PDA

View Full Version : Many "Unpardonable" Sins. The New Theology.



Sir
11-28-2013, 12:09 PM
James Banta continues to claim he only teaches from the Bible; that the gospel he professes is the correct and true interpretation.

But while Jesus teaches us:


Matthew 12:31-32
King James Version (KJV)

31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

James is teaching:


Since you don't understand that the denial of the Holy Ghost is the rejection of His prompting to come to the Jesus and receive life..

That's not was Jesus said. That's poor eisegesis.


That was the sin of Judas and nearly the sin of Peter.. Both denied the Lord but Peter turned from it, Judas died in his denial..

Peter didn't commit or nearly commit the unpardonable sin. In fact, Peter denied Christ 3 times, and even Jesus said that such was forgivable.

Then James teaches us that there is yet ANOTHER unpardonable sin:


Taking your sin to the grave is the unpardonable sin.

That isn't what Jesus taught.

James also teaches us that:


The unforgivable sin is the rejection of His offer of life through His sacrifice..

No. That isn't what Jesus taught either. That is not very good Bible exegesis, James.

Even another WM poster RealfakeHair taught that:


However on the other hand any TBM that hasn't accept Jesus of the Holy Bible as their Lord and Savior, every day you live in the unpardonable sin; That is blaspheming against the Holy Ghost

This is quite funny! If LDS are committing the unpardonable sin EVERYDAY, then they can NEVER repent since Jesus already taught us that such a sin in unforgivable.

Then James teaches that:


The consequences of sin is the same no matter how much you wish to divide it into levels..

This is obviously not true. All sins have different consequences. We already see that Jesus taught that blasphemy is unforgivable, thus, the consequence of that sin is much greater than others. But even logically, the sin of telling your wife she looks pretty when she doesn't results in he feeling better about herself and more in love with the husband. The sin of murder results in the permanent separation of a person from their earthly family, the murderer permanently in prison and heartache for years. Thus we see that sins have a varying array of consequences.

Obviously if there is only ONE unforgivable sin, there cannot be MORE than ONE. But James wants us to believe that there are at least THREE unforgivable sins.

I trust Jesus, not James. And I am confident that no matter how many times James pounds his chest and tells us he only speaks from the Bible, he is giving his own private, erroneous interpretation of it.

neverending
11-28-2013, 05:00 PM
Sir,
And do you not do the same? Mormonism says that Christ bled for our sins in the Garden and that what he did on the cross was nothing. IS that not your interpretation? You claim that you believe in the Bible as far as it's translated correctly. What of Jesus' words where he said, "Heaven and earth shall p*** away: but my words shall not p*** away." (Luke 21:33) Do you not trust in Jesus' words as he spoke to his disciples? Why is the Bible on the best sellers list and has been for decades? Because it is the truth and is a strength to those who have put their trust in it and believe in its contents. Mormonism has no respect for it and with your own Article of Faith have proven that it doesn't. If a verse doesn't jive with what your false prophet has taught, then it has to have been mistranslated, it just has to be that way. Sometime you should try and think outside the box but then that's not possible for when the prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done, hasn't it?

Sir
11-28-2013, 05:15 PM
[SIZE=3]Sir,
And do you not do the same? Mormonism says that Christ bled for our sins in the Garden and that what he did on the cross was nothing. IS that not your interpretation?

Actually, that is NOT the LDS interpretation. I'm always amazed at people who claim to be former Mormons and claim LDS believe something they don't.


You claim that you believe in the Bible as far as it's translated correctly. What of Jesus' words where he said, "Heaven and earth shall p*** away: but my words shall not p*** away." (Luke 21:33) Do you not trust in Jesus' words as he spoke to his disciples? Why is the Bible on the best sellers list and has been for decades? Because it is the truth and is a strength to those who have put their trust in it and believe in its contents. Mormonism has no respect for it and with your own Article of Faith have proven that it doesn't. If a verse doesn't jive with what your false prophet has taught, then it has to have been mistranslated, it just has to be that way. Sometime you should try and think outside the box but then that's not possible for when the prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done, hasn't it?


(I almost forgot that you and James like to throw out multiple random arguments)

1) The bible being on a best-sellers list means something about truth? That should make Bill O'reilly happy! :)

2) The Article of Faith you referenced is actually in perfect harmony with the beliefs of all Christianity. In fact, over at CARM there was a recent discussion and even the most rabid anti-Mormons conceded there is no such thing as a perfect translation. They were arguing over which translations are better than others. By better they meant more accurate.

Funny huh?

Now, instead of diverting threads into your chestnut rants, how about addressing it? What is the unforgivable sin? Why does your husband teach there are multiple unforgivable sins? Why should we believe him?

James Banta
11-28-2013, 05:39 PM
James Banta continues to claim he only teaches from the Bible; that the gospel he professes is the correct and true interpretation.

But while Jesus teaches us:



James is teaching:



That's not was Jesus said. That's poor eisegesis.



Peter didn't commit or nearly commit the unpardonable sin. In fact, Peter denied Christ 3 times, and even Jesus said that such was forgivable.

Then James teaches us that there is yet ANOTHER unpardonable sin:



That isn't what Jesus taught.

James also teaches us that:



No. That isn't what Jesus taught either. That is not very good Bible exegesis, James.

Even another WM poster RealfakeHair taught that:



This is quite funny! If LDS are committing the unpardonable sin EVERYDAY, then they can NEVER repent since Jesus already taught us that such a sin in unforgivable.

Then James teaches that:



This is obviously not true. All sins have different consequences. We already see that Jesus taught that blasphemy is unforgivable, thus, the consequence of that sin is much greater than others. But even logically, the sin of telling your wife she looks pretty when she doesn't results in he feeling better about herself and more in love with the husband. The sin of murder results in the permanent separation of a person from their earthly family, the murderer permanently in prison and heartache for years. Thus we see that sins have a varying array of consequences.

Obviously if there is only ONE unforgivable sin, there cannot be MORE than ONE. But James wants us to believe that there are at least THREE unforgivable sins.

I trust Jesus, not James. And I am confident that no matter how many times James pounds his chest and tells us he only speaks from the Bible, he is giving his own private, erroneous interpretation of it.

Have you ever heard anyone taking the name of the Holy Spirit in vain.. So just how does a man become a son of perdition? Did Judas become a son of perdition before his denial of Jesus was even conducted?(John 17:12). It is not recorded that he spoke out against the Holy Spirit in any way. So why was he so branded by Jesus? The only way his sin was different than the sin Peter committed was that he died in his sin while Peter did not. So tell me if dying in your sin is not a denial of the Holy Spirit, as I have said, just what is it? Did Judas receive some special revelation that Peter didn't receive that made him a candidate for the commission of that sin? But wait John 12:6 tells us that Judas stole money he held that was for the care of the poor. Not exactly the kind that would receive revelation from God now is he.. So tell me again how he became a son pf perdition..

You could tell me that he saw all the miracles Jesus preformed. But over 5,000 men plus woman and children also saw this, but before Pilot the Jews clamored for his crucifixion. Jerusalem wasn't a huge city. Many that saw His miracles also were there demanding his death, were they also sons of perdition? If not why not. So again why was Judas a son of perdition and not others that denied Jesus after seeing His miracles?

I am teaching that Judas died in his sin.. Even though the Holy Spirit was working in His life as he worked in the life of Peter.. Judas denied that work of God within him. Peter responded to that work.. That is the ONLY difference between them. As long as the LDS refuse to respond to the prompting of the Holy Spirit and refuse to confess their sin to God to have then cleansed in His blood at the time when repentance is no longer possible, yes the unpardonable sin will have been committed.

You seem to see what I have said is a changeable doctrine.. It is in fact all the same thing. It is explained in different terms but is is not a different teaching. No difference from what is taught by other Christians who have committed on the subject.. If you won't believe me then by all means believe Jesus.. Know that before Judas ever committed his denial Jesus said that he was a devil.. Then explain how Judas and Peter differed in their own denials of Jesus.. I understand, you want so much to believe the teachings of your church on the subject but they again are wrong and totally unbiblical in their doctrine of what a son of perdition is.. IHS jim

James Banta
11-28-2013, 06:09 PM
Actually, that is NOT the LDS interpretation. I'm always amazed at people who claim to be former Mormons and claim LDS believe something they don't.



(I almost forgot that you and James like to throw out multiple random arguments)

1) The bible being on a best-sellers list means something about truth? That should make Bill O'reilly happy! :)

2) The Article of Faith you referenced is actually in perfect harmony with the beliefs of all Christianity. In fact, over at CARM there was a recent discussion and even the most rabid anti-Mormons conceded there is no such thing as a perfect translation. They were arguing over which translations are better than others. By better they meant more accurate.

Funny huh?

Now, instead of diverting threads into your chestnut rants, how about addressing it? What is the unforgivable sin? Why does your husband teach there are multiple unforgivable sins? Why should we believe him?

We can slide into the discussion of translations here if you like.. I have explained this before.. There are many different ways of communicating the same exact message as was first stated.. Not one translations has ever used the exact words used by the Holy Spirit as He brought to the Apostles remembrance those things God wanted us to know.. That message was given in Greek for the most part, and we speak English, for the most part.. Still the same message that they penned is the same message we have today in our weak translations.. Not so much as the meaning of the smallest part of God's message to us has been lost.. Either that or Jesus is a liar.. As you told me you would believe God and not me.. Then believe Jesus, when he said that Heaven and Earth would p*** away but His word would never p*** away.. So here is your turning point will you believe Smith when he said that evil and incompetent scribes polluted the scripture, or you can believe Jesus that He would never allow such a thing to be done.. That's your pick, both can't be the truth.. It's either God or a man.. You all to often choose the words of a man over the promises of God..

