What does it mean

[James Banta]

What does it mean to "Do all you can do".. In medicine it means to expend every possible means to prevent the death of a patient. In our daily work it means to do everything possible to be successful. So what does it mean in mormon salvation? It is commanded in the LDS scripture:

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

Isn't there always one more dollar that can be given to build the "kingdom". Isn't there one more person living in poverty that can be helped? Isn't there always one more page of scripture that could be read. One less bit of anger we could avoid? One less sin we could commit? The answer for me is I can never do ALL I CAN DO. But I have always agreed with the LDS at least in my flesh that they are much better people than I am a man.. So again I leave you with the question what does it mean to "Do all you can do".. IHS jim

[Snow Patrol]

Is this really that confusing of a question? Doing all one can do depends on the individual. Yes, one can take things to extremes and focus everything on one aspect such as feeding the sick, but if he neglects his family and other responsibilities then he is not doing all he can do. If one wastes countless hours a day playing computer games, then one is not doing all he can do. I think when someone takes a true accounting of their life, they KNOW whether they are doing all they can do.

[BigJulie]

What does it mean to "Do all you can do".. In medicine it means to expend every possible means to prevent the death of a patient. In our daily work it means to do everything possible to be successful. So what does it mean in mormon salvation? It is commanded in the LDS scripture:

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

Isn't there always one more dollar that can be given to build the "kingdom". Isn't there one more person living in poverty that can be helped? Isn't there always one more page of scripture that could be read. One less bit of anger we could avoid? One less sin we could commit? The answer for me is I can never do ALL I CAN DO. But I have always agreed with the LDS at least in my flesh that they are much better people than I am a man.. So again I leave you with the question what does it mean to "Do all you can do".. IHS jim

Well, lets see what God believes is all we can do.

When it comes to money---he asks for a t..ithe--that's 10%. Then he states: Mal 3:10--Bring ye all the t...ithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

I have seen this is true. I have more than enough and plenty to spare.

When it comes to helping the needy: he states: Psa 82:3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

He doesn't say give them all you have---is that how you read "all you can do."---although, there was a young man he asked this from....so if He asks, we can do.

When it comes to anger he states: Moroni (from Moroni) Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.

Well, the last one makes it pretty clear that to be perfected---this isn't something we can do, but something that He does as we come unto Him.

I think the problem with those who are not LDS as they take "all we can do" to mean that we can do everything. The Book of Mormon and the Bible is repleat with the understanding that what we can do WITHOUT GOD is very limited and what we can do with God --well nothing is impossible. So, if we have faith---what God tells us is that we can move mountains, part the Red Sea, raise the dead---without Him....not really much of anything. So what IS in our power.

1) We can come unto Him.
2) We can choose to be baptized.
3) We can follow the promptings of the Spirit.

Ummm, I think that pretty much sums it up---of what WE can do of our own accord. After that---well, with God, the sky is the limit.

[James Banta]

Well, lets see what God believes is all we can do.

When it comes to money---he asks for a t..ithe--that's 10%. Then he states: Mal 3:10--Bring ye all the t...ithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

I have seen this is true. I have more than enough and plenty to spare.

When it comes to helping the needy: he states: Psa 82:3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

He doesn't say give them all you have---is that how you read "all you can do."---although, there was a young man he asked this from....so if He asks, we can do.

When it comes to anger he states: Moroni (from Moroni) Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.

Well, the last one makes it pretty clear that to be perfected---this isn't something we can do, but something that He does as we come unto Him.

I think the problem with those who are not LDS as they take "all we can do" to mean that we can do everything. The Book of Mormon and the Bible is repleat with the understanding that what we can do WITHOUT GOD is very limited and what we can do with God --well nothing is impossible. So, if we have faith---what God tells us is that we can move mountains, part the Red Sea, raise the dead---without Him....not really much of anything. So what IS in our power.

1) We can come unto Him.
2) We can choose to be baptized.
3) We can follow the promptings of the Spirit.

Ummm, I think that pretty much sums it up---of what WE can do of our own accord. After that---well, with God, the sky is the limit.

I have no argument about the ti the.. I believe as Paul did that a workman is worthy of his hire and that those who teach the Gospel should live from the Gospel (1 Corinthians 9:14). Yet Mormonism despises those that make their living from the ti thes and offerings brought into the church..

1.Do we really choose Him or did He choose us (John 15:16).. He said that he chose us, not the other way around..
2. Yes we can be baptized and yet we can see that as being amerced in His word. The Amish believe that.. I rather believe we are commanded to Go and baptize (Matthew 28:19).. That would mean we should also be baptized. We must remember baptism is just water.. Blood is REQUIRED for the forgiveness of Sin (Hebrews 9:22).. Only in the shed blood of Jesus is there forgiveness of sin..
3. As long as the message or the messenger is consistent with the word we have already receive we can follow those promptings.. There have been here in Utah those that believed they have been prompted to shed the blood of another (The Laffertys for one). They felt they were prophets and God commanded them that their sister in Law had to be blood atoned. Yes that is a rather extreme but it does prove there are times when what we feel is right just isn't (Proverbs 14:12). What seems right isn't always the way to go..

I think God though His word has corrected your thinking in what you have said in your post.. I say it again, It's all about Grace and not about what we do.. If you were following His prompting you would know that.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Is this really that confusing of a question? Doing all one can do depends on the individual. Yes, one can take things to extremes and focus everything on one aspect such as feeding the sick, but if he neglects his family and other responsibilities then he is not doing all he can do. If one wastes countless hours a day playing computer games, then one is not doing all he can do. I think when someone takes a true accounting of their life, they KNOW whether they are doing all they can do.

Then you have come to understand that no one EVER does all they can do.. Because of that according to LDS scripture No one can ever be saved.. Doing all you can do doesn't seem to be a "It would be nice if you could" kind commandment but instead a "Thou Shalt" kind of commandment.. A commandment that no one I have ever even heard of has kept.. Therefore no one can be saved.. Snow, there is always one more thing you can do no matter what you have done.. Another few minutes spent with your family, Another dollar you to give to help the homeless. Another person you tan tell the Gospel message too.. No one could ever "Do all they can do.." IHS jim

[BigJulie]

I have no argument about the ti the.. I believe as Paul did that a workman is worthy of his hire and that those who teach the Gospel should live from the Gospel (1 Corinthians 9:14). Yet Mormonism despises those that make their living from the ti thes and offerings brought into the church..

1.Do we really choose Him or did He choose us (John 15:16).. He said that he chose us, not the other way around.. Oh no---then if we have absolutely no say in the matter, you must believe that God created some for hell. Is that what you believer?


2. Yes we can be baptized and yet we can see that as being amerced in His word. The Amish believe that.. I rather believe we are commanded to Go and baptize (Matthew 28:19).. That would mean we should also be baptized. We must remember baptism is just water.. Blood is REQUIRED for the forgiveness of Sin (Hebrews 9:22).. Only in the shed blood of Jesus is there forgiveness of sin..
Okay, so it appears you agree with this here.


3. As long as the message or the messenger is consistent with the word we have already receive we can follow those promptings.. There have been here in Utah those that believed they have been prompted to shed the blood of another (The Laffertys for one). They felt they were prophets and God commanded them that their sister in Law had to be blood atoned. Yes that is a rather extreme but it does prove there are times when what we feel is right just isn't (Proverbs 14:12). What seems right isn't always the way to go.. Yes, one needs to learn to recognize the Spirit. The fruits of the spirit is good fruit.


I think God though His word has corrected your thinking in what you have said in your post.. I say it again, It's all about Grace and not about what we do.. If you were following His prompting you would know that.. IHS jim Actually, you just agreed with me in three things that WE do. Do you think we do not choose Christ, that we do not choose baptism and that we do not choose to follow the Spirit given to us by God?

Then, with the help of---what can't we do? Can we be made perfect even as God is perfect if we do all we can do when God is with us? Is complete santification (purification) possible?

Once we have chosen God, can we then choose not to follow Him somewhere in the path or are we then forced to follow Him?

[Snow Patrol]

Yep, then we should be like "Christians" and do nothing more. You got it. :rolleyes:

What do you think Christ wants from us? He knows no one is perfect. He knows we will all fall short. What do you think He is going to say "He everyone, live your life at 88.51 percent effort and you'll be fine." No. He wants us our whole heart, might, and mind in the effort. Does He know we will fall short? Yeup. But go ahead and live your life with zero effort. See what Christ has to say about that effort at judgement day.

[BigJulie]

Yep, then we should be like "Christians" and do nothing more. You got it. :rolleyes:

What do you think Christ wants from us? He knows no one is perfect. He knows we will all fall short. What do you think He is going to say "He everyone, live your life at 88.51 percent effort and you'll be fine." No. He wants us our whole heart, might, and mind in the effort. Does He know we will fall short? Yeup. But go ahead and live your life with zero effort. See what Christ has to say about that effort at judgement day.

And the beauty of it really is--there really is joy in working with the Lord. When you put in your best effort, when you call on Him in mighty prayer, when you practice faith---when you see the results, WOW--it is really good. Your faith grows. You gain a greater knowledge of His absolute love for you--not that you did not believe or have faith before, but it becomes a sure knowledge--an unbreakable knowledge.

This is why it is sad to me-those who do not understand the works side of the equation. There is something really wonderful about giving all of your heart, might, mind and strength to God.

[Snow Patrol]

And the beauty of it really is--there really is joy in working with the Lord. When you put in your best effort, when you call on Him in mighty prayer, when you practice faith---when you see the results, WOW--it is really good. Your faith grows. You gain a greater knowledge of His absolute love for you--not that you did not believe or have faith before, but it becomes a sure knowledge--an unbreakable knowledge.

This is why it is sad to me-those who do not understand the works side of the equation. There is something really wonderful about giving all of your heart, might, mind and strength to God.

What you say is so true. When one does give their all, imperfect as it might be, they grow and their faith expands. This expansion then stretches them to do even more than they thought capable. They continue to expand and grow and stretch. This is a great thing.

[nrajeffreturns]

Good point. According to the Bible,

'You must love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.'

That sounds a LOT like "Do all you can do."

[James Banta]

Yep, then we should be like "Christians" and do nothing more. You got it. :rolleyes:

What do you think Christ wants from us? He knows no one is perfect. He knows we will all fall short. What do you think He is going to say "He everyone, live your life at 88.51 percent effort and you'll be fine." No. He wants us our whole heart, might, and mind in the effort. Does He know we will fall short? Yeup. But go ahead and live your life with zero effort. See what Christ has to say about that effort at judgement day.

All means everything not just our best.. So what does the Lord require of you?

