PDA

View Full Version : Watered down LDSinc.



RealFakeHair
01-08-2014, 09:34 AM
On the BYU channel today the discussion was on the great and abominable church.
Back in the early days of Joseph Smith jr. Imaginary mind, the great abominalbe church were All Churhes, but today it was watered down to just those who don't obey the mormon god.
This is done to help main-stream the LDSinc. Into the faith community.

Apologette
01-09-2014, 09:13 AM
On the BYU channel today the discussion was on the great and abominable church.
Back in the early days of Joseph Smith jr. Imaginary mind, the great abominalbe church were All Churhes, but today it was watered down to just those who don't obey the mormon god.
This is done to help main-stream the LDSinc. Into the faith community.

The Mormon cult is now controlled by revisionists who refuse to acknowledge the **** that was taught by their very own false prophet, Joe the Seer Stone Looker, and his successors. Today they want to look like a bunch of warmed-over Methodists who love Joe. It's disgusting.

dberrie2000
01-10-2014, 06:53 AM
On the BYU channel today the discussion was on the great and abominable church.
Back in the early days of Joseph Smith jr. Imaginary mind, the great abominalbe church were All Churhes, but today it was watered down to just those who don't obey the mormon god.
This is done to help main-stream the LDSinc. Into the faith community.

Would the "mormon god" include this one?


Mark 16:16---King James Version (KJV)

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

What would you describe as the "great and abominable church"--and why? All the faith alone sermons I used to hear described the Catholic church as such.

James Banta
01-10-2014, 11:00 AM
Would the "mormon god" include this one?


Mark 16:16---King James Version (KJV)

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

What would you describe as the "great and abominable church"--and why? All the faith alone sermons I used to hear described the Catholic church as such.

Does the p***age say what we need to be baptized in and how the ordinance need to be done? You can say it is water but it doesn't say that it is water.. Can we not be baptized in Christ, or in His blood? It isn't denied in the p***age.. All it says us we must be baptized.. What is said that disbelieve is punished by ****ation.. What is there in the context of the whole of the New Testament that we are told we must believe? Humm.. I think you know where that is going.. IHS jim

dberrie2000
01-10-2014, 12:00 PM
Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post---Would the "mormon god" include this one?

Mark 16:16---King James Version (KJV)

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

What would you describe as the "great and abominable church"--and why? All the faith alone sermons I used to hear described the Catholic church as such.

Does the p***age say what we need to be baptized in and how the ordinance need to be done?

The fact is--if what this testimony of Christ states is true--then faith alone theology is false--regardless of how you believe it is to be administered. But it is the theology one will find in the LDS church.


You can say it is water but it doesn't say that it is water.. Can we not be baptized in Christ, or in His blood?

James--this is pure desperation. It was repentance and water baptism that was commanded for the remission of sins:

Acts 2:38---King James Version (KJV)

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.


It isn't denied in the p***age.. All it says us we must be baptized.. What is said that disbelieve is punished by ****ation..

And that those who believe and are baptized will be saved.

James Banta
01-10-2014, 12:32 PM
[dberrie2000;151930]The fact is--if what this testimony of Christ states is true--then faith alone theology is false--regardless of how you believe it is to be administered. But it is the theology one will find in the LDS church.

You baseless denials mean very little.. Jesus taught that if you Believe in Him you will have everlasting life.. That is clearly Faith based salvation not works based.. Mormonism teaches that it is faith based but at the same times teaches that if a person has faith as most of the Christian sect members do, because they haven't been baptized by the LDS they will be ****ed.. That sounds like you deny that faith saves.. The teaching of Jesus to Nicodemus establishes Faith alone theology..



James--this is pure desperation. It was repentance and water baptism that was commanded for the remission of sins:

Acts 2:38---King James Version (KJV)

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Can this or can't this not be read to mean Because Sin has been forgiven? Like saying "I married my wife For the love I have for her". Would such a statement mean that I married her so I could gain love for her? No it means because I love her.. In that way Acts 2:38 supports my theology of salvation through God's grace without the works of the Law.. Baptism is a commandment of Jesus it just isn't necessarily the ordinance that you expect to see.. I maintain that we are cleansed ONLY through the blood of Jesus.that baptism is an outward physical expression of the spiritual birth whereby we became children of God.. A testimony to the world that we have become a child of God.. It has less power to cleanse is than a bath.. At least with a bath we use soap..


And that those who believe and are baptized will be saved.

As I said before this p***age doesn't mean water baptism.. water is not mentioned in the text.. We can be baptized by the Holy Spirit without water at all.. You are adding your own meaning to the verse.. IHS jim

RealFakeHair
01-10-2014, 01:31 PM
Would the "mormon god" include this one?


