the info I taught you is mere ***umption, is itself an ***umption made by you. And since your ***umption is just that--***umption--it should be rejected.

Again, sorry about the need to reject anything you say, but that's the new rules of Jim, apparently....


By the way: Do you remember the recurring accusation against the LDS by your Carm buddies--the one that said the LDS were WRONG to use non-alcoholic ANYTHING in the eucharist "because Jesus used real wine, He had no access to unfermented grape juice because they didn't have refrigerators back then, so anyone who DOESN'T use real wine is guilty of being non-biblical" ?

Remember those threads? What do you say to your Carm buddies NOW?

I call it ***umption when no reference is given.. If one is given, and was just that man's opinion, I still call it ***umption. That is all you provided, ***umption. provide a biblical source for your beliefs or tell me that none exist.. I don't hardly attend Carm at all.. There are plenty of solid Christian witnesses there to take care of the duties of defending the faith.. Does it matter what anyone says when the Lord through His word has the last word? That No leaven is to be used in the P***over.. But mormonism has decided That water may replace wine even though wine is very easy to come by in the United States. You replaced the unleaven bread with leaven again even though unleaven bread is widely available.. Do you need me to show you where you can find these articles in the store. I know I have seen everything you need at Smith's. Why argue, just be obedient.. You seem to agree that using leaven is wrong. So don't allow it.. If they continue to offer it and won't hear you, refuse it. Don't you believe you have the authority to conduct your own sacrament? Do it right.. IHS jim

nrajeffreturns
08-07-2013, 07:17 PM
Jim, we have Jesus' own words saying that He doesn't care whether we use leavened or unleavened bread in our sacrament. Sometimes we use unleavened bread. But we know that it's not MANDATORY.

That's good enough for us. Sorry His words aren't good enough for you.

RealFakeHair
08-08-2013, 02:07 PM
Jim, we have Jesus' own words saying that He doesn't care whether we use leavened or unleavened bread in our sacrament. Sometimes we use unleavened bread. But we know that it's not MANDATORY.

That's good enough for us. Sorry His words aren't good enough for you.

Unleavened or cheese crackers it is still made of wheat, but water over wine, I still don't get that one. I mean Joe wanted something different is my guess,

Libby
08-08-2013, 03:40 PM
Jim, we have Jesus' own words saying that He doesn't care whether we use leavened or unleavened bread in our sacrament. Sometimes we use unleavened bread. But we know that it's not MANDATORY.

That's good enough for us. Sorry His words aren't good enough for you.

The Christian Reformed Church, hubby and I have been attending, uses leavened bread. I'm pretty sure no one here would consider this church a "cult".

Libby
08-08-2013, 03:42 PM
Okay, some of the LDS may consider it a cult! LOL :p

Snow Patrol
08-08-2013, 04:12 PM
Okay, some of the LDS may consider it a cult! LOL :p

Libby, I doubt any of the LDS would, but I imagine there are a couple of christians here that might. :-)

Pa Pa
08-08-2013, 04:57 PM
Today we were visiting a man in the hospital. Two very nice LDS men came in and gave the patient the elements of the LDS sacrament.. That's where I start to have trouble.. It's not that these men weren't committed to their church it is the elements themselves.. Levin bread, a symbol of sin, being the subst i tute for the body of the Lord? Mere water being used as a subst i tute for His blood? Is this a problem for anyone else? IHS jim
Why do you care what others do, Jim.

Wow, I listed as the final post on about 20 straight threads...the board is so dead, why do you opposers of Mormons spend so much wasted time here?

James Banta
08-12-2013, 02:59 PM
Why do you care what others do, Jim.

Wow, I listed as the final post on about 20 straight threads...the board is so dead, why do you opposers of Mormons spend so much wasted time here?

Do you hear yourself.. That the Board is dead and that we "opposers" spend a so much time here.. Which is it Papa, is the board dead or are we spending a lot of time here? IHS jim

nrajeffreturns
08-12-2013, 03:07 PM
Do you hear yourself.. That the Board is dead and that we "opposers" spend a so much time here.. Which is it Papa, is the board dead or are we spending a lot of time here? IHS jim

It's both, of course. If you are a paramedic and you find a dead patient but you spend an hour every day trying to resuscitate that patient, the patient is dead, AND you are wasting your time trying to breathe life into it. :)

RealFakeHair
08-13-2013, 09:15 AM
It's both, of course. If you are a paramedic and you find a dead patient but you spend an hour every day trying to resuscitate that patient, the patient is dead, AND you are wasting your time trying to breathe life into it. :)

That is the way it is with my golf game, but that's another story.
However as one of God's paramedics I feel I must try and revive the spiritual dead LDSinc. patient. Don Coyote, and me have alot in common, but as long as there are windmills...

nrajeffreturns
08-13-2013, 10:54 AM
But the issue isn't whether LDS people are spiritually dead--it's whether THIS FORUM is dying or dead due to a lack of "nutrition."