Micah 6:8
O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

And for salvation Jesus explained it to Nicodemus that those who believe have everlasting life.. Our walk before God is a sacrifice of praise for the gift of life we has given us.. But that LIFE it's self is all His work. If I claim I have done anything to earn my salvation it is a wage not a gift.. The Bible tells us that salvation is a gift (Eph 2:8), stop making it something to be earned.. As far as the works He has ordained that I should walk in them. They are none of your business (Matthew 6:3).. IHS jim

[James Banta]

And the beauty of it really is--there really is joy in working with the Lord. When you put in your best effort, when you call on Him in mighty prayer, when you practice faith---when you see the results, WOW--it is really good. Your faith grows. You gain a greater knowledge of His absolute love for you--not that you did not believe or have faith before, but it becomes a sure knowledge--an unbreakable knowledge.

This is why it is sad to me-those who do not understand the works side of the equation. There is something really wonderful about giving all of your heart, might, mind and strength to God.

You have shown that you have no faith in God at all. I have shown you that faith is how we access God's grace.. You still insist that there is a works side to grace.. I have shown you that we are saved by grace or works NOT both (Romans 11:6). We are saved by grace You agree with that. The question here is how we gain that grace. By saying that is is a product of both faith and work you deny the scripture that Tell is that We gain God's grace through faith and NOT OF WORKS. You speak outside the Gospel and not how God has explained the process..

To love God with all your heart mind and strength a person first must know that He is there and is what He says He is. To Moses God demanded that He exists. He gave His existence as His name. Telling Moses that He is "I AM". Then he explained His nature to Moses AND THE PROPHETS. He told Moses that WE should listen to Him that He is the Lord God, that He is ONE LORD.. Jesus confirmed this in the same p***age you used to Find the quote that we should love Him with all our Heart Mind and Strength (Mark 12:27-29). You can't fall in love with a figment from a man's mind. You have to believe the Being you Love and accept Him for what He is..

Remember Jesus said that the Father is Spirit (John 4:24). He defines a spirit as not having a body of flesh and bone (Luke 24:39). The Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul said that Jesus is the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15). We must find a way to agree with God that He is God and there is no other without adding to the scripture a phrase that makes it work in our minds but denies the truth that No other God was formed before God and no other will be formed after Him (Isaiah 43:10).. Does not mormonism teach that Jesus the God of this world was formed as a God AFTER the Father was already God? Ignoring the scripture and making up your own God to love with all your Heart Mind and Strength is sin, It's idolatry.. Mormonism teaches IDOLATRY as truth calling it a more sure way.. I know with experience that sin is NOT a more sure way to anything but death.. Time to reexamine your religion.. IHS jim

[BigJulie]

Good point. According to the Bible,

'You must love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.'

That sounds a LOT like "Do all you can do."

Exactly! It is the way I read it as well.

[Billyray]

When it comes to money---he asks for a t..ithe--that's 10%. Then he states: Mal 3:10--Bring ye all the t...ithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.
Another error that you hold BigJ. Can you show me where t i t h i n g was commanded under the New Covenant after the death of Christ? BTW before you try and use Acts 4 read it again because this is not a commandment to t i t h e.

[Billyray]

Exactly! It is the way I read it as well.
And can you tell me a single person who does that?

[BigJulie]

Another error that you hold BigJ. Can you show me where t i t h i n g was commanded under the New Covenant after the death of Christ? BTW before you try and use Acts 4 read it again because this is not a commandment to t i t h e.

It was never undone from the Old Testament Billyray. I guess you argue against every church that ***hes.

[BigJulie]

And can you tell me a single person who does that?

Ummm, I was replying to nrajeffreturns---I will name him as the single person.

Or are you making the submission that if we turn to Christ, we are unable (with His help) to love Him with all of our heart, might, mind, and strength? Are you saying that it is impossible for God to help us do this?

[Billyray]

Ummm, I was replying to nrajeffreturns---I will name him as the single person.

Or are you making the submission that if we turn to Christ, we are unable (with His help) to love Him with all of our heart, might, mind, and strength? Are you saying that it is impossible for God to help us do this?
Do you really believe you obey the two great commandments? For starters you don't even follow the true God of the Bible lets alone obey either of these two commandments.

[Libby]

Hi Julie! Nice to see you again.

[nrajeffreturns]

Do you really believe you obey the two great commandments?
Are you saying that if a person currently isn't obeying a commandment, that it's therefore not really a commandment?

[RealFakeHair]

Good point. According to the Bible, but how can you trust it?

'You must love the LORD your Gods with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.' and follow all the rules, commandments and whatever comes out of the prophet's mouth.That sounds a LOT like "Do all you can do."

My coments are in red letter. Yes I took liberty, but what the hick so did Joseph Smith jr. With the Holy Bible.

[nrajeffreturns]

My coments are in red letter.
And they seem fairly valid to me. The Israelites were expected to follow all the rules and commandments that came from their prophet's mouth. And when they disobeyed sufficiently, that prophet called down destruction on them. For an example, see what happened when Moses found them worshiping a cow they had made.

[RealFakeHair]

And they seem fairly valid to me. The Israelites were expected to follow all the rules and commandments that came from their prophet's mouth. And when they disobeyed sufficiently, that prophet called down destruction on them. For an example, see what happened when Moses found them worshiping a cow they had made.

It was the Chick-fil-a cow telling them to eat more chicken that's all. Speaking of commandments coming from the mouth of a prophet, Joseph Smith jr. Used that excuse to....Well speaking of Chicks. lol

[BigJulie]

Hi Julie! Nice to see you again.

Thanks Libby. I hope all is well with you.

[BigJulie]

Quote Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns (with red highlights from Realfake)

Good point. According to the Bible, but how can you trust it?

'You must love the LORD your Gods with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.' and follow all the rules, commandments and whatever comes out of the prophet's mouth.That sounds a LOT like "Do all you can do."

Realfake, you ask a good question, so I thought I would reply.

First, the goal of the Bible is not to teach you to trust the Bible, but to trust God (whose words it is), right? I think you would agree. The Bible if full of stories in which people are told to listen to God, not what they think God wrote. An example is the Pharisees versus Peter. One trusted what they think was written, the other trusted God.

So, how do we get to the point we trust God. Well, we follow what is written--for starters. God teaches us to pray and to turn to him. We are also born with the "light of Christ" or an inner mechanism that teaches us what the Spirit feels like versus the body. We do something wrong, we feel guilt. We do something good, we feel light.

So, the point of the Bible really is to get us to learn to recognize the Spirit---it essentially teaches us what it means to follow the Spirit and what it means to follow the flesh. It is full of stories of those who followed God even when it appeared to contract what was already known of God--such as with Abraham, animal sacrifice, eating kosher or not, etc. The end point---the authority is always God, we are always to turn to God, we are to learn what it means to follow God. How do we know the difference of when we are following God or not? If we went by the word of God alone, we would end up looking much like the Pharisees and Saducees. Sure that they understood the word, sure that they were chosen, but they were horribly mistaken. Therefore, God gives us a second witness--His Spirit. The combination of the two (His word and His Spirit--wow, doesn't that sound an awful like like Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost)---is what allows us to known and learn to trust God.

Second point--everything that comes out of the mouths of the prophets. Well, I think that is the whole point of the Bible--that with God nothing is impossible. As I noted, with faith Abraham sacrificed Isaac. With faith, Moses parted the Red Sea. With faith, the apostles healed the sick and raised the dead. What exactly then, do you think is impossible?

[Billyray]

. . .the point of the Bible really is to get us to learn to recognize the Spirit---it essentially teaches us what it means to follow the Spirit and what it means to follow the flesh. . .

The major point of the Bible is that we are all sinners and that we are saved when we place our faith in Christ for salvation. The harder the rules were the more people fell short. You have a completely twisted view of what the Bible teaches in that you believe that you actually obey all the commandments. You don't even follow the God of the Bible--perhaps you could start with that one.

[BigJulie]

The major point of the Bible is that we are all sinners and that we are saved when we place our faith in Christ for salvation. The harder the rules were the more people fell short. You have a completely twisted view of what the Bible teaches in that you believe that you actually obey all the commandments. You don't even follow the God of the Bible--perhaps you could start with that one.

The harder the rules, the more people fall short? Then why give any rules at all? Then all could be saved?

Yes, you and I have very different ideas of what the main point of the Bible is. I agree, we are all sinners and fall short--but to me, that is not the main point. The main point is that we can be perfected in Christ--that with Him, we can be healed from our weaknesses--not that we have to live with them.

I think non-Mormons often mistakes what it means "all we can do." I think they think that means we can do it all right now. But that is not how it works. What we are taught is that with the spirit, God will work with us as we work with Him. As we put in our best effort, he will take our weaknesses and perfect them. This takes time--but so worth the effort.

God doesn't want us to live forever with our sins and weaknesses, He wants to free us from them.

From the Book of Mormon:

"Nevertheless, the Lord God showeth us our weakness that we may know that it is by his grace, and his great condescensions unto the children of men, that we have power to do these things."

"And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them."

In other words, he commanded us to be perfect--not to show us that we can't, but to teach us how we can.

[Billyray]

Yes, you and I have very different ideas of what the main point of the Bible is. I agree, we are all sinners and fall short--but to me, that is not the main point. The main point is that we can be perfected in Christ--that with Him, we can be healed from our weaknesses--not that we have to live with them.

You just reaffirm that you believe you are saved by your own works. That is why Christians say that Mormonism is a works based religion.

[BigJulie]

You just reaffirm that you believe you are saved by your own works. That is why Christians say that Mormonism is a works based religion.

I guess you will just never understand what it means to be "perfected in Christ" because you believe it is not possible.

The more I hear works criticized, the more I rejoice in understanding works. I would never presume to tell a child that because it is not possible for them to know all information, it is not worth aquiring an education. I would also never tell a child that if they just go to cl***, they can sleep through it and somehow acquire knowledge. I would also never tell a child that they can get an education by their own merit and that they do not need the help "grace" of a knowledgabe teacher who will sacrifice on their behalf so that they can learn (ask any teacher, they don't do it for the money.)

The sad thing is here, you seem to think if you can't be perfect all at once, it is not worth even attempting to really make an effort (with all your heart, might, mind and strength) to follow God. And the other sad thing is that you seem to think that God's grace is not enough to make your weaknesses strong.

Yes, Billyray, I can say that you and I see God very differently. I see him as a healer and a teacher. You seem to see him as an enabler (you are too sinful to change, and he is too powerless to help you.)

[Billyray]

Yes, Billyray, I can say that you and I see God very differently. I see him as a healer and a teacher. You seem to see him as an enabler (you are too sinful to change, and he is too powerless to help you.)
Where we differ is that you believe you are saved by your own works as I said above and I believe that we are saved when we place our faith in Christ to save us. Mormonism and Christianity are polar opposites.

[BigJulie]

Where we differ is that you believe you are saved by your own works as I said above and I believe that we are saved when we place our faith in Christ to save us. Mormonism and Christianity are polar opposites.