Mark 16:16---King James Version (KJV)

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

What would you describe as the "great and abominable church"--and why? All the faith alone sermons I used to hear described the Catholic church as such.

One hit wonder, I am beginning to worry about you. Do you ever give it a rest?
As far as baptized, why don't you take time out and find out what Jesus of the Holy Baptizm is before you lose any more sleep.

dberrie2000
01-10-2014, 02:58 PM
Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post---Would the "mormon god" include this one?

Mark 16:16---King James Version (KJV)

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

What would you describe as the "great and abominable church"--and why? All the faith alone sermons I used to hear described the Catholic church as such.


You baseless denials mean very little..

What do you consider baseless about Mark16:16?


Jesus taught that if you Believe in Him you will have everlasting life..

What do you consider about water baptism, or any obedience to Christ-- as not believing in Christ?


That is clearly Faith based salvation not works based..

It's grace based salvation. And God's salvational grace goes to them that obey Him--as the scriptures show. James--what is it about faith without works is dead we don't understand?


James 2:26---King James Version (KJV)

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.


You continue to address faith--is that dead faith you are referring to?


Mormonism teaches that it is faith based but at the same times teaches that if a person has faith as most of the Christian sect members do, because they haven't been baptized by the LDS they will be ****ed..

The LDS church teach all those who refuse to obey Christ do not receive of His salvational grace:


Hebrews 5:9----King James Version (KJV)


9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;


That sounds like you deny that faith saves..

I do. I deny that. It's God's grace that saves.

RealFakeHair
01-10-2014, 03:20 PM
What do you consider baseless about Mark16:16?



What do you consider about water baptism, or any obedience to Christ-- as not believing in Christ?



It's grace based salvation. And God's salvational grace goes to them that obey Him--as the scriptures show. James--what is it about faith without works is dead we don't understand?


James 2:26---King James Version (KJV)

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.


You continue to address faith--is that dead faith you are referring to?



The LDS church teach all those who refuse to obey Christ do not receive of His salvational grace:


Hebrews 5:9----King James Version (KJV)


9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;



I do. I deny that. It's God's grace that saves.

One hit wonder. You say with your Joseph Smith jr. Baptizm of water and works and obedience to your false living prophet, and I will stay with Matt 3:11 "I baptize with water those who repent of their sins and turn to God. But someone is coming soon who is greater than I am--so much greater that I'm not worthy even to be his slave and carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.


NO matter how hard to try your false teachings will never quince the Fire of the real Jesus of the Holy Bible!

Billyray
01-10-2014, 10:09 PM
What do you consider baseless about Mark16:16?

http://www.biblegateway.com/p***age/?search=Mark+16&version=NIV
[The earliest m****cripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]

These verses were not part of the original. Right?

James Banta
01-11-2014, 08:31 AM
http://www.biblegateway.com/p***age/?search=Mark+16&version=NIV
[The earliest m****cripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]

These verses were not part of the original. Right?

I knew that Billy.. But they are in the Bible and I will accept them in the light of all other scripture.. I will not tempt God by handling snakes but I will claim Him protection as He protected Paul from snakes that attacked his in doing God's work.. Today this may take the form of modern medicine. never the less I will claim His divine protection.. IHS jim

James Banta
01-11-2014, 10:10 AM
[dberrie2000;151938]What do you consider baseless about Mark16:16?

While I never call the word of God Baseless I call your remakes you add without any authority nothing but baseless.. You said "The fact is ... faith alone theology is false--regardless of how you believe it is to be administered..." That is baseless.. While the LDS add to the Bible their concept of many High priests to the priesthood, Calling 12 year old boys deacons, and 18 year old boys elders. How they deny that God's salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus when it is just how God clearly spells it out in the Bible.. How you can accept the testimony of one man who can't even remember how old he was when Jesus appeared to him much less the message he received from Him, or if the Father was there or Not, all the while doubting the teachings of the Bible, that is mind boggling..


What do you consider about water baptism, or any obedience to Christ-- as not believing in Christ?

I do believe that baptism is commanded, BUT I can't prove that in the text of the Bible and neither can you.. Still taking the commandment given to believers to "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:19) tells me that a believer is commanded to submit to baptism. But where is water mentioned in that commandment? Could baptism be a baptism of the heart as the Amish teach? Could it be sprinkling as Roman church and many protestant churches teach? Or could it be the baptism of the believer that most Christian churches teach.. Hey Good Shepard Lutheran (I call them Catholic lite) offers baptism by immersion to believers that request it.. I happen to believe that any baptism God draws a believer to is the right baptism for that believer. Unlike the LDS I will not play Holy Spirit in the spiritual life of the believer. Every Christian church I have had any ***ociation with, whether that included membership of just visitor status baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost just as Matthew 28:19 calls for. But do you believe such baptisms are valid? No, Why not?