Giving CPR to a corpse isn't usually effective.

RealFakeHair
08-13-2013, 11:19 AM
But the issue isn't whether LDS people are spiritually dead--it's whether THIS FORUM is dying or dead due to a lack of "nutrition."

Giving CPR to a corpse isn't usually effective.

Funny thing, I just read the other day where doctors will soon be able to revive the dead hours after their last breath. Which also reminds me there might be hope for my love life, but I'll save that for later.....

nrajeffreturns
08-13-2013, 04:03 PM
hardy, har, har.

James Banta
08-14-2013, 01:18 PM
It's both, of course. If you are a paramedic and you find a dead patient but you spend an hour every day trying to resuscitate that patient, the patient is dead, AND you are wasting your time trying to breathe life into it. :)

As long as the patients respond to treatment I won't give up on them.. IHS jim

James Banta
08-14-2013, 01:22 PM
hardy, har, har.


The message of God's grace is being sounded here.. It will not come back void.. You have heard it you have seen the reason for it.. You have much more information about most Christian doctrines that 99.9% of all other LDS are missing.. In God I have hope for your salvation though Faith in the Jesus reveled in the Bible. Not the Jesus invented by a man , the man Joseph Smith.. IHS jim

nrajeffreturns
08-14-2013, 07:36 PM
The message of God's grace is being sounded here.
Unfortunately, it's being clouded by the message of Calvinism.


It will not come back void.
If you really imagine yourself preaching the gospel of Christ and you feel that the LDS haven't heard that message, then I suggest that you start actually mentioning it (the good news that Jesus atoned for our sins and was resurrected and is the author of salvation to all who will obey Him) because THAT is the gospel.

And stop complaining about "Joseph Smith this" and "Joseph Smith that" and think you are preaching the gospel by doing so.

James Banta
08-15-2013, 08:50 PM
[nrajeffreturns;147227]Unfortunately, it's being clouded by the message of Calvinism.

I have allowed you to run down Calvinism on this channel enough to show you Biblical supports for that doctrine.. You have not responded by showing and different meaning to those p***ages.. They stand unchallenged.. Therefore Calvinism is a Biblical doctrine and Mormonism is anti Biblical.. If you want to challenge Calvinism by showing that it is not Biblical DO IT. If you can't try to show how mormonism is biblical.. Show me one person that is not a sinner.. Show me that Faith is not the key to grace, or that grace is the ONLY means by with salvation can be reached. You have not done so.. You can point to James 2 and I will point back that the works of James are NOT the works of mormonism. I will show you people and organizations that do the works of James 2 the name of mankind. Works are great and give proof to our statements of faith but that is the ONLY power they have..


If you really imagine yourself preaching the gospel of Christ and you feel that the LDS haven't heard that message, then I suggest that you start actually mentioning it (the good news that Jesus atoned for our sins and was resurrected and is the author of salvation to all who will obey Him) because THAT is the gospel.

Before I can tell you what Jesus did I have to show you who Jesus is.. AS long as you see him as a creation and not the creator of ALL things. Sharing the Gospel to you in a waste of time.. Paul on Mars Hill taught that their Gods were false before He told them about the Gospel. He held up Jesus to be God.. Not a god but THE GOD.. When you finally give up your polytheism and Hold to the Father, Sin, and Holy Spirit as THE GOD, I will start sharing the Good News with you.. I am not preaching the Gospel to you in pointing our that Smith was a liar, a cheat, and a fraud. I am showing you what Jesus said about prophets that good fruit doesn't come from a bad tree.. Many LDS think Smith was a holy man and not a skirt chasing, gl*** looking fraud, that couldn't even show that he believed in the same God that he wrote about in the BofM.


And stop complaining about "Joseph Smith this" and "Joseph Smith that" and think you are preaching the gospel by doing so.