My wife wants to know when you last read your Bible.. Maybe you should do so again.. Start in the Gospel of John, read it twice the go back and read the full New Testament. Read it twice before you read the Old Testament. After you do that go back and start over.. Open your heart and let God teach His word to you. IHS jim

Sir
11-28-2013, 10:17 PM
We can slide into the discussion of translations here if you like.. I have explained this before.. There are many different ways of communicating the same exact message as was first stated.. Not one translations has ever used the exact words used by the Holy Spirit as He brought to the Apostles remembrance those things God wanted us to know.. That message was given in Greek for the most part, and we speak English, for the most part.. Still the same message that they penned is the same message we have today in our weak translations.. Not so much as the meaning of the smallest part of God's message to us has been lost.. Either that or Jesus is a liar.. As you told me you would believe God and not me.. Then believe Jesus, when he said that Heaven and Earth would p*** away but His word would never p*** away.. So here is your turning point will you believe Smith when he said that evil and incompetent scribes polluted the scripture, or you can believe Jesus that He would never allow such a thing to be done.. That's your pick, both can't be the truth.. It's either God or a man.. You all to often choose the words of a man over the promises of God..

My wife wants to know when you last read your Bible.. Maybe you should do so again.. Start in the Gospel of John, read it twice the go back and read the full New Testament. Read it twice before you read the Old Testament. After you do that go back and start over.. Open your heart and let God teach His word to you. IHS jim

So if I read the NT a couple times I will come up with different sins that are all considered the unpardonable sin?

nrajeffreturns
11-29-2013, 07:46 AM
So if I read the NT a couple times I will come up with different sins that are all considered the unpardonable sin?
Yes, if you interpret the Bible the twisted way that James is doing. In fact, if you follow his logic to its conclusion, that conclusion seems to be this:

ALL sins are unpardonable sins....unless you manage to get them pardoned before you die.

Case in point: "The only way (Iscariot's) sin was different than the sin Peter committed was that he died in his sin while Peter did not. So tell me if dying in your sin is not a denial of the Holy Spirit, as I have said, just what is it?"

Using Jim's logic, what makes ANY sin unpardonable is if you die before that sin has been remitted. Because the belief is that once you're dead, it's too late for God to pardon any of your sins, and by dying without being forgiven of all your sins, you are guilty of denying the Holy Spirit. Which means that essentially, Jesus could have simplified His teachings by merely saying "All sins are unpardonable" instead of "All sins are forgiven except one." Quite a difference there between what Jesus said and what James is saying....

This raises a number of serious issues relating to the limitations on Jesus' Atonement and God's omnipotence and fairness. Jim probably hasn't considered those ramifications.

Anyway, it's possible that Jim is the only person on Earth--maybe in the entire universe--who has this belief. I have NEVER heard or read about any other person holding this belief, at least not expressed the way Jim has done. So it is interesting to consider Jim's conclusions regarding what the Bible teaches about sin, what is pardonable and what is not, etc. We are lucky to be in a forum where such a belief has been revealed and brought to our attention.

James Banta
11-29-2013, 08:37 AM
So if I read the NT a couple times I will come up with different sins that are all considered the unpardonable sin?

If you would open yourself to truth you would see what the unpardonable sin really is.. You don't have to have some special revelation and then deny it.. As I said before, Judas didn't have have any revelation that the 5,000 Jesus fed didn't have. Yet he was a son of perdition because he died in his sin.. As I have shown here Peter denial wasn't any less sinful than the actions of Judas, but Peter repented kneeling before his Lord repenting in tears for his sin.. There is one sin that is the unpardonable sin, that sin is to deny the promptings of the Holy Spirit throughout your life then dying in sin.. It doesn't matter what your sin was, What makes it unpardonable is the denial of the Holy Spirit in His attempts to bring you to the cross to have sin dealt with..

But you are not hearing me.. All you hear is that I am not teaching the same lies you have heard all your life from mormonism.. You won't hear that from me because I am more interested in truth than I am making you feel good.. IHS jim

James Banta
11-29-2013, 09:14 AM
[nrajeffreturns;149545]Yes, if you interpret the Bible the twisted way that James is doing. In fact, if you follow his logic to its conclusion, that conclusion seems to be this:

ALL sins are unpardonable sins....unless you manage to get them pardoned before you die.

Almost.. you have come a long way in trying to understand but that isn't quite there.. The unpardonable sin is the denial of the Holy Spirit in His prompting to direct you to the cross to have your sin dealt with.. It is a sin against the Holy Spirit not just any unconfessed sin.. It always accompanies unconfessed sin but in denying the promptings of the Holy Spirit the sinner commits a sin against the Holy Spirit.


Case in point: "The only way (Iscariot's) sin was different than the sin Peter committed was that he died in his sin while Peter did not. So tell me if dying in your sin is not a denial of the Holy Spirit, as I have said, just what is it?"

See above I have explained it so that even a child can understand..


Using Jim's logic, what makes ANY sin unpardonable is if you die before that sin has been remitted. Because the belief is that once you're dead, it's too late for God to pardon any of your sins, and by dying without being forgiven of all your sins, you are guilty of denying the Holy Spirit. Which means that essentially, Jesus could have simplified His teachings by merely saying "All sins are unpardonable" instead of "All sins are forgiven except one." Quite a difference there between what Jesus said and what James is saying....

See above.. The sin against the Holy Spirit is a separate sin.. Yes it is always accompanied by unconfessed sin but bot responding to the promptings of the Holy Spirit as He pulls at your heart until death is the commission if the unpardonable sin.


This raises a number of serious issues relating to the limitations on Jesus' Atonement and God's omnipotence and fairness. Jim probably hasn't considered those ramifications.

God has limited Himself in allowing men to use their will in the decision of coming to Him and becoming His child, or remaining a natural being and being subject to sin and death.. The Holy Spirit leads all men to come to God and be healed. Those that deny those prompting commit the unpardonable sin. Just how does that put limitations on the atonement, God's power, or fairness? These is no force to come to the cross and be healed. It is a persons choice to ignore God in disobedience, or come to Him in obedience.. Everyone does one or the other.. So tell me how God's attributes are effected in the commission of the unpardonable sin?


Anyway, it's possible that Jim is the only person on Earth--maybe in the entire universe--who has this belief. I have NEVER heard or read about any other person holding this belief, at least not expressed the way Jim has done. So it is interesting to consider Jim's conclusions regarding what the Bible teaches about sin, what is pardonable and what is not, etc. We are lucky to be in a forum where such a belief has been revealed and brought to our attention.

Then you need to listen to other teachers more and Sacrament Meeting speakers less. This is even seen in the Bible as those whose names are not written in the Book of Life are cast into the Lake of Fire? Remember that the Bible teaches that all sin will be forgiven all but the unpardonable sin.

Matthew 12:31
Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

I hear Jesus saying that the ONLY sin that will be charged against a sinner is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. All other sin will have been forgiven.. That isn't me saying that it is Jesus.. This p***age doesn't say that all sin may be forgiven it said it SHALL be forgiven.. But you won't listen to me or even to Jesus.. Time to repent jeff and believe God instead of mere men.. IHS jim

Apologette
11-29-2013, 01:00 PM
This message is hidden because Sir/Apollos is on your ignore list.

Apologette
11-29-2013, 01:01 PM
Almost.. you have come a long way in trying to understand but that isn't quite there.. The unpardonable sin is the denial of the Holy Spirit in His prompting to direct you to the cross to have your sin dealt with.. It is a sin against the Holy Spirit not just any unconfessed sin.. It always accompanies unconfessed sin but in denying the promptings of the Holy Spirit the sinner commits a sin against the Holy Spirit.



See above I have explained it so that even a child can understand..



See above.. The sin against the Holy Spirit is a separate sin.. Yes it is always accompanied by unconfessed sin but bot responding to the promptings of the Holy Spirit as He pulls at your heart until death is the commission if the unpardonable sin.



God has limited Himself in allowing men to use their will in the decision of coming to Him and becoming His child, or remaining a natural being and being subject to sin and death.. The Holy Spirit leads all men to come to God and be healed. Those that deny those prompting commit the unpardonable sin. Just how does that put limitations on the atonement, God's power, or fairness? These is no force to come to the cross and be healed. It is a persons choice to ignore God in disobedience, or come to Him in obedience.. Everyone does one or the other.. So tell me how God's attributes are effected in the commission of the unpardonable sin?



Then you need to listen to other teachers more and Sacrament Meeting speakers less. This is even seen in the Bible as those whose names are not written in the Book of Life are cast into the Lake of Fire? Remember that the Bible teaches that all sin will be forgiven all but the unpardonable sin.

Matthew 12:31
Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

I hear Jesus saying that the ONLY sin that will be charged against a sinner is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. All other sin will have been forgiven.. That isn't me saying that it is Jesus.. This p***age doesn't say that all sin may be forgiven it said it SHALL be forgiven.. But you won't listen to me or even to Jesus.. Time to repent jeff and believe God instead of mere men.. IHS jim

Joseph Smith blasphemed God by saying he'd done a greater work than Jesus. In about a month he was dead! Blaspheming God is a serious, deadly sin!