It's grace based salvation. And God's salvational grace goes to them that obey Him--as the scriptures show. James--what is it about faith without works is dead we don't understand?

And what is this obedience you keep talking about.. I thought I understood what obedience is but it seems that you mean something other than what I believe obedience to be. I see obedience as total compliance to all the commandments of God.. You must mean something other than that.. Please explain your definition.. If you do mean obedience to be TOTAL COMPLIANCE tell me how anyone can be saved since all people sin? Maybe you have a different definition of sin? I understand sin and disobedience to God's commandments. I extend that to disobedience to God perfect will but I won't hold you to that.. Just explain your meaning of obedience and sin, please..



You continue to address faith--is that dead faith you are referring to?

I have never mentioned dead faith as having any authority to access the grace of God have I? I don't remember doing so. But I also have denied that works have anything to do with salvation.. God judge whether a persons faith is saving faith or a dead faith.. It is not up to me, and it is not up to you.. There are believers that are not capable physically or financially to feed the hungry, cloth the naked, or care for the widow and orphans.. Many times they show their faith by receiving the love gifts of others because they are the Poor.. Still they don't show respect of persons, they love others and believe God.. Is such a faith dead because you don't see it working? The man who begged Jesus to save his son (Mark 9:20-24) saying "Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief." To that Jesus cast the evil spirit from the Boy.. Why? Because even a small faith has saving qualities.. You may stop judging others faith now.. You may accept it each and every time a person confesses Jesus with their mouth trusting that they believe in their heart.. Since it is spelled out so clearly in the Bible that salvation is a work of God's grace through Faith and NOT OF WORKS it is not up to you to judge the extent of another persons faith.. James is asking each believer to evaluate their own faith.. Is is real faith, are you putting it to work? that is between the believer and God. You are not part of that decision. The only one you are allowed to judge as to whether your faith is alive or dead is God, and YOU..


The LDS church teach all those who refuse to obey Christ do not receive of His salvational grace:

Hebrews 5:9----King James Version (KJV)


9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Again I have to ask what you define obey to mean.. It is all God has commanded or it is only that which you see as something you accept as being obedient to?


I do. I deny that. It's God's grace that saves.

So the p***ages in the Bible that tell us we are saved by faith are lies? Ok, you deny John 3:16, Romans 3:22, Romans 3:28-30, Gal. 2:16, Phil. 3:9, and 1 Tim. 1:16 as the starting point for your denial of the Bible.. IHS jim

dberrie2000
01-11-2014, 03:36 PM
While I never call the word of God Baseless I call your remakes you add without any authority nothing but baseless.. You said "The fact is ... faith alone theology is false--regardless of how you believe it is to be administered..." That is baseless..

No it is not. If Mark 16:16 is true--faith alone theology is false:

Mark 16:16---King James Version (KJV)

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


I do believe that baptism is commanded, BUT I can't prove that in the text of the Bible and neither can you..

Acts2:38 is an imperative sentence--which is a command:


Acts 2:38---King James Version (KJV)

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.


Still taking the commandment given to believers to "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:19) tells me that a believer is commanded to submit to baptism. But where is water mentioned in that commandment? Could baptism be a baptism of the heart as the Amish teach? Could it be sprinkling as Roman church and many protestant churches teach? Or could it be the baptism of the believer that most Christian churches teach.. Hey Good Shepard Lutheran (I call them Catholic lite) offers baptism by immersion to believers that request it.. I happen to believe that any baptism God draws a believer to is the right baptism for that believer. Unlike the LDS I will not play Holy Spirit in the spiritual life of the believer. Every Christian church I have had any ***ociation with, whether that included membership of just visitor status baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost just as Matthew 28:19 calls for. But do you believe such baptisms are valid? No, Why not?

Not without priesthood authority to perform the ordinance. If anyone can perform ordinances--then why not let your wife baptize?


And what is this obedience you keep talking about.. I thought I understood what obedience is but it seems that you mean something other than what I believe obedience to be. I see obedience as total compliance to all the commandments of God.. You must mean something other than that.. Please explain your definition..

I believe obedience can be applied to any command of God--or all of them.


If you do mean obedience to be TOTAL COMPLIANCE tell me how anyone can be saved since all people sin?