You are funny--you must insist on sticking to your view of what I believe regardless of whether or not I have shown you clearly exacty how Christ's grace saves us--not just in our sins, but from them---that he actually heals us.

And I have a testimony that working with the Lord is a beautiful thing. Two things that non-denominationals seem to give up--work and feelings--both of these things are a major part of our lives and the very essense of what and who we are. Work is a source of great joy (a feeling) as we work with the Lord (put on his yoke). His grace then (as we work for him) can be seen so clearly in our salvation. One of the greatest blessings I have had as a mother is to teach my children of Christ when they are struggling with their own weaknesses---when they are feeling guilty---to be able to give them hope in Christ and to teach them how to apply the atonement in their lives. I don't tell them--you believe so don't worry about it---I teach them how to apply the atonement. Do you realize that the 12-step is basically a repentence process. It teaches people how to apply God's love in their lives. It is work. It is worth it. Cleansing can occur. I have watched my children work with and for God---and be cleansed and healed. It is brings me so much joy as a mother to watch them be free of not only guilt, but also weakness so that it no longer plaques them.


Phl 2:12-13 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

God working in us as we work out or own salvation---these two verses can really be understood together, not just be reading it and intellectually understanding it, but because once it has been lived, it is clearly seen.

[RealFakeHair]

Realfake, you ask a good question, so I thought I would reply.

First, the goal of the Bible is not to teach you to trust the Bible, but to trust God (whose words it is), right? I think you would agree. The Bible if full of stories in which people are told to listen to God, not what they think God wrote. An example is the Pharisees versus Peter. One trusted what they think was written, the other trusted God.

So, how do we get to the point we trust God. Well, we follow what is written--for starters. God teaches us to pray and to turn to him. We are also born with the "light of Christ" or an inner mechanism that teaches us what the Spirit feels like versus the body. We do something wrong, we feel guilt. We do something good, we feel light.

So, the point of the Bible really is to get us to learn to recognize the Spirit---it essentially teaches us what it means to follow the Spirit and what it means to follow the flesh. It is full of stories of those who followed God even when it appeared to contract what was already known of God--such as with Abraham, animal sacrifice, eating kosher or not, etc. The end point---the authority is always God, we are always to turn to God, we are to learn what it means to follow God. How do we know the difference of when we are following God or not? If we went by the word of God alone, we would end up looking much like the Pharisees and Saducees. Sure that they understood the word, sure that they were chosen, but they were horribly mistaken. Therefore, God gives us a second witness--His Spirit. The combination of the two (His word and His Spirit--wow, doesn't that sound an awful like like Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost)---is what allows us to known and learn to trust God.

Second point--everything that comes out of the mouths of the prophets. Well, I think that is the whole point of the Bible--that with God nothing is impossible. As I noted, with faith Abraham sacrificed Isaac. With faith, Moses parted the Red Sea. With faith, the apostles healed the sick and raised the dead. What exactly then, do you think is impossible?

To quote Jesus of the Holy Bible, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." End of quote. that's all.

[BigJulie]

To quote Jesus of the Holy Bible, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." End of quote. that's all.

Actually, Christ doesn't stop there...--that is not "end of quote" --that is "not all" Christ kept talking to them to explain, he says:


And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

In other words, it is not the scriptures that give life--but Christ Himself. (They testify of Christ---so that we know how to come unto Him.) He is speaking to those who are sure they know the scriptures and what they mean, but they obviously do not--because they missed the one crucial part--coming unto Christ and learning from Him.

[Billyray]

God working in us as we work out or own salvation-

You WORK out your own salvation--which means to you that you are saved by doing good works. Again that is why Christians say that Mormonism is a works based religion.

[RealFakeHair]

Actually, Christ doesn't stop there...--that is not "end of quote" --that is "not all" Christ kept talking to them to explain, he says:


And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

In other words, it is not the scriptures that give life--but Christ Himself. (They testify of Christ---so that we know how to come unto Him.) He is speaking to those who are sure they know the scriptures and what they mean, but they obviously do not--because they missed the one crucial part--coming unto Christ and learning from Him.

Then why do you question the scriptures?

[nrajeffreturns]

Then why do you question the scriptures?

What questions do you think she is asking of them?

[RealFakeHair]

What questions do you think she is asking of them?

More of a rhetorical statement, but you can fill in the blanks.

[nrajeffreturns]

More of a rhetorical statement, but you can fill in the blanks.

No, I can't, actually. I have no idea what you're talking about when you say she questions the scriptures.

Do you mean she believes they are false? Fiction? The writings of con men?

[Billyray]

No, I can't, actually. I have no idea what you're talking about when you say she questions the scriptures.

Do you mean she believes they are false? Fiction? The writings of con men?
You don't believe the Bible as written nor does BigJ.

[James Banta]

You don't believe the Bible as written nor does BigJ.

Do they believe even their own books they call scripture? Doesn't the BofM teach that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are one God? Do they not feel a need to tack on their own interpretative phrase "In purpose" to 2 Nephi 31:21 as they feel a need to place it on all Biblical p***age that teach that the Lord God is one Lord? And what could they do with the conversation between Zeezrom and Amulek, in the light of the teachings of Joseph Smith?


I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three C O N S T I T U T E three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it! (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473)

Looks like Joseph Smith contradict it himself in the pages of the BofM.. I guess the "I have always declared" means only that there are three Persons of God not that he always taught that there are three gods.. Just looking at the BofM anyone can see that he had ALWAYS believed that there is one God, that is up until the time he became a cult leader, a great prophet and could teach a different God than even the BofM teaches.. Hey, if you don't like what mormonism teaches, wait a few minutes.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Phl 2:12-13 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

God working in us as we work out or own salvation---these two verses can really be understood together, not just be reading it and intellectually understanding it, but because once it has been lived, it is clearly seen.

Lets place your concept into other scriptures..

"For by grace we are save through faith and that not of ourselves it is a give of God NOT OF WORKS", but we must work out or own salvation.. Does it fit? How about this one "And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work." But since salvation has a works component then grace really isn't grace now is it.. Does your thinking work in that? NO!! Salvation is either of Grace or it is of works NOT BOTH!! You have told me many time that the LDS are saved by grace.. If that was true Julie then there works would not have a place in your doctrines of salvation.. That is BIBLICAL! So to hold Phl 2:12-13 as being God's true we must see it as ALL God's work, even that which is seen in us as doing is God doing |His work within us.. If it was us working out our own salvation then these other p***ages would be a lie wouldn't they? It would be a lie to teach that salvation is by God's grace through faith and NOT OF WORKS.. So tell me which way is it? If the Bible true, or are your interpretation of Phl 2:12-13 right and therefore the rest of the Bible that clearly teach GRACE though faith is the way to salvation?

Come on now explain this to us.. Did God change His mind half way though the New Testament. When Jesus taught Nicodemus that "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." HE THAT BELIEVES, not he that works out his own salvation.. Make it all work my lady or none of it has any truth to it at all.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Oh no---then if we have absolutely no say in the matter, you must believe that God created some for hell. Is that what you believer?

I see no need to defend what God has clearly put in His word..


John 15:16
Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Who does the p***age say chose who? That isn't the gospel according to Jim, IT IS THE WORD OF GOD, given through the Apostle John by the Holy Spirit. If you disagree you teach another Gospel THAT IS NOT God's word but the invention of men..


Okay, so it appears you agree with this here.

Yes, one needs to learn to recognize the Spirit. The fruits of the spirit is good fruit.

Actually, you just agreed with me in three things that WE do. Do you think we do not choose Christ, that we do not choose baptism and that we do not choose to follow the Spirit given to us by God?

Isn't that all part of being in Jesus? As far as any of that being our choice I refer you back to John 15:16..


Then, with the help of---what can't we do? Can we be made perfect even as God is perfect if we do all we can do when God is with us? Is complete santification (purification) possible?

Yes it is possible but I take you again to the Bible to discover how that can be..


[B]2Cor 5:21
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

He became Sin in our place and HE makes us to be the righteousness of GOD in Him.. It is all His work not ours.. If you make a decision to reject His righteousness who am I to tell you that you must.. But if you reject it you will have to establish your own righteousness and the commandment for righteousness is to be perfect as the Father in Heaven is perfect.. If you can do it great go for it.. Excuse me if I am sure you will fail.. I believe God when he tell us that all our righteousnesses are as filth rags before Him.. It doesn't matter how you try to be perfect as He is perfect you will fail..


Once we have chosen God, can we then choose not to follow Him somewhere in the path or are we then forced to follow Him?

Who follows Him? Yes it is a commandment to do so but do we always do so? No, we fail and fail again.. Even here you have gotten angry when I teach a doctrine of One God, or like now salvation, and yes sanctification, being the work of God and not of our own efforts.. And are you arguing with me? No, you argue with the word God preserved for us as His message.. So if we chose to follow Him we maintain our faith in Him. We never choose not to drop our faith.. WE are reborn spiritually of Him, once born of Him we can never be unborn.. You can't be unborn from your parents, you can't be unborn of God either.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

You don't believe the Bible as written nor does BigJ.
Really? I rather think that we DO believe the Bible as was originally written....

"The Prophet Joseph Smith explained: "I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. ..." (TPJS, p. 327)

[nrajeffreturns]

I see no need to defend what God has clearly put in His word..
But there IS a need for you to defend your "interesting" interpretation of it as an attempt to prove to Julie that God created some people for hell.

John 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.


Who does the p***age say chose who?
The question isn't "who does the verse say did the choosing in the appointment of apostles?" because it's obvious the answer is "Jesus." Those apostles who were chosen by Jesus to be His apostles, they didn't apply for the ***. He came up to them and said "I want you to be one of my special witnesses, missionaries, and leaders."

So again, The question isn't "who does the verse say did the choosing in the appointment of apostles?"
The question is "Do we have any say in whether we get eternal life or not?"


That isn't the gospel according to Jim
But the idea that John 15:16 proves that God created some people for hell IS the gospel of Jim to an extent.


If you disagree you teach another Gospel THAT IS NOT God's word but the invention of men..
An Arminian Christian might say that if you disagree with Arminianism, YOU teach another gospel that is the invention of a man named John Calvin.


He became Sin in our place ..
When you say "in our place," who are you referring to? All humans? Or just the ones who submit to Trinitarianism and Calvinism? WHO did Jesus become sin for?


You can't be unborn from your parents, you can't be unborn of God either.
If you are child of the devil, can't you become unborn of him?

[James Banta]

[nrajeffreturns;147836]But there IS a need for you to defend your "interesting" interpretation of it as an attempt to prove to Julie that God created some people for hell.