Sir
11-29-2013, 01:18 PM
This message is hidden because Sir/Apollos is on your ignore list.

Good grief!

Even when nobody was talking to you, you come to this forum and tell me you are ignoring me.

That is definitely a sign of something psychologically wrong with you.

Not to mention you have to type that message out each time, which proves you are not only NOT ignoring me, but you are stalking me to tell me you are ignoring me.

I hope when I am 68 I won't be so needy to and seek attention from online strangers.

Apologette
11-29-2013, 02:15 PM
Yes, if you interpret the Bible the twisted way that James is doing. In fact, if you follow his logic to its conclusion, that conclusion seems to be this:

ALL sins are unpardonable sins....unless you manage to get them pardoned before you die.

Case in point: "The only way (Iscariot's) sin was different than the sin Peter committed was that he died in his sin while Peter did not. So tell me if dying in your sin is not a denial of the Holy Spirit, as I have said, just what is it?"

Using Jim's logic, what makes ANY sin unpardonable is if you die before that sin has been remitted. Because the belief is that once you're dead, it's too late for God to pardon any of your sins, and by dying without being forgiven of all your sins, you are guilty of denying the Holy Spirit. Which means that essentially, Jesus could have simplified His teachings by merely saying "All sins are unpardonable" instead of "All sins are forgiven except one." Quite a difference there between what Jesus said and what James is saying....

This raises a number of serious issues relating to the limitations on Jesus' Atonement and God's omnipotence and fairness. Jim probably hasn't considered those ramifications.

Anyway, it's possible that Jim is the only person on Earth--maybe in the entire universe--who has this belief. I have NEVER heard or read about any other person holding this belief, at least not expressed the way Jim has done. So it is interesting to consider Jim's conclusions regarding what the Bible teaches about sin, what is pardonable and what is not, etc. We are lucky to be in a forum where such a belief has been revealed and brought to our attention.

The unpardonable sin is blaspheming the Holy Spirit - and those who deny the Gospel to the end of their lives have done so!

Sir
11-29-2013, 03:15 PM
The unpardonable sin is blaspheming the Holy Spirit - and those who deny the Gospel to the end of their lives have done so!

Looks like the poor eisegesis is much more rampant than I thought.

Apologette
11-29-2013, 03:53 PM
This message is hidden because Sir/Apollos is on your ignore list.

neverending
11-29-2013, 03:54 PM
Thought you didn't take anything personal on here? Evidently, Apologette doesn't like reading your comments and she has the right to block them being a member of this forum. Those are the rules, I didn't make them up, that was Jill; take it up with her.

Apologette
11-29-2013, 03:57 PM
Thought you didn't take anything personal on here? Evidently, Apologette doesn't like reading your comments and she has the right to block them being a member of this forum. Those are the rules, I didn't make them up, that was Jill; take it up with her.

Thanks neverending!

nrajeffreturns
11-29-2013, 08:45 PM
See above I have explained it so that even a child can understand..
How many children could REALLY understand what you've been "preaching," Jim? Not many, IMO. Heck, there may not be many adults who would understand it.


The sin against the Holy Spirit is a separate sin.. Yes it is always accompanied by unconfessed sin but bot responding to the promptings of the Holy Spirit as He pulls at your heart until death is the commission if the unpardonable sin.
Is that what your church taught you? If I sent your pastor copies of the stuff you have been claiming is Bible-based Christian doctrine, would your pastor agree? Or would your pastor say "I have no idea where he got those ideas" ??


The Holy Spirit leads all men to come to God and be healed. Those that deny those prompting commit the unpardonable sin. Just how does that put limitations on the atonement, God's power, or fairness?
Your "Every sin is the unpardonable sin" theory calls into question your Calvinistic beliefs about God's omnipotence because it implies that God is unable to pardon ANY sin unless the sinner does something first. It also raises questions about what you think of Jesus' atonement: Whose sins did He pay the price for, if all sins are unpardonable?

You are also rejecting some important Bible verses that teach that only the "elect" are capable of committing the unpardonable sin.

Hebrews 6:

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.


Hebrews 10:

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.



I hear Jesus saying that the ONLY sin that will be charged against a sinner is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. All other sin will have been forgiven.. That isn't me saying that it is Jesus..
So using your theory, suppose I have accepted Jesus as Savior, and the only sin I commit is one time telling my wife her new hairdo looked great when I really thought it was only mediocre, and 5 seconds later I die--would I be guilty of the unpardonable sin?


This p***age doesn't say that all sin may be forgiven it said it SHALL be forgiven.. But you won't listen to me
Jim, I am the one who told YOU that it said that. But you won't listen to me or Jesus or the Bible. You will only listen to your own imagination.

Ma'am
12-02-2013, 08:34 AM
The only unpardonable sin is the sin of refusing to believe in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. That is a sin against the Holy Spirit because it is the Holy Spirit that enables us to believe in Jesus Christ in the first place.

Sir
12-02-2013, 08:51 AM
The only unpardonable sin is the sin of refusing to believe in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. That is a sin against the Holy Spirit because it is the Holy Spirit that enables us to believe in Jesus Christ in the first place.

Seems like you and the other posters here have rewritten the Bible to fit your own views.

Poor eisegesis.

P.S. - I like your name. Though....it makes me wonder some things. ;)

neverending
12-02-2013, 09:09 AM
And what is wrong with Ma'am's name Sir? That is a word used to show respect for a woman just as "Sir" is a word of respect used for men. Goodness. As for her comment, she is right on! No one is changing scripture. If you understood what God's word was all about, you would have your eyes opened. If people reject Jesus Christ, that is a sin against the Holy Spirit. When one has fully understood the gospel of Christ and rejects it, that is a grievous sin. Judas did just that. Here a man who walked and talked with the Savior and yet could betray him as he did....that was an unpardonable sin. Judas never asked for forgiveness either. He went out and hung himself rather then face Christ. At least Peter was ashamed of denying Christ and fell to his knees in humility and sought the forgiveness of our Lord. There is a huge difference.

Ma'am
12-02-2013, 09:25 AM
Seems like you and the other posters here have rewritten the Bible to fit your own views.

Poor eisegesis.

P.S. - I like your name. Though....it makes me wonder some things. ;)

I have rewritten nothing. It is the Holy Spirit who enables us to believe in Jesus Christ as our Savior. So, rejecting Jesus Christ is sinning against the Holy Spirit. It is the one unpardonable sin.

Joseph Smith, however, rewrote the bible to suit his own beliefs. Does that bother you?

Apologette
12-02-2013, 09:41 AM
I have rewritten nothing. It is the Holy Spirit who enables us to believe in Jesus Christ as our Savior. So, rejecting Jesus Christ is sinning against the Holy Spirit. It is the one unpardonable sin.

Joseph Smith, however, rewrote the bible to suit his own beliefs. Does that bother you?
And inserted himself into several verses in Genesis. He reaped the consequences at Carthage Jail.

James Banta
12-02-2013, 10:24 AM
I said her actions are childish, not that she is childish.

Please stop whining.

Take your own advice and say you disagree and move on.

Just obey the rules and stop trying to skate them.. You can keep the name calling to yourself.. You believe someone is acting childish then tell them how you disagree with those actions instead of resorting to name calling.. I could name call you about every one of your post.. I won't do so.. Instead you see me challenging what you teach with truth from the Bible.. Either do that or just let things go.. That is what I have told neverending to do and now I am telling you.. Stop name calling and add to a discussion, or if you can't seem to find reasons why you are correct and they are wrong let it go.. BTW saying someone is whining is just another form of name calling when you have nothing else to say to defend your position.. IHS jim

RealFakeHair
12-02-2013, 10:49 AM
And inserted himself into several verses in Genesis. He reaped the consequences at Carthage Jail.

I think I might insert my name somewhere too, any suggestion?

Sir
12-02-2013, 11:02 AM
And what is wrong with Ma'am's name Sir? That is a word used to show respect for a woman just as "Sir" is a word of respect used for men. Goodness.

Where did I say there was anything "wrong"?

Goodness is right. :)

Sir
12-02-2013, 11:03 AM
Just obey the rules and stop trying to skate them.. You can keep the name calling to yourself.. You believe someone is acting childish then tell them how you disagree with those actions instead of resorting to name calling.. I could name call you about every one of your post.. I won't do so.. Instead you see me challenging what you teach with truth from the Bible.. Either do that or just let things go.. That is what I have told neverending to do and now I am telling you.. Stop name calling and add to a discussion, or if you can't seem to find reasons why you are correct and they are wrong let it go.. BTW saying someone is whining is just another form of name calling when you have nothing else to say to defend your position.. IHS jim

Stop whining Jimbo.

James Banta
12-02-2013, 11:34 AM
Stop whining Jimbo.

Stop insulting people.. But since I see you can't, you can fall back on the teachings of that liar Joey Smith.. He will lead your right down that wide road into the Lake of Fire.. To bad for the honor less sir.. IHS jim

Sir
12-02-2013, 12:30 PM
Stop insulting people.. But since I see you can't, you can fall back on the teachings of that liar Joey Smith.. He will lead your right down that wide road into the Lake of Fire.. To bad for the honor less sir.. IHS jim

Zzzzzzzzzzzz

Ma'am
12-02-2013, 01:04 PM
Zzzzzzzzzzzz

Now, THERE'S a real mature response!