I believe in repentance--and the forgiveness of sins:


Matthew 6:9-13---King James Version (KJV)

9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

James--the LDS believe the perfection process extends into the eternities.


I have never mentioned dead faith as having any authority to access the grace of God have I? I don't remember doing so.

The faith alone believe that dead faith saves them. They believe in faith alone for salvation--faith without works whatsoever--for salvation. Faith that is alone for salvation. No works necessary.


But I also have denied that works have anything to do with salvation..

I know--which means you believe that dead faith saves one:

James 2:26---King James Version (KJV)

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

dberrie2000
01-11-2014, 03:39 PM
http://www.biblegateway.com/p***age/?search=Mark+16&version=NIV
[The earliest m****cripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]

These verses were not part of the original. Right?

There are no originals. We have only copies. Are you saying that the Bible teaches false doctrines?

Mark 16:16---King James Version (KJV)

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

Billyray
01-13-2014, 03:52 AM
See Mark 16 in any modern edition such as the NIV or NASB and see the notation. . .
[The earliest m****cripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]


There are no originals. We have only copies. Are you saying that the Bible teaches false doctrines?

Mark 16:16---King James Version (KJV)

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be ****ed.
You didn't address what I said. Don't you believe that these verses were a late addition that were not part of the original?

Billyray
01-13-2014, 04:03 AM
Are you saying that the Bible teaches false doctrines?

Not at all. Why did you falsely ***ume that from what I have said?

RealFakeHair
01-13-2014, 01:26 PM
Would the "mormon god" include this one?


Mark 16:16---King James Version (KJV)

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

What would you describe as the "great and abominable church"--and why? All the faith alone sermons I used to hear described the Catholic church as such.

If I thought you believe these verse I would conversate with you, but of course you don't

John T
01-13-2014, 10:30 PM
If I thought you believe these verse I would conversate with you, but of course you don't

Thanks to your reply, I can see the problems that Berrie is creating.

The ending to Mark, specifically verses 9 to the end have been problematic, since the time of Erasmus. From this monitor, it appears as if he may be taking sources from BYU HERE (http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/king-james-bible-and-restoration/6-endings-mark-and-revelation) However, since I cam not see his quotes, it is impossible for me to lay a charge of plagiarism against him.

One important quote to understand the difficulty that the LDS people have drealing with the truth, and what actually happened is this quote from the above resource:

'
“I can see what utter madness it is even to put a finger on that part of theology which is specially concerned with the mysteries of the faith unless one is furnished with the equipment of Greek as well, since the translators of Scripture, in their scrupulous manner of constructing the text, offer such literal versions of Greek idioms that no one ignorant of that language could grasp even the primary, or, as our own theologians call it, literal meaning” (Ep. 149).[21] (http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/king-james-bible-and-restoration/6-endings-mark-and-revelation#_edn21) One could hardly expect Erasmus, who was pioneering into new territories, to be as critical with his Greek New Testament as he was with his Latin Vulgate.

21] (http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/king-james-bible-and-restoration/6-endings-mark-and-revelation#_ednref21) Edwin Yamauchi, “Erasmus’ Contributions to New Testament Scholarship,” into new territories, to be as critical with his Greek New Testament as he was with his Latin Vulgate

.
One thing that the academically inclined will notice is how skillfully the LDS author mixed the work of the noted Evangelical scholar, Edwin Yamauchi with uninformed opinion, and essentially says that Erasmus was an uninformed dummy. In fact, Erasmus was so skillful in his work, that over 500 years since his publication of the New Testament his works are STILL considered authoritative.

More to the point is the fact that from his own study, Erasmus knew that there were certain corruptions that had entered into the Latin versions of the NT, because he compared the then-current editions of the Latin New Testament with the Magnum Opus of Jerome, his Vulgate (common) edition. And the ONLY reason why Erasmus included the diusputed texts into his second edition is that some obscure Monk found an anonymous Greek m****cript with the disputed texts in it. Because that Greek New Testament has never been found anywhere in the 500 years since, there is a strong belief that the m****cript presented to Erasmus was a forgery.

Finally, there is the congruence to other Scriptures to consider. Since Evangelicals believe that Scripture is its own, and best interpreter, it is important to understand that if something is mentioned in a disputed text only, there is reasonable doubt that this was an insertion by an unknown scribe for an unknown reason and for an unknown intent.