God's perfect will is that none would be lost but all would come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).. Still he will not force anyone into His salvation. Just as the prodigal son was nor forced to return to his father we are not forced to come to Jesus. The question here isn't about us and what we di but rather what God is and what He knows about us.. Those He knows will respond to Him He has chosen to be His children..


John 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

The question isn't "who does the verse say did the choosing in the appointment of apostles?" because it's obvious the answer is "Jesus." Those apostles who were chosen by Jesus to be His apostles, didn't apply for the ***. He came up to them and said "I want you to be one of my special witnesses, missionaries, and leaders."


By what authority do you limit God's chose to only those who are to be His Apostles? As Jesus said these things these men were disciples not Apostles. Are not all believers in Jesus called, chosen, ORDAINED to go, bring forth fruit. Are we not to expect that God will give us all that we ask as we remain in Him? This is only for those God has chosen to be special witnesses, missionaries, and leaders? No this is for all He chooses to be His own.. No one applies to become His children. This is done by a power of God because of holding faith in Jesus (John 1:12-13).


So again, The question isn't "who does the verse say did the choosing in the appointment of apostles?"
The question is "Do we have any say in whether we get eternal life or not?"

The p***age doesn't say that it is a invitation to become an apostle. Even if it did does it mean that they had no choice in the matter? This clearly shows the way all people are calling into a relationship with God. He does the choosing we can only respond to His call.. Since he know who will respond in acceptance and who will reject that call, His call is only made to those who will accept Him, to those He has chosen..


But the idea that John 15:16 proves that God created some people for hell IS the gospel of Jim to an extent.


An Arminian Christian might say that if you disagree with Arminianism, YOU teach another gospel that is the invention of a man named John Calvin.


When you say "in our place," who are you referring to? All humans? Or just the ones who submit to Trinitarianism and Calvinism? WHO did Jesus become sin for?


If you are child of the devil, can't you become unborn of him?

Where is it my own invention that John 15:16 says that God (Jesus) made the choice? That is just what it says. You are again bearing false witness.. I know of no Arminian that denies that they were called by God to become His.. They only hold that they can change their mind later.. I happen to believe that once you are Born you can't be unborn.. They disagree at least they sort of disagree. They believe that we can walk away from God and back into the world and give up your place in the kingdom.. I happen to disagree with that Idea. Both they and I still believe that salvation can come ONLY by the grace of God to those who have faith.. I believe that a person who turns away from that faith never had it to start with. They believe that such throw that faith away.. I see only a difference in perspective there not a difference in doctrine.. They also hold that it is God who chooses those who will be saved not themselves.. You are barking up the wrong tree..

This is why it is so serious to deny the gift of everlasting Life.. Jesus died for all Sin, even that sin of those that reject Him.. It's like spitting on and casting into a garbage heap the most valuable gift ever offered to anyone. It's as insulting as Simon as he tried to buy the authority to give the gift of the Holy Spirit from the Apostles..

We were all born physically into this world. We continue to walk in this body of sin and death all the day of our mortality.. That body is never unborn it finally dies.. That part of us that is Born Spiritually, of God continues and is raised a new and perfect person at His coming.. See now that this body of death which we now inhabit is a child of Satan? Only in the New Birth can it be over come.. I have said this before and it seem to fit again here.. A Christian never sins as much as they want, No, they sin much more than they want.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Really? I rather think that we DO believe the Bible as was originally written....

"The Prophet Joseph Smith explained: "I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. ..." (TPJS, p. 327)

But you hold that evil men changed that Bible. Making it say what they wanted it to say by adding to it and taking p***ages out of it? Can you show us were the changes that have been made have changed the meaning of God intent? Can you show were God is using mortality to test us rather than using it to bring Him glory? Was Jesus lying to us when He said that His word would never p*** away? Yet it was taught within the highest leadership of the LDS church that it is highly questionable that even one verse of the Bible escaped deliberate compromise from their intended message (Divine Authority of the Book of Mormon, pp. 45), or that "important points touching the salvation of men, had been taken from the Bible or lost before it was compiled" (T. of P.J.S., pp. 9-11). These attacks on God word, that He promised to keep pure, show a shocking lack of faith in His ability to keep His promises.. With such a lack of faith how can anyone hope to gain God's grace? IHS jim

[Billyray]

Really? I rather think that we DO believe the Bible as was originally written....

"The Prophet Joseph Smith explained: "I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. ..." (TPJS, p. 327)

No you don't believe the Bible as written, nor does BigJ. You believe that it has been purposely corrupted--yet you have not given anyone any proof for your bogus claim.

[RealFakeHair]

No you don't believe the Bible as written, nor does BigJ. You believe that it has been purposely corrupted--yet you have not given anyone any proof for your bogus claim.

Nor can they, this is why I never do the bible-ping-pong with them.

[nrajeffreturns]

But you hold that evil men changed that Bible. Making it say what they wanted it to say by adding to it and taking p***ages out of it?
What does that have to do with your accusation that

"You don't believe the Bible as written nor does BigJ." ???

Did you mean that you think we don't believe the Bible, in its CURRENT state, is error-free and 100% complete?
Or did you mean that you think we don't believe the Bible's words as they originally existed?

[RealFakeHair]

What does that have to do with your accusation that

"You don't believe the Bible as written nor does BigJ." ???

Did you mean that you think we don't believe the Bible, in its CURRENT state, is error-free and 100% complete?
Or did you mean that you think we don't believe the Bible's words as they originally existed?

I believe, I think, I might, but I don't really know. Is this what you are saying?

[Billyray]

What does that have to do with your accusation that

"You don't believe the Bible as written nor does BigJ." ???

Did you mean that you think we don't believe the Bible, in its CURRENT state, is error-free and 100% complete?

I believe we have the original words within the existing m****cripts. You don't believe the Bible as written nor does BigJ. Jeff just admit that this is your position because we both know that it is.


Or did you mean that you think we don't believe the Bible's words as they originally existed?

What evidence do you have to show that the words we have now within the existing m****cripts are completely different that what we actually have in the m****cripts?

[nrajeffreturns]

I believe we have the original words within the existing m****cripts.
Which Bible contains exactly the original words, no more and no less?



You don't believe the Bible as written nor does BigJ.
That is a lie.


Jeff just admit that this is your position because we both know that it is.
NEITHER of us knows that to be true. One of us knows it to be false, as a matter of fact.


What evidence do you have to show that the words we have now within the existing m****cripts are completely different that what we actually have in the m****cripts?
Nice straw man. Too bad I never claimed nor do I believe that that the words we have now within the existing m****cripts are completely different that what we actually have in the m****cripts.

Other than that glaring fallacy, you almost have a valid point.

[Billyray]

Which Bible contains exactly the original words, no more and no less?

We have the words within the existing m****cripts. Which section of scripture do you claim is wrong so we can take a look at it?

[Billyray]

That is a lie.

What I have said is not a lie but the absolute truth which I will repeat again, you nor BigJ believe the Bible as it is written.

[Billyray]

Nice straw man. Too bad I never claimed nor do I believe that that the words we have now within the existing m****cripts are completely different that what we actually have in the m****cripts.

Sure you believe they are different. Who do you think you are kidding Jeff?

If what you say is true then you would have to believe that the revisions that Joseph made in the JST of the Bible are completely false. Is that your position now?

[James Banta]

What does that have to do with your accusation that

"You don't believe the Bible as written nor does BigJ." ???

Did you mean that you think we don't believe the Bible, in its CURRENT state, is error-free and 100% complete?
Or did you mean that you think we don't believe the Bible's words as they originally existed?

You doubt that the Bible is the word of God as we have it today.. According to mormonism it is far more the words of men than of God.. Here is a flash for you. The original m****cripts of the Bible were not written in English.. Most of us rely on a translation.. Not one word of the KJV is found in the original m****cripts. Learned and faithful men have given us a translation that conveys the meaning and spirit of the original. There are other translation that are closer to the language we speck today that are also as faithful to the original as the KJV is but are in a language that makes it much easier for us to understand.. Is the wording different, yes.. Does it have the same revelations from God? YES.. Tell me what is the different meaning in the following two sentences.

In the growing season the big oak tree in covered with green leaves..

When the weather in warm for months that huge oak is in full leaf..

Are they saying the same thing? They are worded totally different, but they have the same message.. It isn't the word for word translation that needed to convey God's word. It is the message, the intent of those words.. Are they faithful to the original? This we find in the scholarly translation available to us.. Translations like the KJV, The ASB, the NASB, and the NIV. The "inspired version" doesn't fit. Smith additions nor his deletions have any scholarship to support them. The word are of course different but the meaning of the text of the scripture is there unchanged, unaltered.. IHS jim

[RealFakeHair]

Nice straw man. Too bad I never claimed nor do I believe that that the words we have now within the existing m****cripts are completely different that what we actually have in the m****cripts.

Other than that glaring fallacy, you almost have a valid point.

Get to the point, of a valid point, or something.
I gladly put my point up for review if there were a point to contrast with the LDS view of the Holy Bible.
Can it be trusted?
Is all that one needs to have Salvation be contained in the Holy Bible?
These are just two to the point we two can come to a conclusion too.

[Snow Patrol]

What I have said is not a lie but the absolute truth which I will repeat again, you nor BigJ believe the Bible as it is written.

Do you Billyray?

Mark 16:16

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be ****ed.

[RealFakeHair]

Do you Billyray?

Mark 16:16

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be ****ed.

Okay, so here is one that a TBM believe wasn't mis-translated or in error, okay that's one.

[James Banta]

Do you Billyray?

Mark 16:16

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be ****ed.

WE have discussed what baptism is already.. To many it is infant baptism, to some it is being part of the Body of Christ being immersed into it.. To others this means a baptism that comes only by the Holy Spirit. Who are you to say what baptism in this p***age means? Does it confirm that it is speaking of water baptism? NO.. There is no doubt that BELIEVING is the key in this p***age and that baptism is something we do when we believe.. BUT if a person doesn't believe they are ****ed.. I still say that even Mark 16:16 is God's absolute truth.. Billy will agree with that.. Ask him.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

We have the words within the existing m****cripts.
Are all existing m****cripts 100% reliable and authentic? Are all existing m****cripts equally reliable?

Or are some more reliable than others?


Which section of scripture do you claim is wrong so we can take a look at it?

"Commenting on the death of Judas Iscariot, Matthew 27:9-10 reads:

Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me." (ESV)

There is no such verse in Jeremiah. Matthew is instead (very loosely) quoting Zechariah 11:13:
Then the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter" - the lordly price at which I was priced by them. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD, to the potter. (ESV)"

The most likely explanation for this is that Matthew or a careless scribe made a mistake and named the wrong prophet in the m****cript.

Ball is in your court.

[Billyray]

Do you Billyray?

Mark 16:16

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be ****ed.
Snow you also don't believe the Bible as written. Right?