Ma'am
12-02-2013, 01:05 PM
I think I might insert my name somewhere too, any suggestion?

How about in the Lamb's book of life, by rejecting Mormonism and believing in the Jesus Christ of the bible? Of course, he is the one who decides who is written in his book of life.

RealFakeHair
12-02-2013, 01:07 PM
Now, THERE'S a real mature response!

Maybe he spilled a can of beer on his computer key board. You know how sticky beer can be when it dries. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

nrajeffreturns
12-02-2013, 01:19 PM
I think I might insert my name somewhere too, any suggestion?

Yep: In the story of Elijah and the kids he cursed to become Yogi Bear's dinner, you could make yourself save the kids as follows:

"And it came to p*** that the kids of the village were unable to mock Elijah's baldness because he miraculously grew some real fake hair, and was no longer bald."

Sir
12-02-2013, 02:03 PM
Now, THERE'S a real mature response!

You have 8 posts here so you may not be familiar with the posters here or the history.

Then again, I suspect you are far more familiar than your 8 posts would indicate. ;)

RealFakeHair
12-02-2013, 02:07 PM
Yep: In the story of Elijah and the kids he cursed to become Yogi Bear's dinner, you could make yourself save the kids as follows:

"And it came to p*** that the kids of the village were unable to mock Elijah's baldness because he miraculously grew some real fake hair, and was no longer bald."

I knew I was goin to be famous one day..

neverending
12-02-2013, 02:07 PM
Where did I say there was anything "wrong"?

Goodness is right. :)


You need to keep track of the things you say here. Go back and read your post #20 but if you can't do that here is what you said, "Seems like you and the other posters here have rewritten the Bible to fit your own views.

Poor eisegesis.

P.S. - I like your name. Though....it makes me wonder some things. ;) "

What are these things you wonder about? And I'd sure like to see you support your faith by using scripture. It makes me wonder if you even know them.

Sir
12-02-2013, 02:11 PM
[SIZE=3]You need to keep track of the things you say here. Go back and read your post #20 but if you can't do that here is what you said, "[SIZE=2]Seems like you and the other posters here have rewritten the Bible to fit your own views.

Poor eisegesis.

P.S. - I like your name. Though....it makes me wonder some things. ;) "



I see you need to be remediated in YOUR reading of posts.

Me: "I like your name."

You: "And what is wrong with Ma'am's name Sir? That is a word used to show respect for a woman just as "Sir" is a word of respect used for men. Goodness."

Me: "Where did I say there was anything wrong?"

Got it now?

James Banta
12-02-2013, 02:16 PM
I see you need to be remediated in YOUR reading of posts.

Me: "I like your name."

You: "And what is wrong with Ma'am's name Sir? That is a word used to show respect for a woman just as "Sir" is a word of respect used for men. Goodness."

Me: "Where did I say there was anything wrong?"

Got it now?

If something isn't wrong then what does the name Ma'am make you wonder about? There must be something that you find to wonder about.. IHS jim

Sir
12-02-2013, 02:20 PM
If something isn't wrong then what does the name Ma'am make you wonder about? There must be something that you find to wonder about.. IHS jim

Sure, but wondering about a name doesn't mean I think there is something wrong with it. That was your wife's contention so I was correcting her.

neverending
12-02-2013, 02:24 PM
I see you need to be remediated in YOUR reading of posts.

Me: "I like your name."

You: "And what is wrong with Ma'am's name Sir? That is a word used to show respect for a woman just as "Sir" is a word of respect used for men. Goodness."

Me: "Where did I say there was anything wrong?"

Got it now?

Oh, I forgot that coming here to you is a game. Well, I'm not playing and I accuse you of not having any knowledge of your own Churches history or scriptures. ALL you comments here are nothing but a waste of time. You want to have a dialogue with non-LDS, then back up your beliefs with scripture instead of evading questions. Do go and re-read your post #20. Sure you said, "I like your name" but what about the rest? "Though....it makes me wonder some things." I ask, what things does it make you wonder? A simple question. Do answer it.

neverending
12-02-2013, 02:27 PM
You have no reason to correct me. I have made my comment perfectly clear, it is you that is evading ALL you said and now you're evading what James has asked. Good going. Now you sound like Obama.... back peddling and oh, sorry you misunderstood when I said, "you will be able to keep your health plan."

Ma'am
12-02-2013, 03:04 PM
You have 8 posts here so you may not be familiar with the posters here or the history.

Then again, I suspect you are far more familiar than your 8 posts would indicate. ;)

Sometimes one example is all that it takes to see childishness.

Sir
12-02-2013, 03:06 PM
You have no reason to correct me. I have made my comment perfectly clear, it is you that is evading ALL you said and now you're evading what James has asked. Good going. Now you sound like Obama.... back peddling and oh, sorry you misunderstood when I said, "you will be able to keep your health plan."

Wow.

I really hope I don't end up so bitter and angry when I am the age of you, James, and Carol (Apologette). It really is sad how mature adults are so whiney and complain about the smallest and dumbest things.

Sir
12-02-2013, 03:08 PM
Oh, I forgot that coming here to you is a game. Well, I'm not playing and I accuse you of not having any knowledge of your own Churches history or scriptures. ALL you comments here are nothing but a waste of time. You want to have a dialogue with non-LDS, then back up your beliefs with scripture instead of evading questions. Do go and re-read your post #20. Sure you said, "I like your name" but what about the rest? "Though....it makes me wonder some things." I ask, what things does it make you wonder? A simple question. Do answer it.

You can accuse me of anything you wish. Doesn't make it true, however.

I wonder a few things. At this point it isn't important to state them.

James Banta
12-02-2013, 03:11 PM
I wonder a few things. At this point it isn't important to state them.

In other words you are embarr***ed by the reference.. So it had no place on this site at all.. Just watch what you say we will ask you to explain every time.. IHS jim

Ma'am
12-03-2013, 08:21 AM
Maybe he spilled a can of beer on his computer key board. You know how sticky beer can be when it dries. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

Could be. But how many words in English start with a "z"? :)

Sir
12-03-2013, 09:03 AM
In other words you are embarr***ed by the reference..

Uhh....what? :confused:

neverending
12-03-2013, 11:08 AM
You seem obsessed about people's age. What does that have to do with Mormonism? And you are ***uming again for you don't know how old I am. Man, until you know the facts, best to not say anything. And you can turn your comment back onto yourself, or aren't you a mature adult? I've seen a lot of whining from you as well. So with that, I will say have a good day.

Sir
12-03-2013, 12:12 PM
You seem obsessed about people's age. What does that have to do with Mormonism? And you are ***uming again for you don't know how old I am. Man, until you know the facts, best to not say anything. And you can turn your comment back onto yourself, or aren't you a mature adult? I've seen a lot of whining from you as well. So with that, I will say have a good day.

But you guys are old enough to be my parents. So the onus is on you to not sound so childish. :)

Good day to you too! :)

Ma'am
12-03-2013, 05:02 PM
Looks like the poor eisegesis is much more rampant than I thought.

Yes, and Mormons are living proof of poor eisegesis.

Sir
12-03-2013, 05:58 PM
Yes, and Mormons are living proof of poor eisegesis.

Ah, the old "I know you are but what am I" retort. Only took you 22 posts to get there. :p

nrajeffreturns
12-03-2013, 06:12 PM
You seem obsessed about people's age.
You seem even MORE obsessed with people's religious preferences.

James Banta
12-04-2013, 01:40 PM
You seem even MORE obsessed with people's religious preferences.

And she is commanded to be that way.. Jesus has told her to Go and teach all people, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things He has commanded. And then promised to always be with her even unto the end of the world. And you tell her that she shouldn't be asking people or teaching them about who Jesus is and what He has done for us? She will obey her Lord and not mere men like you or me.. IHS jim

Sir
12-04-2013, 02:06 PM
And she is commanded to be that way.. Jesus has told her to Go and teach all people, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things He has commanded. And then promised to always be with her even unto the end of the world. And you tell her that she shouldn't be asking people or teaching them about who Jesus is and what He has done for us? She will obey her Lord and not mere men like you or me.. IHS jim

How many people has she baptized?

James Banta
12-06-2013, 10:45 AM
How many people has she baptized?

Daily she baptizes at least 6 maybe 7.. IHS jim

Sir
12-06-2013, 09:33 PM
Daily she baptizes at least 6 maybe 7.. IHS jim

I don't believe you. Especially if your church only has about 100 members.

James Banta
12-06-2013, 11:16 PM
I don't believe you. Especially if your church only has about 100 members.

Your faith in my words doesn't change the truth.. You do understand that water baptism isn't the only meaning of the word.. You switch the meaning I am thinking of all the time and then call me s t u p i d for not keeping up.. This time you weren't keeping up.. But I still don't think you are s t u p i d..

She baptizes her friends and family in prayer. She baptizes all she knows in her Love.. She baptizes 6 or 7 a day EASY.. Maybe it should be 25 or 30 by name and millions by their position, sick, hurt, religious, political, and military.. So don't believe.. I would rather have her prayers than anything else she could offer, and she is a GREAT COOK.. :) IHS jim

Sir
12-07-2013, 09:26 AM
Your faith in my words doesn't change the truth.. You do understand that water baptism isn't the only meaning of the word.. You switch the meaning I am thinking of all the time and then call me s t u p i d for not keeping up.. This time you weren't keeping up.. But I still don't think you are s t u p i d..