If a doctrine is taught in one place in the Bible, it will be repeated, and repeated clearly. That doctrine is called the "Perspicuity of Scripture", and it is obvious that the Mormon authors of the above-cited article do not hold to that. That being said, there is a remote possibility that that rogue copiest who did the insertion did so with the incident of Paul being bit by a snake in Acts 28:3. However it is only conjecture, and since there are no other verses that mention not being harmed by vipers, it is not a good idea to go audition for the TV reality show "Snake Salvation" :D

Therefore the intent of the poster is exposed as well as the sources he uses.

Christians be of good cheer, for there is no hammer that can flatten the Word of God. all the poster is doing is using a small plastic pretend hammer to destroy the Bible.

I am happy that thanks to realfakehair, I could see Berrie's attempt of taking a pea shooter and hopefully knocking out a M1 A1 Army tank. (Yeah, I like ****ogies in case you haven't guessed)

Apologette
01-14-2014, 09:13 AM
Would the "mormon god" include this one?


Mark 16:16---King James Version (KJV)

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

What would you describe as the "great and abominable church"--and why? All the faith alone sermons I used to hear described the Catholic church as such.

While the verses you quote have long been considered an addition to the original m****cript, let's look at baptism for a minute. Certainly baptism has long been considered the entrance rite in many sacramental churches. Anglicans, for instance, consider baptism to be the outward sign of the inward grace (of regeneration). While Christians are divided on the importance of baptism, they are united on its means: it must be with water, and it must be done with the Trinitarian formula: In the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In other words, baptism with Coca Cola in the names of Jack, Joe and Moe would be an invalid baptism. Also, baptism must be performed by someone with the authority to do so. Most Christians believe that any Christian who has been validly baptized can perform the baptismal act if needed. Notice I use the term "validly baptized." In other words, if the situation arose that a person requested baptism, and no pastoral authority could do that (say in a prison situation where a convert requests baptism prior to execution and no pastor was available, I, as a VALIDLY baptized Christian, could baptize that person). As a Christian, I come under Christ's command: Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Matt. 28:19. This is standard Anglican doctrine, at least, and probably acceptable to most other Christians as well.

(Part 2 continued below)

Apologette
01-14-2014, 09:15 AM
Part 2 (continued from above):

Now, let's look at the Mormons. Neither Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery were ever baptized by a Christian with the authority to baptize in the Triune Name. Supposedly they were reading the Bible, went down to the river and dunked each other. Right there we have an invalid baptism, since baptism must be performed by one with the Scriptural authority to do so. Neither Joe or Oliver had ever been baptized, even as children, and neither, therefore, had any baptismal authority whatsoever. The baptisms were not only irregular, but totally invalid.

Here is the current official LDS account of these spurious baptisms:

" We still continued the <work of> translation, when in the ensuing month (May, Eighteen hundred and twenty nine) we on a certain day went into the woods to pray and enquire of the Lord respecting baptism for the remission of sins as we found mentioned in the translation of the plates. While we were thus employed praying and calling upon the Lord, a Messenger from heaven, descended in a cloud of light, and having laid his hands upon us, he ordained us, saying unto us; "Upon you my fellow servants in the name of Messiah I confer the priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the minist[e]ring of angels and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, and this shall never be taken again from the earth, untill the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness." He said this Aaronic priesthood had not the power of laying on of hands, for the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that this should be conferred on <us> hereafter and he commanded us to go and be baptized, and gave us directions that I should baptize Oliver Cowdery, and afterward that he should baptize me. Accordingly we went and were baptized, I baptized him first, and afterwards he baptized me, after which I laid my hands upon his head and ordained him to the Aaronick priesthood, and afterward he laid his hands on me and ordained me to the same priesthood, for so we were commanded.


Let's take a closer look at this silly version of baptism: First of all, two unbaptized guys do not go to a Christian to receive valid baptism. There was their first mistake, and an act of disobedience. Ignoring what the Bible says, they go down to the river and all of a sudden a dead person, John the Baptist, supposedly resurrected or now transformed into an angel, (this is spiritism, baptism is never performed by spirits or angelic beings, and here we see another case of the occult origin of Mormonism) and incredibly "ordains" Smith and Cowdery to a Jewish priesthood. Note, these two fellows weren't even baptized, but all of a sudden they have the Aaronic priesthood (neither being descendents of Aaron). Then John the Baptist doesn't even baptize these two, but tells the two with this phony Hebrew priesthood to baptize each other. Here is a true enigma! Why would John the Baptist not first baptize these two? Certainly he could have (had he been alive and not dead) baptized them as he had baptized Jesus! But, no, John the Baptist supposedly tells them to baptize one another! Right there we have an enormous problem for Mormons! Joe and Ollie had no authority to baptize a chimpanzee, much less a human being! And neither were descended from Aaron, so they were improper candidates for a Hebrew priesthood!