[Billyray]

Are all existing m****cripts 100% reliable and authentic? Are all existing m****cripts equally reliable?

Not every m****cript is equal. But we have thousands of ancient Greek M****cripts for the NT and because of the vast quan***y of ancient m****cripts we know exactly what we have and the variations among each m****cript. So how on earth do you feel this helps your case? Can you explain your little theory for me?

[Billyray]

"Commenting on the death of Judas Iscariot, Matthew 27:9-10 reads:

Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me." (ESV)

There is no such verse in Jeremiah. Matthew is instead (very loosely) quoting Zechariah 11:13:
Then the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter" - the lordly price at which I was priced by them. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD, to the potter. (ESV)"

The most likely explanation for this is that Matthew or a careless scribe made a mistake and named the wrong prophet in the m****cript.

Ball is in your court.
You just gave me a section of scripture that you believe contains the actual words of Matthew that have not been been corrupted, and I would agree with you that these are the actual words of Matthew that have not been corrupted. Perhaps you can give me an example of the corruption of the Bible that you Mormons claim to have taken place. BTW I have asked you this before and you have not given me any proof whatsoever that what you claim has any validity in reality.

[nrajeffreturns]

Not every m****cript is equal.
So some m****cripts are less reliable than others. Then any Bible that used those less-reliable m****cripts, is a less-reliable Bible. That seems so obvious that most people should agree with it.

So the LDS are totally, 100% justified and reasonable in saying that they believe the Bible to be correct if the m****cripts that Bible was based on, are totally reliable m****cripts AND have been translated 100% correctly.

So all you have to do, Billy, is point out which Bible that is, and back it up with compelling evidence, and you will have won the debate, because you will have shown that there IS a Bible that is 100% reliable.

Until you do that, no one is under any obligation to believe your "feeling" that such a Bible exists.

[James Banta]

So some m****cripts are less reliable than others. Then any Bible that used those less-reliable m****cripts, is a less-reliable Bible. That seems so obvious that most people should agree with it.

So the LDS are totally, 100% justified and reasonable in saying that they believe the Bible to be correct if the m****cripts that Bible was based on, are totally reliable m****cripts AND have been translated 100% correctly.

So all you have to do, Billy, is point out which Bible that is, and back it up with compelling evidence, and you will have won the debate, because you will have shown that there IS a Bible that is 100% reliable.

Until you do that, no one is under any obligation to believe your "feeling" that such a Bible exists.

That is fine Jeff.. Just show me one instance in the Bible that teaches inaccurate doctrine.. Show me the corruption of God's word.. I have asked before and so far all I hear is crickets.. Oh you did bring up Mark 16:16 and yet I was able to show that it fits fine into all scripture.. I say that all the Codex used in biblical translation are God's word, just as the NIV, the NASB, and the KJV are all God's word.. IHS jim

[Snow Patrol]

Snow you also don't believe the Bible as written. Right?

Did you answer my question?

[Billyray]

Did you answer my question?
I see that you side stepped my statement and question. Here it is again for you.

Snow you also don't believe the Bible as written. Right?

[Billyray]

So some m****cripts are less reliable than others. Then any Bible that used those less-reliable m****cripts, is a less-reliable Bible. That seems so obvious that most people should agree with it.

Your ***umption doesn't hold water Jeff. IF there was only a single m****cript AND the m****cript was not reliable then yes we would have a problem. BUT we have thousands of ancient m****cripts so your objection isn't an issue. You should know this but you are trying to deny the facts in order to support your false beliefs.

[Billyray]

Do you Billyray?

Mark 16:16

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be ****ed.
If you would bother going to any modern translation and read the notation within the text you would see the following (or similar notation):

"[Some of the earliest m****cripts do not include 16:9–20.]" ESV.

[Billyray]

So the LDS are totally, 100% justified and reasonable in saying that they believe the Bible to be correct if the m****cripts that Bible was based on, are totally reliable m****cripts AND have been translated 100% correctly.

So tell me which section of scripture has been changed and is unreliable? Can you give me a few examples?

[James Banta]

Did you answer my question?

I did but you didn't answer.. That's fine I just thought that you had no answer.. IHS jim

[Snow Patrol]

I see that you side stepped my statement and question. Here it is again for you.

Snow you also don't believe the Bible as written. Right?

Me sidestep? You didn't even begin to address my question. Why should I ignore that and just appease you?

[Snow Patrol]

If you would bother going to any modern translation and read the notation within the text you would see the following (or similar notation):

"[Some of the earliest m****cripts do not include 16:9–20.]" ESV.


So then that would be a no? You don't believe the Bible as it is written. This totally ****s up your argument.

[James Banta]

So then that would be a no? You don't believe the Bible as it is written. This totally ****s up your argument.

I explained to you that we do believe the Bible as it is in the KJV Bible. In Mark 16:16 we aren't told what baptism it is they is demanded.. It could mean (And I think it does) immersing one's self by faith into Jesus. It could be infant baptism. It could be believers baptism.. There is nothing in the p***age that requires baptism by immersion. Yes some of the early m****cripts do not include Mark 16:9-20. Still many m****cripts do include this p***age. I would reject it is it taught doctrines such as God has a body as tangible as man's. that there are three Gods, or that the Priesthood wasn't changed. None of those doctrines are included. The nature of God is not denied, and the priesthood is not questioned.. All it teaches is that those that believe and are baptized will be saved.. All Believers by faith are immersed into Jesus. Maybe a supporting p***age will help you understand.

Gal. 3:27
For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

Again not a word about water but instead we are taught that we are Baptized into Christ not into a church not into water..

The Children of Israel were said to have been baptized into Moses. No one of them was immersed in water.. There were instead immersed in the faith God had shown forth in His miracles through Moses..

1 Cor 10:1-2
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ign orant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all p***ed through the sea;
And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea

You really don't believe that any of these people were immersed into the water of the red Sea do you?

Exod 14:16
But lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine hand over the sea, and divide it: and the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea.

Yet the Bible calls this Baptism.. Your insistence that Mark 16:16 is water baptism when it is not stated in the text is one one interputation of that text and not above question.. IHS jim

[Billyray]

So then that would be a no? You don't believe the Bible as it is written. This totally ****s up your argument.
I believe it as written which is that this section of scripture is a late addition and unlikely part of the original text, which is exactly why the notation is clearly identified within the text and is clearly broken off from the rest of the text. So I am not sure what you are talking about. Care to explain that for me?

BTW I don't any issues with the verse that you quoted and it is a true statement which is that those who have faith and are baptized are saved.

[nrajeffreturns]

I believe it as written which is that this section of scripture is a late addition and unlikely part of the original text,

So any Bible that contains that section is not 100% reliable as inerrant scripture. Correct?

So the millions of Christians over the centuries who weren't aware of the fake-ness of that section of their Bibles...what about their salvation? They believed that ALL of their Bible was 100% inerrant, when in fact is contained some uninspired, added, fake scripture. Is it okay to have scripture that isn't inerrant, and to believe in the veracity of that scripture?


BTW I don't any issues with the verse that you quoted and it is a true statement which is that those who have faith and are baptized are saved.
So those who merely have faith alone, but fail to get baptized.....are not saved?

[Billyray]

So any Bible that contains that section is not 100% reliable as inerrant scripture. Correct?

The sections of the NT that appear to be later additions are clearly identified as such in the text so it is crystal clear. In addition variants are also noted. LikeI have said I believe we have the original text within the m****cripts. You on the other hand don't believe that we have the original and therefore you don't believe the Bible as written.

[Billyray]

So the millions of Christians over the centuries who weren't aware of the fake-ness of that section of their Bibles...what about their salvation?
Salvation is based on faith in Christ. For example the NT books weren't even written down for many years after the death of Christ during the early church period yet many people were saved.

[Billyray]

So those who merely have faith alone, but fail to get baptized.....are not saved?
No. Those who have faith in Christ are saved. Works do not contribute for salvation. And you know all the NT verses that support this position. Or do you?

[nrajeffreturns]

No. Those who have faith in Christ are saved. Works do not contribute for salvation. And you know all the NT verses that support this position. Or do you?

I know them. But why didn't the verse in question just say "All who believe are saved" ??

Why was it important to say He who believes AND IS BAPTIZED will be saved" ??

What happens to those who DON'T believe but are baptized anyway?
What happens to those who believe, but refuse to be baptized?

[nrajeffreturns]

Salvation is based on faith in Christ. For example the NT books weren't even written down for many years after the death of Christ during the early church period yet many people were saved.

So it's possible for a person to believe in a book that contains some authentically inspired scripture, but also contains unreliable or fake verses (like those Bibles that contain " a late addition and unlikely part of the original text"---and still have salvation because salvation is based on faith in Christ, not on owning an inerrant Bible?

[Billyray]

I know them. But why didn't the verse in question just say "All who believe are saved" ??

What the verse in question says is completely true. What it doesn't tell us is the fate of those who have faith but are not baptized. However the Bible is not silent on this issue and we have plenty of other verses that teach us that those who have faith are saved and that our works do not contribute for salvation. If you would like I would be happy to go over those verses again with you.


What happens to those who DON'T believe but are baptized anyway?

Those who get baptized but do not believe in Christ will not be saved.

[Billyray]

So it's possible for a person to believe in a book that contains some authentically inspired scripture, but also contains unreliable or fake verses (like those Bibles that contain " a late addition and unlikely part of the original text"---and still have salvation because salvation is based on faith in Christ, not on owning an inerrant Bible?
Absolutely. Many people have come to faith in the true God of the Bible by reading works by modern day Christian authors and in those works they quote Biblical scripture.

In the NT there are three clearly documented sections that are identified within the text in modern translations which means that they are likely late additions i.e. not part of the original text. However these three sections are consistent with the original text. This is completely different than the LDS position (JST of the Bible is one example) which completely changes and is inconsistent with the existing Biblical text.

Now tell me Jeff what part of the Bible has been corrupted and changed by evil men? Can you give me a couple of examples?

[nrajeffreturns]

What the verse in question says is completely true. What it doesn't tell us is the fate of those who have faith but are not baptized.
It does tell us, by implication. If Peter commanded believers to be baptized for the remission of sins, then it seems reasonable to conclude that those who don't get baptized, don't get their sins remitted. And there won't be many who make it to heaven with unremitted sins. Therefore, if you don't get baptized, you won't be let into heaven.


However the Bible is not silent on this issue and we have plenty of other verses that teach us that those who have faith are saved and that our works do not contribute for salvation. If you would like I would be happy to go over those verses again with you.
Please go over all NT verses that contain the phrase "faith alone," and let's review what they say about faith alone being good enough to justify you....

[nrajeffreturns]

Absolutely. Many people have come to faith in the true God of the Bible by reading works by modern day Christian authors and in those works they quote Biblical scripture.
Then it's possible that many people have come to faith in the true God by reading the Book of Mormon, since it quotes Biblical scripture. Right?