Remember what Nephi said that God would not give a commandment unless he provided a way to obey the commandment? And yet God could provide a way to build the temple in Far West and excused the church from keeping the commandment because of the evil acts of mere men.. Must be a different God than the God of Nephi.. God didn't provide a way to obey him now did he? I will keep pounding on Smith for what he was a false prophet, the teacher of false gods.. IHS jim

alanmolstad
01-03-2015, 12:26 PM
Today we were visiting a man in the hospital. Two very nice LDS men came in and gave the patient the elements of the LDS sacrament.. That's where I start to have trouble.. It's not that these men weren't committed to their church it is the elements themselves.. Levin bread, a symbol of sin, being the subst i tute for the body of the Lord? Mere water being used as a subst i tute for His blood? Is this a problem for anyone else? IHS jim
as far as I know, you can NOT replace wine with water.

The water was turned into wine in the bible, not the other way around...

While I dont have any idea about the reason why a Mormon would try to replace the wine with water? I do know that he does this ridculous thing based only one some man's opinion, and not because its taught in the Bible...

alanmolstad
01-03-2015, 04:00 PM
as far as the different bread goes?
That too is something that is just goofy and should not be copied.

Erundur
01-03-2015, 05:20 PM
as far as I know, you can NOT replace wine with water.
It's D&C 27:2 that says we can.

For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins.

alanmolstad
01-03-2015, 05:45 PM
any idea where they get that in the Bible?

Erundur
01-03-2015, 08:10 PM
any idea where they get that in the Bible?
It's not in the Bible.

alanmolstad
01-03-2015, 08:47 PM
It's not in the Bible.
Oh ok,
nuff said.

MacG
01-06-2015, 01:34 AM
It's D&C 27:2 that says we can.

For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins.


So you mean it is Jesus who says you can?

In that section he say also " 11 And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days;" So Jesus is saying that Michael the Archangel is Adam? First time I heve seen this, just curious, Erundur.

Blessings

Erundur
01-07-2015, 08:16 PM
So you mean it is Jesus who says you can?
Correct.


In that section he say also " 11 And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days;" So Jesus is saying that Michael the Archangel is Adam? First time I heve seen this, just curious, Erundur.
Correct again. That is what we believe.

MacG
01-20-2015, 11:51 AM
Correct.


Correct again. That is what we believe.

I did not know that angles are considered spirit children of Mother and Father God...

alanmolstad
01-20-2015, 09:36 PM
I did not know that angles are considered spirit children of Mother and Father God...

Well....are that "a cute" angle?

I once fell in love with a cute angle

MacG
01-21-2015, 12:25 AM
Well....are that "a cute" angle?

I once fell in love with a cute angle

My reflex is to set you straight but you are right, I was obtuse and I think we have come full circle. Well that was about as easy as pi. :D

MacG
01-29-2015, 10:02 AM
Let me rephrase in the form of a question:

I did not know that angels are considered spirit children of Mother and Father God...Is that what you believe, angels are spirit children of Mother and Father God?

alanmolstad
01-29-2015, 10:09 AM
a mother and a Father God had some form of intercourse or union, and the result was angel children?

MacG
01-30-2015, 10:04 PM
From above "In that section he say also " 11 And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days;" So Jesus is saying that Michael the Archangel is Adam? First time I heve seen this, just curious, Erundur."

I was asking Erundur since Adam is the angel Michael became a man can the spirit children become angels first or are spirit children synonymous with angels? I was under the impression that the spirit children were only destined to be human not angels.

dberrie2000
02-02-2015, 05:25 AM
Let me rephrase in the form of a question:

I did not know that angels are considered spirit children of Mother and Father God...Is that what you believe, angels are spirit children of Mother and Father God?

Mac--the LDS believe all spirits are Fathered by God the Father. That is Biblical:

Hebrews 12:9---King James Version (KJV)
9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

And those spirits are the offspring of God:

Acts 17:29----King James Version (KJV)
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

The LDS also believe the angels are spirit offspring of God. Also, that all spirits have a mother in heaven.

MacG
02-03-2015, 12:13 AM
Mac--the LDS believe all spirits are Fathered by God the Father. That is Biblical:

Hebrews 12:9---King James Version (KJV)
9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

And those spirits are the offspring of God:

Acts 17:29----King James Version (KJV)
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

The LDS also believe the angels are spirit offspring of God. Also, that all spirits have a mother in heaven.

Thank you for the courtesy of your reply. Interesting I was not aware the TCJCLDS held that Angels could become exalted.

dberrie2000
02-03-2015, 05:23 AM
Thank you for the courtesy of your reply. Interesting I was not aware the TCJCLDS held that Angels could become exalted.

Hi Mac.

The LDS believe the angels found in Revelation 12, which did not rebel-- are the spirits found within our bodies.

The scriptures have even Christ as an Angel:

Genesis 48:16---King James Version (KJV)

16 The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a mul***ude in the midst of the earth.