Then, amazingly, John the Baptist supposedly tells the two, Joe and Oliver, to once again ordain one another to the Aaronic priesthood. Why would that be? Wasn't the first ordination valid, and if it was not, how could the baptisms have been valid in the first place? Ah, folks, when first we practice to deceive, what a tangled web we weave!

Here's what really happened when you remove all the silly embellishments later added to the story by Joe Smith (who is very noted for adding embellishments to other stories, such as the "first vision account"). This is the only true verse in the above account: "Accordingly we went and were baptized, I baptized him first, and afterwards he baptized me, after which I laid my hands upon his head and ordained him to the Aaronick priesthood, and afterward he laid his hands on me and ordained me to the same priesthood, for so we were commanded."

In other words, the two unbaptized, non-Christians went down to the river, baptized each other and then ordained each other with absolutely no authority to do so. John the Baptist was later thrown into the mix to create some authority source other than themselves. Some believe that this John the Baptist was really Sidney Rigdon speaking from t he shores of the river, and while that makes an interesting narrative, I think that is probably not the case. This was a case of Joe and Ollie performing invalid rites upon one another.

And folks, this is the source of all Mormon authority: two unbaptized guys performing invalid rites upon one another! They had no biblical authority to baptize or ordain. They did not seek out the Body of Christ (which they scorned and repudiated), and set themselves up above Biblical counsel! Even Paul had to receive baptism at the hands of a Christian, as did all Christians in the Bible and early church. Joe and Oliver, having turned their backs on the proper vehicle of sacramental administration decided to act outside of the Body of Christ and create their own spurious authority - and it is from this spurious source that all Mormons derive their "authority" to baptize. In other words, folks, ALL Mormon baptisms are totally invalid when considered from the point of authority.

Now, consider the form of baptism. If the form is invalid, no baptism has occurred. For instance, if I baptize someone in the name of Zeus, Aphrodite and Mercury - even if I have used water, the form is invalid since the proper intent to baptize in the Name of the Triune God did not exist. Form must contain a proper intent. As far as Joseph and Oliver were concerned, we have no real way to ascertain their understanding of the Holy Trinity. If we look at the Book of Mormon, we see a semi-Trinitarian, actually somewhat Modalistic, teaching regarding the Godhead. This is no longer embraced by Mormons, although Early Mormons were drawn from Trinitarian ranks and possibly orthodox in this regard. However, as time went on, Joseph Smith developed his own view of God, which he reduced to a paganistic context - actually believing in millions of gods, all exalted men. Smith taught that the god over planet earth was a man raised on another planet who by degrees reached exaltation through obedience to the Mormon gospel, and by performing all the ordinances and rites related to exaltation (which presumably included endowments and marriage in a temple). This Mormon god over planet earth, according to Smith and today's Mormons, is a human being evolved to the level of godhood. He procreated with his goddess wives billions of spirit babies on a planet near Star-base Kolob. The first spirit baby was Jesus, the Second was Satan, thus making Jesus the brother of Satan. Jesus was able to attain "godhood" prior to being born into mortality by some means not explained by the Mormon cult. According to dberrie, Satan also achieved godhood and is a "real god." The Holy Ghost, another spirit baby of the Mormon deity likewise achieved godhood in premortal life. So, folks, when a Mormon today baptizes he does so in the names of three distinct deities (not One God Who is a Trinity): The father (an evolved human from another planet); the son (the first spirit baby of polygamous gods on a planet near Kolob; and the "holy ghost," another baby of polygamous gods. So what we have here, folks, is not only INVALID AUTHORITY but INVALID FORM. In other words, in the view of Christians, Mormons have no Christian baptism at all which is why all true Christian denominations demand that Mormons are REBAPTIZED if they are converted to Christianity.

Now, Mormons claim they are baptized for the remission of sin - however, their baptisms are meaningless, without valid authority or form, and their sins remain. They derive their baptismal theology from Campbellism, and we should recall that the Pratt brothers and Sidney Rigdon were all Campbellites. But as we have demonstrated above, Mormon baptisms are totally without merit outside of the Mormon community, and derive from Joe and Ollie baptizing themselves! Their attempt to legitimize their new religious system derives no authority from Jesus Christ - the very one they have sought to replace with their own "saviors."

Bottom Line to dberrie: YOU are not baptized yourself. Don't lecture Christians about baptism.

RealFakeHair
01-14-2014, 09:21 AM
Thanks to your reply, I can see the problems that Berrie is creating.