In the NT there are three clearly documented sections that are identified within the text in modern translations which means that they are likely late additions i.e. not part of the original text. However these three sections are consistent with the original text.
Most of the BOM, even though it is a late addition to the world's body of scripture, is consistent with Bible teachings, so if that's good enough, then the BOM is good to go.


Now tell me Jeff what part of the Bible has been corrupted and changed by evil men? Can you give me a couple of examples?
It doesn't have to have been evil men who changed things. It could have been careless men. And I already gave you one example:

Matthew 27:9-10 reads:

Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me." (ESV)

There is no such verse in Jeremiah. Matthew is instead (very loosely) quoting Zechariah 11:13:
Then the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter" - the lordly price at which I was priced by them. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD, to the potter. (ESV)"

IMO, the most likely explanation for this is that Matthew or a careless scribe made a mistake and named the wrong prophet in the m****cript.

Either way, these verses are in the Bible, and one of them is incorrect.

[James Banta]

Then it's possible that many people have come to faith in the true God by reading the Book of Mormon, since it quotes Biblical scripture. Right?


Most of the BOM, even though it is a late addition to the world's body of scripture, is consistent with Bible teachings, so if that's good enough, then the BOM is good to go.


It doesn't have to have been evil men who changed things. It could have been careless men. And I already gave you one example:

Matthew 27:9-10 reads:

Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me." (ESV)

There is no such verse in Jeremiah. Matthew is instead (very loosely) quoting Zechariah 11:13:
Then the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter" - the lordly price at which I was priced by them. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD, to the potter. (ESV)"

IMO, the most likely explanation for this is that Matthew or a careless scribe made a mistake and named the wrong prophet in the m****cript.

Either way, these verses are in the Bible, and one of them is incorrect.

Evil or careless it makes no difference.. Jesus promised that His word would NEVER P*** AWAY even if heaven and earth do.. What does that teach? IT teaches that God's word is still there, pure as it was spoken by Jesus, and will be for all time.. To doubt that is to doubt Jesus. That is faithlessness not faithfulness. Since we are saved by God's grace though FAITH, there is no salvation in faithlessness.. By that authority I can tell you that you are NOT SAVED nor will you ever be as long as you deny the promises of the Lord Jesus..

In Matthew 27:9-10, you insist that you have found err. You look at the Bible as being flawed, I look at it as being the promised inerrant word of God. Therefore I read it for what it actually says. Matthew does not say that the quotation was written by Jeremiah, but rather spoken (rheo) by Jeremiah. It is possible, therefore, that the Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to report a spoken prophecy of Jeremiah instead of your insistence that it had to be written.. Here again you prove your lack of faith in the word Jesus gave us as a promise to see that His word hasn't p***ed away.. See if Matthew 27:9-10 was a lie how could we trust any of the word.. It would be dead to us.. Jesus promised that that would never happen.. You accept the idea that it did, I deny your weak ***ertions as to scripture fallibility and believe that what the scripture teaches in absolute truth as is promised by the God of all creation.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Evil or careless it makes no difference..
I think I agree with you on that. Whether the changes that made the Bible different from the original texts was accidental or deliberate, it doesn't matter, because the result was the same--changes occurred.


Jesus promised that His word would NEVER P*** AWAY even if heaven and earth do.. What does that teach? IT teaches that any DECREE Jesus made remains valid forever. For example, if He stated that all who want eternal life must be baptized, that decree will always be true, no matter how much time p***es. There won't come a time when the unbaptized will be let in.

It's not a promise that the Bible would never be changed.

[James Banta]

[nrajeffreturns;147935]I think I agree with you on that. Whether the changes that made the Bible different from the original texts was accidental or deliberate, it doesn't matter, because the result was the same--changes occurred.

Changes occurred? I guess that depends on what you believe the word of God to be.. It it the wording used by the Translators of the KJ Bible? Is it the exact wording even on the copies of the original text on Hebrew, and Greek? When they were first copied do you think all the churches were controlled by one authority or did each Bishop and the elders of those churches have authority over just their church? Could an authority from Ephesus dictate changes to the leaders of the church at Thyatira? Changes to Scripture because a leader there didn't like that Jesus was call God in the scripture and not just the Son of God? Such a concept is ludicrous..


IT teaches that any DECREE Jesus made remains valid forever. For example, if He stated that all who want eternal life must be baptized, that decree will always be true, no matter how much time p***es. There won't come a time when the unbaptized will be let in.

Do you mean baptized in water? Where does Jesus command anything of the kind? You are reading your own doctrine into the scripture again without thinking about what is really being taught.. In Matthew Jesus commands that believers go and baptize.. He doesn't command anyone to receive baptism.. In Mark 16 we are taught that whosoever believes and is baptized will be saved.. Never is the kind of baptism, water, spiritual, pouring, sprinkling dictated there.. Nor is the age of the candidate spoken of.. It could include infant baptism, or pouring of water over the head of a dying man.. I happen to agree with the Amish in their belief that a spiritual baptism is enough..

Again you change just what is taught in the Word.. It doesn't say that His decrees will remain valid forever it SAYS that "Heaven and Earth would p*** away but HIS WORDS would never p*** away.. He is God Jeff.. He isn't some weak demigod that needs the help of men to be successful in any of His dealings.. The BofM teaches that God give no commandment to men unless he prepares a way to keep such a command.. Now look at Section 84 of the D&C and read this:

D&C 84:2-5
Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem.
Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased.
Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation.
For verily this generation shall not all p*** away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house.


And why was there never a temple finished in Far West? One was started was it not? So the generation that started that would should not have all p***ed away until that temple was complete.. But wait there was persecution from the mobs as will as the Militia of the State of Missouri, Did God defeat them as He had done Egypt for His people Israel? Nope He is said to have given a different reason for not preparing a way to accomplish what He had commanded..

D&C 124:49-
Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.

What is the matter with your god? You say that He is the same God that defeated Egypt but for some reason he couldn't handle the mobs or the 19th century Missouri Militia. Dang good thing he doesn't come up against the Utah National Guard, they have artillery and helicopter gun ships.... I guess since he could see a way to have "His children" keep this commandment that the BofM is a lie about any of His commandment being made and expected to be kept.. He can't provide a way for anyone to keep his commands..


It's not a promise that the Bible would never be changed.

Unlike mormonism Christians believe God ans when He tells us that even if all creation dies His words will live on, we believe Him.. The words Jesus gave us, ALL OF THEM, for He is also the God of the OT.. His message in what ever language we receive it is pure and undefiled. It is His word. His message to man that will never change or be defiled.. IHS jim

[Billyray]

It does tell us, by implication. If Peter commanded believers to be baptized for the remission of sins, then it seems reasonable to conclude that those who don't get baptized, don't get their sins remitted. And there won't be many who make it to heaven with unremitted sins. Therefore, if you don't get baptized, you won't be let into heaven.

You are ***uming that into the text. From this verse we know that those who believe and are baptized will be saved. Which is absolutely true as written. But it doesn't say anything about those believe but are not baptized. If there were no other verses in the entire NT that spoke on this subject then I would agree that you might come to the conclusion (i.e. ***ume) that both faith and baptism are required for salvation. However we have lots of verses that show that works do not contribute for salvation and that salvation is by faith. The thief on the cross had faith and was saved but he was not baptized so this one example alone disproves your ***umption.

[Billyray]

Most of the BOM, even though it is a late addition to the world's body of scripture, is consistent with Bible teachings, so if that's good enough, then the BOM is good to go.
Mormon doctrine is not consistent with what is taught in the Bible, that is why Mormonism teaches that the Bible has been corrupted.

[Billyray]

It doesn't have to have been evil men who changed things. It could have been careless men. And I already gave you one example:

Matthew 27:9-10 reads:

Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me." (ESV)

There is no such verse in Jeremiah. Matthew is instead (very loosely) quoting Zechariah 11:13:
Then the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter" - the lordly price at which I was priced by them. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD, to the potter. (ESV)"

IMO, the most likely explanation for this is that Matthew or a careless scribe made a mistake and named the wrong prophet in the m****cript.

Either way, these verses are in the Bible, and one of them is incorrect.
As I said before you said that you believe that what was written was the original text NOT something that was corrupted. I also believe that this is the original text. The problem is that you have been taught and believe that the original text has been corrupted after the death of the apostles i.e. you don't believe that Bible as it is written.

[James Banta]

As I said before you said that you believe that what was written was the original text NOT something that was corrupted. I also believe that this is the original text. The problem is that you have been taught and believe that the original text has been corrupted after the death of the apostles i.e. you don't believe that Bible as it is written.

Because they deny the promises of GOD to keep His message pure for us.. They deny the Gift and Power of God.. In so doing they deny God directly. They hold the same place as those that, in the day Jesus walked among us held, that place is they are the children of the devil (John 8:44).. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

As I said before you said that you believe that what was written was the original text NOT something that was corrupted. I also believe that this is the original text.
So we both agree with part of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy--we both believe that the original texts, written by inspired men of God, were doctrinally correct. Where we differ is that I don't feel required to believe that the Bible has REMAINED inerrant through the centuries. Why should I? Look at other things God has created, declared good, and then left in uninspired men's hands:

1. The earth. Started out good, but God allowed men to mess it up.

2. Adam and Eve: Started out sinless, immortal, and devoid of a sin nature (according to Evangelicals), but God didn't prevent them from messing up.

3. Christianity: Started out founded and led by Jesus Himself, with 12 apostles chosen personally by Him. Fast forward 300 years, and it's all messed up.


The problem is that you have been taught and believe that the original text has been corrupted after the death of the apostles i.e. you don't believe that Bible as it is written.
It's been PROVEN that all known extant copies of the NT deviate from the original text in one place or another, thanks to errors, deletions, or additions.

Case in point: The Johannine Comma. Most scholars believe it wasn't in the original m****cript. Right there, your theory that God magically kept the Bible totally free from alterations throughout all the centuries, gets shot down.

[nrajeffreturns]

Because they deny the promises of GOD to keep His message pure for us.
If all Bible messages have been kept 100% free from alterations, then how do you explain the Johannine Comma?


They deny the Gift and Power of God.
YOU deny the power of God to bring back doctrines and leadership structure that got abandoned by post-apostolic Christendom.
YOU deny God's power to set up a church in the latter days that has apostles as leaders.

[Billyray]

If all Bible messages have been kept 100% free from alterations, then how do you explain the Johannine Comma?

What has been altered exactly since we know that this was a late addition and not part of the original?

[Billyray]

So we both agree with part of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy--we both believe that the original texts, written by inspired men of God, were doctrinally correct.
No YOU believe that it is possible that the original text was corrupt when you said that Matthew may have gotten it wrong.