She baptizes her friends and family in prayer. She baptizes all she knows in her Love.. She baptizes 6 or 7 a day EASY.. Maybe it should be 25 or 30 by name and millions by their position, sick, hurt, religious, political, and military.. So don't believe.. I would rather have her prayers than anything else she could offer, and she is a GREAT COOK.. :) IHS jim

I didn't "switch the meaning". I used the most common and most widely understood meaning. You are just trying to find any reason you can to turn an argument back onto me.

You crack me up!

Police: "James, did you kill your wife?"

James: "Yes. I killed my wife".

Police: "What?! How could you?!"

James: "I killed her with my kindness and laughter. You do understand that isn't the only meaning of the word.. You switch the meaning I am thinking of all the time and then call me s t u p i d for not keeping up.. This time you weren't keeping up.. But I still don't think you are s t u p i d."

What a silly thing to say, James, that I wasn't keeping up simply because you chose to use an obscure definition of a word instead of its normal definition. Don't be an offender for a word.

James Banta
12-07-2013, 09:32 AM
I didn't "switch the meaning". I used the most common and most widely understood meaning. You are just trying to find any reason you can to turn an argument back onto me.

You crack me up!

Police: "James, did you kill your wife?"

James: "Yes. I killed my wife".

Police: "What?! How could you?!"

James: "I killed her with my kindness and laughter. You do understand that isn't the only meaning of the word.. You switch the meaning I am thinking of all the time and then call me s t u p i d for not keeping up.. This time you weren't keeping up.. But I still don't think you are s t u p i d."

What a silly thing to say, James, that I wasn't keeping up simply because you chose to use an obscure definition of a word instead of its normal definition. Don't be an offender for a word.

I know of no Christian that finds prayer for others to be silly.. But you are LDS so spiritual matters would seem silly to you.. IHS jim

nrajeffreturns
12-07-2013, 06:21 PM
You do understand that water baptism isn't the only meaning of the word...
She baptizes her friends and family in prayer. She baptizes all she knows in her Love.. She baptizes 6 or 7 a day EASY.. Maybe it should be 25 or 30 by name and millions by their position, sick, hurt, religious, political, and military.. So don't believe..
Where in the Bible is your re-definition of the term baptism found?

Sir
12-07-2013, 07:31 PM
I know of no Christian that finds prayer for others to be silly.. But you are LDS so spiritual matters would seem silly to you.. IHS jim

I find this conversation silly, and your twisting definitions silly, and your attempt to make an attack on LDS based on your silly twisting of words silly, so......how about you do as Jeff asked and provide a biblical definition of baptism that states what you claim it does.

James Banta
12-07-2013, 08:54 PM
I find this conversation silly, and your twisting definitions silly, and your attempt to make an attack on LDS based on your silly twisting of words silly, so......how about you do as Jeff asked and provide a biblical definition of baptism that states what you claim it does.

Baptism in the Bible is Not always ***ociated with water..

Here is how Christian Baptism can be seen. It describes what baptism really means.. In the words of John the Baptist he is quoted saying:

Matthew 3:11
I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

If we can be baptized with the Holy Spirit and Fire, we can also be baptized in prayer.. A sinner can resist the Holy Spirit and immerse himself in sin. In that way he is baptized with sin.. You can be baptized in whatever medium you are immersed..

Now stop the silly attempts to defend your antiquated thinking and except truth.. IHS jim

James Banta
12-07-2013, 08:56 PM
Where in the Bible is your re-definition of the term baptism found?


Look in Matthew 3:11.. If one can be baptized in fire and the Holy Spirit why not prayer as well? IHS jim

Sir
12-07-2013, 10:36 PM
Now stop the silly attempts to defend your antiquated thinking and except truth.. IHS jim

Okay...I agree with you. Your post is full of everything "except truth".

James Banta
12-08-2013, 09:28 AM
Okay...I agree with you. Your post is full of everything "except truth".

So my post was. completely void of truth? Then you are telling me that Matthew 3:11 is a lie? That baptism is only a ordinance performed in water? It must be hard for you to hold such clearly umbilical doctrine. You will now have to explain why the Bible teaches a doctrine so completely foreign to that idea.. IHS jim

James Banta
12-08-2013, 09:43 AM
Uhh....what? :confused:

Ok here to make it more clear.. You are ashamed of your own thoughts toward another poster.. That clear enough for you now? IHS jim

Sir
12-08-2013, 10:22 AM
Ok here to make it more clear.. You are ashamed of your own thoughts toward another poster.. That clear enough for you now? IHS jim

I'm ashamed of my own thoughts toward the poster Ma'am?

How on earth did you arrive at THAT conclusion?

What are my thoughts, Jimmy?

Didn't I specifically say I was reserving them?

Why did you comment on that now, when that was quite a few days ago and you've commented on other stuff since then? Looking for SOMETHING to complain about? Needing attention THAT bad again?

Sir
12-08-2013, 10:23 AM
So my post was. completely void of truth? IHS jim

No, just your eisegesis of the Bible.

James Banta
12-08-2013, 01:06 PM
No, just your eisegesis of the Bible.

That isn't what you said before.. You said "Your post is full of everything "except truth"." Now you say only part of my post was false.. Were you lying, careless, or s t u p i d before?

You called the way I used the word baptized "an obscure definition of a word instead of its normal definition". But there it is, that "obscure usage" of the word used right there in the scripture. Used by the Holy Spirit to describe how Jesus would immerse those who were to become Him children in the Holy Spirit and Fire.. It is your narrow interpretation that disallows any other possible usage of the word that doesn't include then use of water, so even the Holy Spirit through the Apostle Matthew uses the word in the same way you demand I misused it.. Being immersed in anything other than water.. It is you sir that is using the word in ways that promotes misinterpretation.. IHS jim

James Banta
12-08-2013, 02:00 PM
[Sir;150122]I'm ashamed of my own thoughts toward the poster Ma'am?

I said it was another poster I didn't say a word about Ma'am.. You are ashamed of your thoughts, not too ashamed to say you had some but too ashamed to say what those thoughts are..




Yes you stated that you were having some thoughts but wouldn't reveal them so one is left to imagine why.. The only reason I could come up with is shame of those thoughts.. But then when a person has no curtsey for anyone else I should be surprised that such a tactic is used by a person such as you..

[QUOTE]Why did you comment on that now, when that was quite a few days ago and you've commented on other stuff since then? Looking for SOMETHING to complain about? Needing attention THAT bad again?


I often scan the forum for posts I may have missed before that I feel need an answer. This was one of them.. No big secret there.. Of course you would find something needy in that.. Well you would be wrong again this time as you are wrong so many other times about so many different subjects.. IHS jim

BigJulie
12-08-2013, 02:19 PM
That isn't what you said before.. You said "Your post is full of everything "except truth"." Now you say only part of my post was false.. Were you lying, careless, or s t u p i d before?

You called the way I used the word baptized "an obscure definition of a word instead of its normal definition". But there it is, that "obscure usage" of the word used right there in the scripture. Used by the Holy Spirit to describe how Jesus would immerse those who were to become Him children in the Holy Spirit and Fire.. It is your narrow interpretation that disallows any other possible usage of the word that doesn't include then use of water, so even the Holy Spirit through the Apostle Matthew uses the word in the same way you demand I misused it.. Being immersed in anything other than water.. It is you sir that is using the word in ways that promotes misinterpretation.. IHS jim

I think when it comes to baptism---well, if I were any religion out there--I would default to the meaning of baptism and "immersion" as to what Christ did. He was baptized by John in the River Jordan. Why not do the same? Why try to figure out any other way to be baptized or "immersed" rather than the way Christ was baptized? He did ask us to follow Him, right? It makes no sense at all to me as to why someone would argue against the example He set.

James Banta
12-08-2013, 02:52 PM
I think when it comes to baptism---well, if I were any religion out there--I would default to the meaning of baptism and "immersion" as to what Christ did. He was baptized by John in the River Jordan. Why not do the same? Why try to figure out any other way to be baptized or "immersed" rather than the way Christ was baptized? He did ask us to follow Him, right? It makes no sense at all to me as to why someone would argue against the example He set.

I don't mind showing you the difference if you don't mind listening.. Jesus never had Christian baptism.. Look at Acts 18 25-29, 19:1-5.. These had received the same baptism that Jesus had submitted to, the baptism of John, and what was said to them, what did they do?

Acts 18 25-29, 19:1-5
This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
And when he was disposed to p*** into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:
For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.
And it came to p***, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having p***ed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

It is clear from this that Christian baptism is NOT the same as the baptism Jesus submitted to.. It included no promise of the Holy Spirit.. I have expressed already that Jesus baptizes all believers in the Holy Spirit and in Fire.. Isn't the baptism He gives to us the baptism that really counts? IHS jim

BigJulie
12-08-2013, 03:18 PM
It is clear from this that Christian baptism is NOT the same as the baptism Jesus submitted to.. It included no promise of the Holy Spirit.. I have expressed already that Jesus baptizes all believers in the Holy Spirit and in Fire.. Isn't the baptism He gives to us the baptism that really counts? IHS jim

It is interesting to me that you argue that the CHRISTian baptism is not the same baptism that CHRIST had. Unlike you, I believe that Christ was showing us the way. I think you misunderstand the meaning of the verses you gave and as such do not recognize that Christ's baptism was the same---but that these people had not yet received the gift of the Holy Ghost, that is all.