The ending to Mark, specifically verses 9 to the end have been problematic, since the time of Erasmus. From this monitor, it appears as if he may be taking sources from BYU HERE (http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/king-james-bible-and-restoration/6-endings-mark-and-revelation) However, since I cam not see his quotes, it is impossible for me to lay a charge of plagiarism against him.

One important quote to understand the difficulty that the LDS people have drealing with the truth, and what actually happened is this quote from the above resource:

'
“I can see what utter madness it is even to put a finger on that part of theology which is specially concerned with the mysteries of the faith unless one is furnished with the equipment of Greek as well, since the translators of Scripture, in their scrupulous manner of constructing the text, offer such literal versions of Greek idioms that no one ignorant of that language could grasp even the primary, or, as our own theologians call it, literal meaning” (Ep. 149).[21] (http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/king-james-bible-and-restoration/6-endings-mark-and-revelation#_edn21) One could hardly expect Erasmus, who was pioneering into new territories, to be as critical with his Greek New Testament as he was with his Latin Vulgate.

21] (http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/king-james-bible-and-restoration/6-endings-mark-and-revelation#_ednref21) Edwin Yamauchi, “Erasmus’ Contributions to New Testament Scholarship,” into new territories, to be as critical with his Greek New Testament as he was with his Latin Vulgate

.
One thing that the academically inclined will notice is how skillfully the LDS author mixed the work of the noted Evangelical scholar, Edwin Yamauchi with uninformed opinion, and essentially says that Erasmus was an uninformed dummy. In fact, Erasmus was so skillful in his work, that over 500 years since his publication of the New Testament his works are STILL considered authoritative.

More to the point is the fact that from his own study, Erasmus knew that there were certain corruptions that had entered into the Latin versions of the NT, because he compared the then-current editions of the Latin New Testament with the Magnum Opus of Jerome, his Vulgate (common) edition. And the ONLY reason why Erasmus included the diusputed texts into his second edition is that some obscure Monk found an anonymous Greek m****cript with the disputed texts in it. Because that Greek New Testament has never been found anywhere in the 500 years since, there is a strong belief that the m****cript presented to Erasmus was a forgery.

Finally, there is the congruence to other Scriptures to consider. Since Evangelicals believe that Scripture is its own, and best interpreter, it is important to understand that if something is mentioned in a disputed text only, there is reasonable doubt that this was an insertion by an unknown scribe for an unknown reason and for an unknown intent.

If a doctrine is taught in one place in the Bible, it will be repeated, and repeated clearly. That doctrine is called the "Perspicuity of Scripture", and it is obvious that the Mormon authors of the above-cited article do not hold to that. That being said, there is a remote possibility that that rogue copiest who did the insertion did so with the incident of Paul being bit by a snake in Acts 28:3. However it is only conjecture, and since there are no other verses that mention not being harmed by vipers, it is not a good idea to go audition for the TV reality show "Snake Salvation" :D

Therefore the intent of the poster is exposed as well as the sources he uses.

Christians be of good cheer, for there is no hammer that can flatten the Word of God. all the poster is doing is using a small plastic pretend hammer to destroy the Bible.

I am happy that thanks to realfakehair, I could see Berrie's attempt of taking a pea shooter and hopefully knocking out a M1 A1 Army tank. (Yeah, I like ****ogies in case you haven't guessed)

I for one don't like opening a can of worms, but I also believe if we took every word out of the Holy Bible tha was even a bit suspicious of its authencticity I believe it wouldn't change the True of Salvation, and the meaning of God's Grace.

Apologette
01-14-2014, 09:31 AM
I for one don't like opening a can of worms, but I also believe if we took every word out of the Holy Bible tha was even a bit suspicious of its authencticity I believe it wouldn't change the True of Salvation, and the meaning of God's Grace.

I believe that the original ending to Mark was probably lost, and someone added the additional details based on tradition; here are some scholarly views:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html

As John mentioned above, "snake salvation," which is part of some cultic groups in the south, is based on the reference to snakes in the addition contained in the KJV. This has led to a cultic fascination with snakes, and not to a few deaths.

RealFakeHair
01-14-2014, 09:50 AM
I believe that the original ending to Mark was probably lost, and someone added the additional details based on tradition; here are some scholarly views:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html

As John mentioned above, "snake salvation," which is part of some cultic groups in the south, is based on the reference to snakes in the addition contained in the KJV. This has led to a cultic fascination with snakes, and not to a few deaths.

You aint lived until you visit a snake handling church. The preaching and music is loud and the men all wear white shirts mostly, and the women are as homely as can be.