[Billyray]

It's been PROVEN that all known extant copies of the NT deviate from the original text in one place or another, thanks to errors, deletions, or additions.

Case in point: The Johannine Comma. Most scholars believe it wasn't in the original m****cript. Right there, your theory that God magically kept the Bible totally free from alterations throughout all the centuries, gets shot down.

We know that this was a late addition and not part of the original which is noted in modern translations in the footnotes. So what exactly was altered in this case?

[nrajeffreturns]

What has been altered exactly since we know that this was a late addition and not part of the original?

Just as you said: The Bible itself was altered when someone inserted a late addition into it--an addition that shouldn't have been inserted. Which resulted in an altered Bible.

Doesn't that shoot a hole in Jim's belief that God would never allow such tampering to occur, because of that "promise" that He would always keep the Bible free from tampering?

[nrajeffreturns]

No YOU believe that it is possible that the original text was corrupt when you said that Matthew may have gotten it wrong.

Just because I believe it's POSSIBLE that it could have possibly have maybe been Matthew who made the error, that doesn't mean that I believe it was Matthew. I think I even said so, earlier--that my belief is that it wasn't Matthew, it was probably a scribe or copyist. Believing in the possibility that something could occur doesn't mean you believe it will occur.

[Billyray]

Just because I believe it's POSSIBLE that it could have possibly have maybe been Matthew who made the error, that doesn't mean that I believe it was Matthew. I think I even said so, earlier--that my belief is that it wasn't Matthew, it was probably a scribe or copyist.
So you believe that the original text had an error. Is that your position?

[Billyray]

Just as you said: The Bible itself was altered when someone inserted a late addition into it--an addition that shouldn't have been inserted. Which resulted in an altered Bible.

And how did that change the Bible since we know when the addition took place and what was said in earlier m****cripts?

[James Banta]

[nrajeffreturns;148095]If all Bible messages have been kept 100% free from alterations, then how do you explain the Johannine Comma?

Is 1 John 5:7 a teaching that is not seen as doctrine in other places in the Bible? Is it not taught that the Father is God, or that Jesus is God, or that the Holy Spirit is God, and yet that God is one Lord?? Yes it is so to have it taught that John agreed with that doctrine is not a surprise. Was this verse in the original text? The doctrine is! As I have said there can be many different wording that conveys the same message.. The Bible (NT) was penned in Ancient Greek. When that is translated into English different words are used.. NUMA (The Greek word for breath) is not English so we subs***ute spirit in it's place. 1 John 5:7 is not planting a change in the meaning of the scripture. It is a filling of the doctrine of God. There is no alteration to the word in that p***age.

The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus (John 3:15-16, Eph 2:8-9). If someone comes after that and teaches that we are saved by grace but only after all we can do, that is a change and must seen as such. To change God's intent is to belittle the Biblical message. Mormonism the only organization that has done so. There were others that would sell the right to commit sin. Selling sin is not found in the Bible and is just as evil as putting works on an equal plane with faith as the key to open the grace of God to those Jesus died to save..


YOU deny the power of God to bring back doctrines and leadership structure that got abandoned by post-apostolic Christendom.
YOU deny God's power to set up a church in the latter days that has apostles as leaders.

A leadership structure that was abandoned in post-apostolic Christendom? Are you specking of Apostles? The Christian Church has not abandoned the authority of the Apostles? We just cling to the truth that Jesus chose 12. These 12 are the Apostles of the Lamb. There can be no others.. In the wider meaning of the word apostles there are many.. These are those that dedicate their full lives to missionary work. They take the word of God, the message of His grace through the blood of Jesus to the unsaved word.. By the Church the word apostle that is derived from the Greek apostolos, meaning "one who is sent." A modern-day apostle would typically function as a church planter—one who is sent out by the body of Christ to spread the gospel and establish new communities of believers. Can anyone be an Apostle like the 12 are Apostles? According to the Bible the answer is NO..


Acts 1:20-22
For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bisho***** let another take.
Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

So to be one of the 12 the Holy Spirit teaches us that a man must be one that accompanied Jesus all the time Jesus walked among us. from His baptism to the Day He ascended.. Not a man alive today can meet that requirement. Again Jeff, while I don't deny that a man can be sent forth to lift the name of Jesus to the unsaved and therefore be an apostle, I do deny that a any man can claim to be one of the 12 Apostles of the Lamb.. Jesus said "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." (Matthew 22:23).. If Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are seen as alive to God then why not the 12? If they are alive then not one of then needs to be replaced..

It is you that is denying God's power. Jesus promised that He would build His Church and even the gates of hell wouldn't be able prevail against it. But mormonism teaches through one of it's Apostles that that is just what happened. That the Gates of hell did prevail against the church and destroyed it..


Jesus established his kingdom on the earth the kingdoms of this world made war against the kingdom of God, established eighteen centuries ago, and they prevailed against it, and the kingdom ceased to exist" (Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, page 125)

IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

So you believe that the original text had an error. Is that your position?


Was it something in

"I believe the error was made by a copyist"

that led you think that I believe that the original text had an error?

Or was it my claim that of fallible humans and God, only God doesn't make mistakes?

[Billyray]

Was it something in

"I believe the error was made by a copyist"

that led you think that I believe that the original text had an error?

Or was it my claim that of fallible humans and God, only God doesn't make mistakes?
Then why on earth did you mention Matthew as possibly being the one responsible?

[Billyray]

"I believe the error was made by a copyist"

So now you believe that what Matthew wrote down was correct and that this so called error crept into the text at a later point in time. Can you provide any evidence at all that this is the case?

[nrajeffreturns]

Then why on earth did you mention Matthew as possibly being the one responsible?

Uh, because I have learned that if you say "That is totally impossible" too much, you will eventually have to admit you were wrong. Ask the people who declared that it was impossible for coelacanths to still be living in the 20th century.

[nrajeffreturns]

So now you believe that what Matthew wrote down was correct
When did I NOT believe that?



and that this so called error crept into the text at a later point in time. Can you provide any evidence at all that this is the case?
So you're asking for evidence that it wasn't Matthew who was responsible for the error?

Sorry, I don't know of any evidence that gets Matthew off the hook. I am just basically relying on faith and logic to support MY belief that Matthew got it right and therefore it was some later dude who made the mistake.

Don't you want to do the same? Or do you have a vested interest in pinning the blame on Matthew? :)

[Billyray]

When did I NOT believe that?

When you said that it was possible that Matthew made a mistake.

[Billyray]

So you're asking for evidence that it wasn't Matthew who was responsible for the error?

Sounds like you are distancing yourself from your prior comment that it was Matthew that made a mistake.



Sorry, I don't know of any evidence that gets Matthew off the hook.

Oh I spoke too soon. Now you think Matthew made a mistake and the original his original writings were incorrect? Which is it?

[nrajeffreturns]

When you said that it was possible that Matthew made a mistake.

Somehow--and I don't know for sure how--you need to understand that

"I believe in the possibility that something happened" is NOT THE SAME AS

"I believe it actually happened."

I will try to think up a way to get you to understand this fact.

[nrajeffreturns]

Okay, I may have come up with a way to help you get this:


If you buy a lottery ticket, I would say there is a possibility that you will win the million dollar prize.

But do I believe you WILL win the prize?

NO

Did that help?

[Billyray]

Somehow--and I don't know for sure how--you need to understand that

"I believe in the possibility that something happened" is NOT THE SAME AS

"I believe it actually happened."

I will try to think up a way to get you to understand this fact.
You are the one who said that there was a mistake in the text that we have now but you don't seem to have a clue when this took place nor have any explanation for the fact that not a single m****cript supports your belief.

[Billyray]

Okay, I may have come up with a way to help you get this:


If you buy a lottery ticket, I would say there is a possibility that you will win the million dollar prize.

But do I believe you WILL win the prize?

NO

Did that help?
It doesn't help me a bit to try and find out what you really believe because as soon as you make a stand either way you will have a hard time defending your false position. That is why you are waffling.

[James Banta]

Uh, because I have learned that if you say "That is totally impossible" too much, you will eventually have to admit you were wrong. Ask the people who declared that it was impossible for coelacanths to still be living in the 20th century.

Unless Jesus lied to us it is TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE that the Bible is erred.. PERIOD.. I am not wrong.. I have shown you already how is is that Isaiah in cited as the source for the p***age you cited. You wish to look for errors in the text I look only that Jesus is God and therefore has the power to keep His word pure.. IHS jim

[RealFakeHair]

Was it something in

"I believe the error was made by a copyist"

that led you think that I believe that the original text had an error?

Or was it my claim that of fallible humans and God, only God doesn't make mistakes?

What did you say? "God doesn't make mistakes" Man your mormon god made many a mistake when giving your one and only true prophet of all the worlds past and to come when he dictated the originall book of mormon to Joseph Smith jr.

[nrajeffreturns]

What did you say? "God doesn't make mistakes" Man your mormon god made many a mistake when giving your one and only true prophet of all the worlds past and to come when he dictated the originall book of mormon to Joseph Smith jr.
So using your logic, Jesus made a mistake when He called Judas Iscariot to be one of His proclaimers of the gospel and of Jesus' divinity.

You made the same mistake that Jim and Billy seem to have made: When the MEN whom God called to do stuff for Him make mistakes, you reach the false-dichotomy FALLACIOUS conclusion that either God makes mistakes, or the men were not called by Him.

You need to re-read the scriptural accounts of men who were called by God but who made mistakes, and maybe someday a light will come on and you will realize that there is a third possibility: That God doesn't make mistakes even when He calls fallible men to do stuff for Him.

[RealFakeHair]

So using your logic, Jesus made a mistake when He called Judas Iscariot to be one of His proclaimers of the gospel and of Jesus' divinity.

You made the same mistake that Jim and Billy seem to have made: When the MEN whom God called to do stuff for Him make mistakes, you reach the false-dichotomy FALLACIOUS conclusion that either God makes mistakes, or the men were not called by Him.

You need to re-read the scriptural accounts of men who were called by God but who made mistakes, and maybe someday a light will come on and you will realize that there is a third possibility: That God doesn't make mistakes even when He calls fallible men to do stuff for Him.


So, are you saying your mormon god made all them mistakes on purpose? Maybe he was stuck on "it cam to p***" to offten to realize he was making so many boo,boos.
Once again your mormon godthink will not allow you to realize it is impossible for the Book of Mormon to be so full of mistakes, mis-spelling, and grammar goofs.
Go back and read the story of how it was translated from the mormon god to the magic hat to Joseph Smith jr, and finally from Joseph Smith jr. To his scribs. Either the story was made up, or your mormon god went to the same elementary school I attend.

[Billyray]

So using your logic, Jesus made a mistake when He called Judas Iscariot to be one of His proclaimers of the gospel and of Jesus' divinity.