James Banta
12-08-2013, 05:26 PM
It is interesting to me that you argue that the CHRISTian baptism is not the same baptism that CHRIST had. Unlike you, I believe that Christ was showing us the way. I think you misunderstand the meaning of the verses you gave and as such do not recognize that Christ's baptism was the same---but that these people had not yet received the gift of the Holy Ghost, that is all.

Did you even bother to read the p***age? Paul didn't just bestow the Holy Spirit on these believers that has only experienced the baptism of John.. He baptized them again.. Not with the baptism of John because John's baptism was only the baptism of repentance.. Paul baptized them into the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.. And then they received the Holy Spirit.. If you could open your own Bible and read this you would see that rebaptism.. The p***age says that they knew only the baptism of John.. ONLY? REALLY? If it was Christian baptism then why would the p***age read that way? If it had the same intent as Christian baptism it would never say ONLY the baptism of John.. If you can't see that I have to ***umes you are blind to the things that are of God.. IHS jim

BigJulie
12-08-2013, 07:27 PM
Did you even bother to read the p***age? Paul didn't just bestow the Holy Spirit on these believers that has only experienced the baptism of John.. He baptized them again.. Not with the baptism of John because John's baptism was only the baptism of repentance.. Paul baptized them into the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.. And then they received the Holy Spirit.. If you could open your own Bible and read this you would see that rebaptism.. The p***age says that they knew only the baptism of John.. ONLY? REALLY? If it was Christian baptism then why would the p***age read that way? If it had the same intent as Christian baptism it would never say ONLY the baptism of John.. If you can't see that I have to ***umes you are blind to the things that are of God.. IHS jim

Yes, I read it. And THEN they received the Holy Spirit. Why do you think that the baptism Paul did would be any different than the example Christ gave of what it means to be baptized? Why wouldn't Paul follow Christ's example?

The way I read this is that the baptism they experienced (John's baptism) did not include the gift of the Holy Ghost. The original baptism did not bring them into the fold of Christ. Therefore, they were rebaptized and given the gift of the Holy Ghost. Why would you think that Paul would baptize them in a different way than He was given the example by Christ? This doesn't make sense to me. It would be like Michael Jordan teaching someone how to play basketball and when the NBA shows up and says, what are you guys doing and they say, we are playing basketball as taught by Michael Jordan...the NBA saying--hey, lets make it official and lets get you in a league and and lets get you a uniform and suddenly, you thinking that he word "basketball" means something different because now they have a league and a uniform and that it is not played the same way.

Sir
12-08-2013, 07:47 PM
I said it was another poster I didn't say a word about Ma'am.. You are ashamed of your thoughts, not too ashamed to say you had some but too ashamed to say what those thoughts are..
Didn't I specifically say I was reserving them?

Yes you stated that you were having some thoughts but wouldn't reveal them so one is left to imagine why.. The only reason I could come up with is shame of those thoughts.. But then when a person has no curtsey for anyone else I should be surprised that such a tactic is used by a person such as you..




I often scan the forum for posts I may have missed before that I feel need an answer. This was one of them.. No big secret there.. Of course you would find something needy in that.. Well you would be wrong again this time as you are wrong so many other times about so many different subjects.. IHS jim

It's like you live in your own little pathetic world. I feel sad for you that you have to be so whiney and make-up so many silly arguments just to have something to say. It's really a wonder people post to you.

James Banta
12-08-2013, 09:53 PM
Yes, I read it. And THEN they received the Holy Spirit. Why do you think that the baptism Paul did would be any different than the example Christ gave of what it means to be baptized? Why wouldn't Paul follow Christ's example?

The way I read this is that the baptism they experienced (John's baptism) did not include the gift of the Holy Ghost. The original baptism did not bring them into the fold of Christ. Therefore, they were rebaptized and given the gift of the Holy Ghost. Why would you think that Paul would baptize them in a different way than He was given the example by Christ? This doesn't make sense to me. It would be like Michael Jordan teaching someone how to play basketball and when the NBA shows up and says, what are you guys doing and they say, we are playing basketball as taught by Michael Jordan...the NBA saying--hey, lets make it official and lets get you in a league and and lets get you a uniform and suddenly, you thinking that he word "basketball" means something different because now they have a league and a uniform and that it is not played the same way.

If Paul was going to go by the example of John's baptism then re-baptizing these disciples that came to Paul about receiving the Holy Spirit would have not been required.. Do the LDS rebaptize all who come to them between their first baptism and their confirmation? No, that would be redundant. If all Paul needed to to was bestow the gift of the Holy Spirit on them. That isn't what happened in the p***age now is it? That is because John's baptism is NOT Christian Baptism.. Jesus submitted to John's baptism but never experienced Christian baptism..

Isn't it true that MJ not only knew how to play BB but knew the rules and being a team owner has the authority to add whoever he sees fit to his team and therefore the NBA? How you came up with such a strange metaphor that has no connection to what you are trying to teach is not understandable.. You do understand it's the team owners that decide who joins their teams and by that who is included as a player in the NBA, and not the league? You can keep trying to come up, with a proper metaphor, but since John's baptism is NOT a Christian ordinance it will be difficult.. IHS jim

James Banta
12-08-2013, 10:13 PM
Sometimes one example is all that it takes to see childishness.

If you haven't yet noticed sir seldom addresses a real issue here.. He is all about diversion.. IHS jim

BigJulie
12-08-2013, 10:30 PM
If Paul was going to go by the example of John's baptism then re-baptizing these disciples that came to Paul about receiving the Holy Spirit would have not been required.. Who says??, especially in light of baptizing also brings someone into the fold of Christ. I don't know why suddenly the word "baptism" would take on something different. Especially in light of Christ's example.


Do the LDS rebaptize all who come to them between their first baptism and their confirmation? No, that would be redundant. If all Paul needed to to was bestow the gift of the Holy Spirit on them. That isn't what happened in the p***age now is it? That is because John's baptism is NOT Christian Baptism.. Jesus submitted to John's baptism but never experienced Christian baptism.. They are if they are baptized by someone without authority. To copy the way John baptized did not mean that the person had authority as John did. When the disciples learned that they did not know about the gift of the Holy Ghost, this was a pretty big indicator that they were not yet part of the fold and that the person who baptized them didn't have the authority to do so. If the person who baptized them did, there would be no reason to rebaptize them "unto repentance".

It would be the equivalent of someone believing they had paid their taxes and when the IRS agent came asked "did you file a 1040EZ or a 1040?" And the person responding--we haven't heard of either of those things and the IRS agent saying, hmmm, how did you pay your taxes then? And they respond, the same way we saw our neighbors, by sticking a check into an envelope and sending it off to the IRS. And the tax agent saying---hmmm, something is not right here, lets do it right. Let's cancel those checks and lets fill out the proper forms and then you can add a check to that form and send it off. Authority is a big deal to God which is why He states that one must be ordained of God and that man cannot take this on himself. Seems logical to me.



Isn't it true that MJ not only knew how to play BB but knew the rules and being a team owner has the authority to add whoever he sees fit to his team and therefore the NBA? How you came up with such a strange metaphor that has no connection to what you are trying to teach is not understandable.. You do understand it's the team owners that decide who joins their teams and by that who is included as a player in the NBA, and not the league? You can keep trying to come up, with a proper metaphor, but since John's baptism is NOT a Christian ordinance it will be difficult.. IHS jim It was showing that the word "basketball" did not change its meaning because one was not yet a member of a team.

Sir
12-08-2013, 10:43 PM
If you haven't yet noticed sir seldom addresses a real issue here.. He is all about diversion.. IHS jim

Anti-LDS seldom bring forth any real issues here.

Billyray
12-09-2013, 01:31 AM
Matthew 12:31-32
King James Version (KJV)

31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
Perhaps you could tell us what YOU think that these verses mean (or link me to your post where you feel you have already addressed it).

Sir
12-09-2013, 09:57 AM
Perhaps you could tell us what YOU think that these verses mean (or link me to your post where you feel you have already addressed it).

I think they mean exactly as the LDS church teaches.

You claim to have been LDS.

You should know then.

neverending
12-09-2013, 11:04 AM
Sir, I find it surprising that anyone would post to you. When you decide to say something of importance, maybe I will comment. You admit you won't throw scriptures around but I say, you don't know any so you say ridiculous things, mocking others and that is what makes you happy. What a sad life you live.

Apologette
12-09-2013, 11:48 AM
Sir, I find it surprising that anyone would post to you. When you decide to say something of importance, maybe I will comment. You admit you won't throw scriptures around but I say, you don't know any so you say ridiculous things, mocking others and that is what makes you happy. What a sad life you live.

The same thing goes for Jeff. Have you noticed how he never addresses doctrinal issues with anything but mocking?

nrajeffreturns
12-09-2013, 11:59 AM
The same thing goes for Jeff. Have you noticed how he never addresses doctrinal issues with anything but mocking?

LOL. Yeah, Sir and I don't know any scriptures. Hey, it sounds plausible to the antis, so go with it if you feel you must, no matter how false it might be.

RealFakeHair
12-09-2013, 12:05 PM
The same thing goes for Jeff. Have you noticed how he never addresses doctrinal issues with anything but mocking?

Jeff and Sir. Know they can't defend their doctrine unique to Joseph Smith jr. Imagainary mind. Thus slience on their behalf speack loud and clearn to me.