What mistake are you talking about?

[nrajeffreturns]

So, are you saying your mormon god made all them mistakes on purpose?
No, of course not. What a ridiculous fallacious, straw-man conclusion--so fallacious it's laughable.


Once again your mormon godthink will not allow you to realize it is impossible for the Book of Mormon to be so full of mistakes, mis-spelling, and grammar goofs.
You're saying it's impossible for the Book of Mormon to have a lot of mistakes in it? I think I almost agree with you! Congratulations. But you were wrong in claiming that my "mormon godthink" wouldn't allow me to realize this. I am reluctant to say it's impossible, since a lot of things are possible no matter how unlikely, but I will state that I believe it unlikely that the BOM has a large number of real mistakes that matter.

[nrajeffreturns]

What mistake are you talking about?

The "mistake" (according to antiLDSthink) of calling an apostle who would mess up.

[RealFakeHair]

No, of course not. What a ridiculous fallacious, straw-man conclusion--so fallacious it's laughable.


You're saying it's impossible for the Book of Mormon to have a lot of mistakes in it? I think I almost agree with you! Congratulations. But you were wrong in claiming that my "mormon godthink" wouldn't allow me to realize this. I am reluctant to say it's impossible, since a lot of things are possible no matter how unlikely, but I will state that I believe it unlikely that the BOM has a large number of real mistakes that matter.

It's possible that the dark side of the Moon is made of cheese too, but.....
Once again your mormonthink make impossible for you to see the forest for the Hill Cumorah. According to your head prophet in charge and his co-horts; their story surrounding the WWLDS event there could not have been one mistake, no not one unless you are willingly admitting to the mormon god false and mistakes.

[Billyray]

The "mistake" (according to antiLDSthink) of calling an apostle who would mess up.
But why did you say that Jesus made a mistake?

[nrajeffreturns]

But why did you say that Jesus made a mistake?

Why did you say that God doesn't exist?

[Billyray]

Why did you say that God doesn't exist?

You didn't answer my question. Why did you say that Jesus made a mistake?

[Billyray]

Why did you say that God doesn't exist?
I never said that God doesn't exist.

[nrajeffreturns]

I never said that God doesn't exist.

And I never said that Jesus made a mistake. And now you know how it feels to be accused of saying something that you never said.

And to help you with your reading skills, here is what I DID say:

I told FakeHair that using HIS logic, Jesus made a mistake when He called Judas Iscariot to be one of His proclaimers of the gospel.

Since I don't use FakeHair's logic on this matter, I never said Jesus made a mistake.

Do you now understand the erroneous conclusion you jumped to?

[Billyray]

And I never said that Jesus made a mistake. And now you know how it feels to be accused of saying something that you never said.

And to help you with your reading skills, here is what I DID say:

I told FakeHair that using HIS logic, Jesus made a mistake when He called Judas Iscariot to be one of His proclaimers of the gospel.

Since I don't use FakeHair's logic on this matter, I never said Jesus made a mistake.

Do you now understand the erroneous conclusion you jumped to?
Here was your post

So using your logic, Jesus made a mistake when He called Judas Iscariot to be one of His proclaimers of the gospel and of Jesus' divinity.

You made the same mistake that Jim and Billy seem to have made: When the MEN whom God called to do stuff for Him make mistakes, you reach the false-dichotomy FALLACIOUS conclusion that either God makes mistakes, or the men were not called by Him.

You need to re-read the scriptural accounts of men who were called by God but who made mistakes, and maybe someday a light will come on and you will realize that there is a third possibility: That God doesn't make mistakes even when He calls fallible men to do stuff for Him.

Again I have no clue how you came up with the conclusion that any Christian on this board believes that Jesus made a mistake when he called Judas Iscariot. Can you explain what on earth you are talking about?

[nrajeffreturns]

Here was your post

Again I have no clue how you came up with the conclusion that any Christian on this board believes that Jesus made a mistake when he called Judas Iscariot. Can you explain what on earth you are talking about?

Of course I can explain it. The question is whether YOU will "get it" and publicly admit the validity of my point.

[RealFakeHair]

Of course I can explain it. The question is whether YOU will "get it" and publicly admit the validity of my point.

What? Why you disappoint me. I though you knew everything like me!

[Billyray]

Of course I can explain it. .
That is what I was expecting the first time--for you to explain it because it makes no sense whatsoever to me.

Again I have no clue how you came up with the conclusion that any Christian on this board believes that Jesus made a mistake when he called Judas Iscariot. Can you explain what on earth you are talking about?

[James Banta]

Yep, then we should be like "Christians" and do nothing more. You got it. :rolleyes:

What do you think Christ wants from us? He knows no one is perfect. He knows we will all fall short. What do you think He is going to say "He everyone, live your life at 88.51 percent effort and you'll be fine." No. He wants us our whole heart, might, and mind in the effort. Does He know we will fall short? Yeup. But go ahead and live your life with zero effort. See what Christ has to say about that effort at judgement day.

He wants us to seek Him and love Him with all our heart mind and strength (Deut 13:3).. Or is that another time you read into the scripture what you want it to say instead of believing what it really teaches?

So if each individual is asked do to all they can do and that is different for each person then maybe one person has difficulty in stealing. If they do as is natural for them they may have to do a lot more or a lot less than God demands as His standard.. Just how can you look at different men as having different levels of behavior and still be exalted? God's standard is easy to understand. We must be perfect as He is perfect.. There is no excuse for "doing the best you can" ans believing that God will just wink at your failings.. Meet the standard or resign yourself to God's punishment.. IHS jim

[RealFakeHair]

And I never said that Jesus made a mistake. And now you know how it feels to be accused of saying something that you never said.

And to help you with your reading skills, here is what I DID say:

I told FakeHair that using HIS logic, Jesus made a mistake when He called Judas Iscariot to be one of His proclaimers of the gospel.

Since I don't use FakeHair's logic on this matter, I never said Jesus made a mistake.

Do you now understand the erroneous conclusion you jumped to?

I am glad you are using my logic, which if used correctly will give you blessing from on high, and if not try harder next time.

[nrajeffreturns]

That is what I was expecting the first time--for you to explain it because it makes no sense whatsoever to me.
Then you should have asked me to explain it, I guess.



Again I have no clue how you came up with the conclusion that any Christian on this board believes that Jesus made a mistake when he called Judas Iscariot.
It was partially explained in an earlier post.


Can you explain what on earth you are talking about?
Again: Yes. I CAN explain. I have answered this question before. The answer was "yes" back then, and it still is "yes."
But if you are now REQUESTING a more thorough explanation, even though you haven't done so before, I will post one when I have a few more minutes.

[Billyray]

Again: Yes. I CAN explain. I have answered this question before. The answer was "yes" back then, and it still is "yes."
But if you are now REQUESTING a more thorough explanation, even though you haven't done so before, I will post one when I have a few more minutes.
I have asked you to explain it but you seem to be unable to do so.

[nrajeffreturns]

I have asked you to explain it but you seem to be unable to do so.

No, what you have asked me is "CAN you explain it?"

and I have answered your question.

[James Banta]

No, what you have asked me is "CAN you explain it?"

and I have answered your question.

Billy is right you seem unable to explain.. If you have before it would be a simple matter of cut and pate if you didn't want to go though it again.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Again I have no clue how you came up with the conclusion that any Christian on this board believes that Jesus made a mistake when he called Judas Iscariot. Can you explain what on earth you are talking about?
I already did, in post 117.

If God made a mistake in calling Joseph Smith as a prophet, then why would you believe that Jesus made NO mistake in calling Judas as an apostle?

Here's a little more on your reasoning's flaw:

Wouldn't you say that both men were wicked men? Yes or no?
Do you really believe that God would call men so wicked to be His handpicked ***istants? Yes or no?

[Pa Pa]

What does it mean to "Do all you can do".. In medicine it means to expend every possible means to prevent the death of a patient. In our daily work it means to do everything possible to be successful. So what does it mean in mormon salvation? It is commanded in the LDS scripture:
IHS jim
It means do all you can to be successful, do all you can to save a life...but to save our selfs from death and hell, it would never be enough. But Mormons don't do it simply to avoid death and hell, but to please God and receive all that he has, to become "joint heirs with Christ and all that the Father has" as we have been promised. Even the greatest haters of Mormonism can believe the words of the Bible and not just the things they want to in quotes out of context.

[Billyray]

If God made a mistake in calling Joseph Smith as a prophet. . .

God didn't call Joseph Smith rather he was a false prophet.


". . . then why would you believe that Jesus made NO mistake in calling Judas as an apostle?

Not only do I believe that he did not make a mistake when he chose Judas but I believe he made the perfect choice when he chose Judas for his role in history.



Wouldn't you say that both men were wicked men? Yes or no?

Yes. Absolutely.


Do you really believe that God would call men so wicked to be His handpicked ***istants? Yes or no?
First Joseph was not called to be a prophet. Second God calls both the good and the bad to fulfill his purposes.

[Pa Pa]

God didn't call Joseph Smith rather he was a false prophet.

Not only do I believe that he did not make a mistake when he chose Judas but I believe he made the perfect choice when he chose Judas for his role in history.


To the first comment I left; were you there?

To the second; who history and what scripture says he chose Judas for this purpose? He disappeared from sight (according to the Bible because it was time to lay down his life) he could have chosen any means; did it require the need to **** ones soul, for histories sake?

[Pa Pa]

First Joseph was not called to be a prophet. Second God calls both the good and the bad to fulfill his purposes.This deserves a second post...why does God need "bad" purposes. Seems we are required to better than God himself.

[Billyray]

This deserves a second post...why does God need "bad" purposes. Seems we are required to better than God himself.
Read my comment again. " Second God calls both the good and the bad to fulfill his purposes." Bad in my sentence is referring to bad people NOT God's bad purposes like you said in your sentence. Read the Bible you will find plenty of examples of what I said such as God using a bad nation to punish Israel etc.

[Billyray]

To the second; who history and what scripture says he chose Judas for this purpose?
Read John and tell me what Jesus says about Judas early in the book and yet Jesus choose Judas.

[James Banta]

It means do all you can to be successful, do all you can to save a life...but to save our selfs from death and hell, it would never be enough. But Mormons don't do it simply to avoid death and hell, but to please God and receive all that he has, to become "joint heirs with Christ and all that the Father has" as we have been promised. Even the greatest haters of Mormonism can believe the words of the Bible and not just the things they want to in quotes out of context.

And yet in the BofM the concept is taught that we are saved by grace AFTER ALL WE CAN DO.. That isn't what you were saying in this post.. I see grace being kept from anyone that does less than they could have done.. Since no one has EVER done all they can do, no one can be saved.. The doctrine that we are saved by God's grace though faith in Jesus and NOT OF WORKS is a lot more realistic.. IHS jim