RealFakeHair
12-09-2013, 12:07 PM
LOL. Yeah, Sir and I don't know any scriptures. Hey, it sounds plausible to the antis, so go with it if you feel you must, no matter how false it might be.

Put up or shut up time. Where in the Holy Bible does it speak of Heavenly Father having a father?

Sir
12-09-2013, 01:32 PM
[COLOR=#FF0000]Sir, I find it surprising that anyone would post to you.

Why? You are posting to me right now! And you continue posting to me.


When you decide to say something of importance, maybe I will comment.

And yet, you keep posting to me. So I must be saying important things in your eyes. Otherwise, just ignore me. :)


You admit you won't throw scriptures around but I say, you don't know any so you say ridiculous things

You can say whatever makes you feel better. You see my comments as ridiculous, but you have yet to prove they are incorrect.


mocking others and that is what makes you happy.

No, pointing out the hypocrisy and double standards of anti-LDS makes me happy. Shining a mirror back onto you with your own arguments makes me happy.

Also, my ***, my family, my dog, my talents, my hobbies, all that makes me quite happy as well!


What a sad life you live.

No, I think that you are just projecting your own pitiful and sad life onto me and hoping that justification will make you feel better. Remember, it is you that takes comments made here and internalizes them and becomes irritated and angry to the point your health is in jeopardy. You come here to argue and to try and tear down others' beliefs. I think THAT would be a sign of a sad life.

But, you can say whatever you want about me. Truly. Because I couldn't care less what you or the other Anti-mos here think.

Sir
12-09-2013, 01:38 PM
Jeff and Sir. Know they can't defend their doctrine unique to Joseph Smith jr. Imagainary mind. Thus slience on their behalf speack loud and clearn to me.

Childish taunts to get people to play your games.

What's funny is you guys act like me and Jeff are the only LDS online. You seem to disregard that there are many places online where LDS people/ scholars have defended and used scriptures to support LDS claims and doctrine. But you would reject them as well.

If you really want to see what scholars and apologists have said regarding your questions, look it up.

What's funny to me are the ex-LDS (James, neverending, billyray) who ask questions as if they have never heard of or been LDS. Which means they either really didn't know anything as a LDS or no matter what is told them they will disregard it and believe what they want anyway. So it doesn't inspire me much to throw around bible verses to support my beliefs when I already know your hearts are not in it for learning truth but to argue your own positions. Besides, after seeing James' interpretation of the Bible, I really don't think he would understand truth if it bit him in the booty. :)

RealFakeHair
12-09-2013, 01:44 PM
Childish taunts to get people to play your games.

What's funny is you guys act like me and Jeff are the only LDS online. You seem to disregard that there are many places online where LDS people/ scholars have defended and used scriptures to support LDS claims and doctrine. But you would reject them as well.

If you really want to see what scholars and apologists have said regarding your questions, look it up.

What's funny to me are the ex-LDS (James, neverending, billyray) who ask questions as if they have never heard of or been LDS. Which means they either really didn't know anything as a LDS or no matter what is told them they will disregard it and believe what they want anyway. So it doesn't inspire me much to throw around bible verses to support my beliefs when I already know your hearts are not in it for learning truth but to argue your own positions. Besides, after seeing James' interpretation of the Bible, I really don't think he would understand truth if it bit him in the booty. :)

Once again, just put up or shut up........Where in the Holy Bible does it say, Heavenly Father had a father?

Apologette
12-09-2013, 02:00 PM
LOL. Yeah, Sir and I don't know any scriptures. Hey, it sounds plausible to the antis, so go with it if you feel you must, no matter how false it might be.
Good example of what I stated. Thanks.

Sir
12-09-2013, 02:04 PM
Once again, just put up or shut up........Where in the Holy Bible does it say, Heavenly Father had a father?

Right next to the word "Trinity".

RealFakeHair
12-09-2013, 02:16 PM
Right next to the word "Trinity".

I don't care that you'r an A-hole, but if I said, the word Trinity was in the Holy Bible you would be perfectly right to ask me to put up or shut up, but of course no informed Christian would ever make such a statement.
However the LDinc. TBM believe the mormon God had a mormon father, and his father had a father and so forth.
So once again, put up or shut up, Where does it read in the Holy Bible?

Apologette
12-09-2013, 02:22 PM
I don't care that you'r an A-hole, but if I said, the word Trinity was in the Holy Bible you would be perfectly right to ask me to put up or shut up, but of course no informed Christian would ever make such a statement.
However the LDinc. TBM believe the mormon God had a mormon father, and his father had a father and so forth.
So once again, put up or shut up, Where does it read in the Holy Bible?
One Mormon on CARM once said the Bible really states that Cain was the result of a sexual union of Eve and God. The Mormon god has all gender-appropriate body parts apparently! I'm not sure about Celestial Viagra. It sure must take a whole bunch of other worldly sexual stamina to keep on producing baby after baby with a harem of goddess wives.

neverending
12-09-2013, 03:20 PM
LOL. Yeah, Sir and I don't know any scriptures. Hey, it sounds plausible to the antis, so go with it if you feel you must, no matter how false it might be.

Jeff, since I've never seen any scripture references from you or Sir, then I have to say you don't know any. Your whole reason for coming here is to mock Christians, ignore important questions asked of you and laugh about it. How is that having any kind of discussion?

Sir
12-09-2013, 03:37 PM
I don't care that you'r an A-hole,

There's another reason I don't waste time throwing scriptures at you guys. Apparently your brand of "christianity" teaches you to act in a manner that is unbiblical. So what's the point? You guys have shown me what type of "Christian" I should become were I to embrace your version, and I am much happier where I am. Thank you. :)

RealFakeHair
12-09-2013, 03:42 PM
There's another reason I don't waste time throwing scriptures at you guys. Apparently your brand of "christianity" teaches you to act in a manner that is unbiblical. So what's the point? You guys have shown me what type of "Christian" I should become were I to embrace your version, and I am much happier where I am. Thank you. :)

That doesn't work with me, you do your best to shoot off red herrings, but of course my Christianity has nothing to do with your LDSinc. So what's new?
Once again put up or shut up.

neverending
12-09-2013, 03:48 PM
There's another reason I don't waste time throwing scriptures at you guys. Apparently your brand of "christianity" teaches you to act in a manner that is unbiblical. So what's the point? You guys have shown me what type of "Christian" I should become were I to embrace your version, and I am much happier where I am. Thank you. :)

And you've shown me the kind of Mormon I would be if I decided to go back....NO THANKS.....been there, done that!! I don't need a house to fall on me to know the lies and the judging that goes on within your church. You treat your own so cruel, and look down your nose at members you don't think are as good as you. Man, I am so very grateful I am not a Mormon anymore.

Sir
12-09-2013, 04:01 PM
And you've shown me the kind of Mormon I would be if I decided to go back....NO THANKS.....been there, done that!! I don't need a house to fall on me to know the lies and the judging that goes on within your church. You treat your own so cruel, and look down your nose at members you don't think are as good as you. Man, I am so very grateful I am not a Mormon anymore.

You're just projecting your angry anti-LDS views onto me, so I understand, and I don't take it personally. :)

Sir
12-09-2013, 04:03 PM
That doesn't work with me, you do your best to shoot off red herrings, but of course my Christianity has nothing to do with your LDSinc. So what's new?
Once again put up or shut up.

You are correct. The Christianity that is Mormonism is definitely not the same as the one you seem to profess. Which is why I am happy where I am and not in the bitter, angry, need-to-tear-other-peoples'-faith-down, unbiblical-actions, anti-LDS cult.

nrajeffreturns
12-09-2013, 04:08 PM
Jeff and Sir. Know they can't defend their doctrine unique to Joseph Smith jr. Imagainary mind. Thus slience on their behalf speack loud and clearn to me.

That was pretty low of you to change the issue from apologette's obviously false and indefensible

"The same thing goes for Jeff. Have you noticed how he never addresses doctrinal issues with anything but mocking?"

to something you think might actually be slightly more plausible (but is still false, of course):

"they can't defend their doctrine unique to Joseph Smith jr. Imagainary mind."

And you thought you could get away with that? Not likely.

But wait, folks, that's not all: You THEN changed it AGAIN, to something about God having a father, and challenged me to "put up or shut up" as if that was the original issue. Pathetic attempt, really. That is grade-school-level bad rhetoric.

Why couldn't you just stick with the original accusation? Did you realize it was a loser for the anti-LDS side? Did you really think your goalpost-moving would escape notice? I am surprised at this low quality of debating from you, RFH. You must be recovering from a night out with Jose Cuervo or something. I hope your attacks soon rise back to the the higher quality they used to have.

nrajeffreturns
12-09-2013, 04:13 PM
Jeff, since I've never seen any scripture references from you or Sir, then I have to say you don't know any.
The logical fallacy you have committed is the non sequitur--you reasoned that because you have personally never seen any scripture references from me (if it's true that you haven't EVER seen ANY), then THEREFORE, it MUST be because I don't know any scripture references.

That is like a tribesman in Africa saying "Because I have never seen a cell phone, they must not exist."

You should stick to accusations that are more defensible than this if you don't want to embarr*** yourself.

James Banta
12-09-2013, 05:32 PM
[nrajeffreturns;149598]How many children could REALLY understand what you've been "preaching," Jim? Not many, IMO. Heck, there may not be many adults who would understand it.

I was the AWANA director at church for years.. The children seem to understand fine. To bad you couldn't have been there too, you may have learned a lot..


Is that what your church taught you? If I sent your pastor copies of the stuff you have been claiming is Bible-based Christian doctrine, would your pastor agree? Or would your pastor say "I have no idea where he got those ideas" ??

If God tells us that ALL sin will be forgiven except the denial of the Holy Spirit what would that denial be is not turning away from His prompting till death? The weird doctrine of having some special knowledge and turn away from that is incorrect.. Judas has no such knowledge and yet he was a son of perdition..


Your "Every sin is the unpardonable sin" theory calls into question your Calvinistic beliefs about God's omnipotence because it implies that God is unable to pardon ANY sin unless the sinner does something first. It also raises questions about what you think of Jesus' atonement: Whose sins did He pay the price for, if all sins are unpardonable?

I never said that I said the unpardonable sin is the denial of the Holy Spirit as He drew men to the cross and that dying without having come to Jesus about those sins is the unpardonable sin.. I could explain it to you 10,000 times but you still wouldn't have the capacity to understand..


You are also rejecting some important Bible verses that teach that only the "elect" are capable of committing the unpardonable sin.

Hebrews 6:

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.


Hebrews 10:

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.


Ok let's look..

The Heb 6 p***age is speaking of the elect? I see it addressing those that don't believe, or it shows a extreme circumstance that will never happen. Like saying "when hell freezes over I will go on a murder spree". It never says that any such believer actually exists. It says "If they shall fall away".. IF, not when.. I deny that this happens ever. It is an exaggeration used to make a point of how serious the crime against God is.. In Hebrews 10 you have to use the Bible to understand.. Paul told us that sin still live in Him, in His flesh.. But when he sinned it wasn't Him that sinned but sin that lived in Him.. (Oh I can just see the mormon denials of the Bible here as I teach this).. It's found in Romans 7:17.. In that verse we can see that all who are in Christ never sin , but it is sin within them that does it.. Look at the p***age in Heb 10 carefully it says that "sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins".. So these have been taught the truth but rejected it.. Oh Dear Jeff that is you!!!


So using your theory, suppose I have accepted Jesus as Savior, and the only sin I commit is one time telling my wife her new hairdo looked great when I really thought it was only mediocre, and 5 seconds later I die--would I be guilty of the unpardonable sin?

Jim, I am the one who told YOU that it said that. But you won't listen to me or Jesus or the Bible. You will only listen to your own imagination.

You are committing that sin daily in your life as you really believe that you can DO some work that will save you. Whether that is baptism or temple work, you are trusting things you can do to save you.. After all doesn't the BofM says that you are saved by grace, AFTER all you can do? God tells us that all liars will be cast into the Lake of Fire.. If you are guilty of lying (God doesn't divide between evil lies and protective lies) the p***age says that "the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and *****mongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire...(Rev 21:8)

You seem to always believe I am making all this up out of my own mind.. Jeff, it's all right there in the Bible.. So read it and tell me how just believing what it says is the wrong way of interpreting it.. Show me where I am wrong.. We have all sinned since we have said we believe, does that really mean that we have no more chance for salvation? Or could it mean that those that have heard it and rejected it are the ones the p***age is condemning? Could The chapter 6 p***age be an exaggeration to show the seriousness of this sin? You are pulling these two p***ages out of the context of the whole bible and making them your religion.. From Genesis to Revelations we see that God calls us to trust Him, to believe in Him.. We see the terrible consequences of turning away from such faith.. The p***ages you quoted explain that same old story.. So go check with Travis.. I am sure He will use his own words to tell you the exact same thing.. Tell me if He doesn't there are many Churches out there that do teach truth. That is am exaggeration. IHS jim

Apologette
12-09-2013, 06:37 PM
The logical fallacy you have committed is the non sequitur--you reasoned that because you have personally never seen any scripture references from me (if it's true that you haven't EVER seen ANY), then THEREFORE, it MUST be because I don't know any scripture references.

That is like a tribesman in Africa saying "Because I have never seen a cell phone, they must not exist."

You should stick to accusations that are more defensible than this if you don't want to embarr*** yourself. Well, then, as they say, put or.....................

RealFakeHair
12-10-2013, 09:41 AM
That was pretty low of you to change the issue from apologette's obviously false and indefensible

"The same thing goes for Jeff. Have you noticed how he never addresses doctrinal issues with anything but mocking?"

to something you think might actually be slightly more plausible (but is still false, of course):

"they can't defend their doctrine unique to Joseph Smith jr. Imagainary mind."

And you thought you could get away with that? Not likely.

But wait, folks, that's not all: You THEN changed it AGAIN, to something about God having a father, and challenged me to "put up or shut up" as if that was the original issue. Pathetic attempt, really. That is grade-school-level bad rhetoric.

Why couldn't you just stick with the original accusation? Did you realize it was a loser for the anti-LDS side? Did you really think your goalpost-moving would escape notice? I am surprised at this low quality of debating from you, RFH. You must be recovering from a night out with Jose Cuervo or something. I hope your attacks soon rise back to the the higher quality they used to have.

Joseph Smith jr. Is your guy, and I would expect you and Sir to defend him and his imagination. If he were my guy I would at least try.
There you go again, in the words of Ronald Reagan. All I know is all my doctrinal beliefs are found in the Holy Bible, and thoughs you and the other TBMs have are not, and this is where I like to concentrate on the doctrinal beliefs you have that arent in the Holy Bible.

nrajeffreturns
12-10-2013, 12:42 PM
Joseph Smith jr. Is your guy, and I would expect you and Sir to defend him and his imagination.
You need to worry about your own imagination. You imagine that you can get away with pretending that the issue was God having a father, when it was really the false claim that I never address doctrinal issues with anything but mocking.

For those with adult ADD, it may SEEM normal to chase a squirrel around the yard instead of put out the fire in your living room, but in reality, it makes more sense to stay focused on the fire.

Apologette
12-10-2013, 04:09 PM
That was pretty low of you to change the issue from apologette's obviously false and indefensible

"The same thing goes for Jeff. Have you noticed how he never addresses doctrinal issues with anything but mocking?"

to something you think might actually be slightly more plausible (but is still false, of course):

"they can't defend their doctrine unique to Joseph Smith jr. Imagainary mind."

And you thought you could get away with that? Not likely.

But wait, folks, that's not all: You THEN changed it AGAIN, to something about God having a father, and challenged me to "put up or shut up" as if that was the original issue. Pathetic attempt, really. That is grade-school-level bad rhetoric.

Why couldn't you just stick with the original accusation? Did you realize it was a loser for the anti-LDS side? Did you really think your goalpost-moving would escape notice? I am surprised at this low quality of debating from you, RFH. You must be recovering from a night out with Jose Cuervo or something. I hope your attacks soon rise back to the the higher quality they used to have.

Ninety-nine percent of your responses, Jeff, are wisecracks and mockery. Who can take you seriously anymore?

nrajeffreturns
12-10-2013, 09:24 PM
[B]Ninety-nine percent of your responses, Jeff, are wisecracks and mockery.
What a coincidence--that's exactly the same percentage of your accusations and attacks that are worthy of nothing more substantial than a wisecrack and/or mockery! Weird, huh?

RealFakeHair
12-11-2013, 10:22 AM
You need to worry about your own imagination. You imagine that you can get away with pretending that the issue was God having a father, when it was really the false claim that I never address doctrinal issues with anything but mocking.

For those with adult ADD, it may SEEM normal to chase a squirrel around the yard instead of put out the fire in your living room, but in reality, it makes more sense to stay focused on the fire.

Then stop the mocking, put up or shut up. Where in the Holy Bible does it read Heavenly Father had a father, and his father had a father?
This is really a simple question that goes to the heart of believing or not believing in The Eternal God of the Holy Bible doesn't it?

James Banta
12-11-2013, 10:57 AM
You need to worry about your own imagination. You imagine that you can get away with pretending that the issue was God having a father, when it was really the false claim that I never address doctrinal issues with anything but mocking.

For those with adult ADD, it may SEEM normal to chase a squirrel around the yard instead of put out the fire in your living room, but in reality, it makes more sense to stay focused on the fire.

Jeff your complaints about some imagined mockery doesn't address the doctrinal issue brought up.. Can you show us in the scripture that God the Father has a Father? Do you really deny the scripture (AGAIN) that teaches that God has been God from everlasting to everlasting? I would like to see that.. If you can't then all we can see is a man made, man invented doctrine that makes a mormon feel more important than he should feel.. We are NOT GODS IN EMBRYO, We aren't even God's children until we are born again spiritually of Him.. We are no more all the children of God than Geometry is the child of Euclid.. It's creator yes, but geometry is not his child.. God is our creator but to become His child we must be reborn.. That is the issue that you are ignoring.. IHS jim

RealFakeHair
12-11-2013, 11:02 AM
Jeff your complaints about some imagined mockery doesn't address the doctrinal issue brought up.. Can you show us in the scripture that God the Father has a Father? Do you really deny the scripture (AGAIN) that teaches that God has been God from everlasting to everlasting? I would like to see that.. If you can't then all we can see is a man made, man invented doctrine that makes a mormon feel more important than he should feel.. We are NOT GODS IN EMBRYO, We aren't even God's children until we are born again spiritually of Him.. We are no more all the children of God than Geometry is the child of Euclid.. It's creator yes, but geometry is not his child.. God is our creator but to become His child we must be reborn.. That is the issue that you are ignoring.. IHS jim

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.