Apologette
01-14-2014, 10:41 AM
You aint lived until you visit a snake handling church. The preaching and music is loud and the men all wear white shirts mostly, and the women are as homely as can be.

I'll p***. I believe if a missionary, for instance, is bitten in the course of his ministry, by a poisonous snake, God will protect him or her. We saw this in Paul's ministry. However, this is not something a person should seek out, and we should not tempt God.

James Banta
01-14-2014, 03:54 PM
[dberrie2000;151958]No it is not. If Mark 16:16 is true--faith alone theology is false:]

Mark 16:16---King James Version (KJV)

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

How about we say that both James 2 (All of it) is the truth and that salvation by grace through faith and NOT OF WORK are both true.. I believe Mark 16:8-20 are just as much scripture as any of the Bible.. I see Paul being bitten by a viper after a ship wreck (Acts 28:3) and yet remained unhurt. I believe that those that believe are baptized in the Holy Spirit.. That meets the qualifications Mark's gospel to both believe and be baptized.. You flat ignored the fact that I pointed out that Mark didn't indicate that the baptism he is specking of must be water baptism. I agree that a man who believes is baptized in the Holy Spirit.. You can scream that mark is teaching water baptism all day but that just doesn't match with the rest of the Bible that teaches that all those that believe in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16)..


Acts2:38 is an imperative sentence--which is a command:

Acts 2:38---King James Version (KJV)[/B]
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized[/B] every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

I have no problem with Acts 2:38 being a commandment.. Do you? I see it teaching that repent and are baptized because their sins have been remitted shall receive the Holy Spirit.. I just can't except your version of what this verse means when I have Jesus saying:

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


Not without priesthood authority to perform the ordinance. If anyone can perform ordinances--then why not let your wife baptize?

Good point, why not? isn't it taught that "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal 3:28) Or is that another p***age that the LDS set aside as false? Seems to me you do that a lot.. Jesus (John 3:16), and John (1 John 5:4), taught salvation by faith, Peter also saying that "But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus..." (1 Peter 5:10).. In all the New Testament the priesthood of Jesus is used for one purpose and that is sacrifice.. Priesthood is Not Authority.. Joseph Of Arimathea was a ruler of the Jews a member of the Sanhedrin and yet not one word that he was of the lines of the Priesthood.. John the Baptist was of the linage of Aaron and yet he was locked up then beheaded in court of Herod. Joseph Of Arimathea then had authority and no claim to priesthood while John has a right to the priesthood and no authority.. LDS priesthood just can't be found in either the Old or the New Testaments.. Therefore the LDS have no Biblical priesthood at all.. None from heretic right and none from that which is given to all believers..


I believe obedience can be applied to any command of God--or all of them.
I believe in repentance--and the forgiveness of sins:

What you believe is not representative of what the Bible teaches.. As much as you want to believe that you can obtain righteousness through obedience you haven't shown me one instance in the Bible where any man has claimed to be righteous through their deeds.. You haven't claimed to be righteous yourself through your personal obedience. I have shown you where the Holy Spirit trough the Apostles James has taught us that even in keeping the whole law yet offending in one point makes a person guilty of the whole Law before a righteous God.. This teaching from James 2:10 you have scoffed at and belittled and then in the same context you quote James 2:26 as being God's one true Gospel.. Don't tell me what you believe, it doesn't matter.. Tell me what God teaches in His word..


Matthew 6:9-13---King James Version (KJV)

9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.


I have to argument with God's word..


James--the LDS believe the perfection process extends into the eternities.

To bad they are wrong again.. The Bible teaches that Today is the day of Salvation that now is the accepted time. (2 Corinthians 6:2). Mormonism also teaches that through obedience to Laws and ordinances a man can become exalted after the manner of the Father (Joseph Fielding Smith Jr. in the book Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, p.69 - p.70) said "Mortality is the testing or proving ground for exaltation to find out who among the children of God are worthy to become Gods..." Even he saw that this life is the testing time for "earning" eternal life.. Are you one of those that teaches that God is still perfecting Himself as if there are any failings in His Being? If not how can you say that the perfection process extends into the eternities.. Either God is perfect or He isn't which is it that mormons teach? Smith taught that God is an Exalted Man, a Man of Holiness, a possessor of every power, every divine quality, and every perfected attribute (Bridging the Divide: The Continuing Conversation Between a Mormon and an Evangelical, by Dr. Robert L. Millet and Rev. Gregory C.V. Johnson, 2007, p. 58).. You god is a real weakling still being imperfect..


The faith alone believe that dead faith saves them. They believe in faith alone for salvation--faith without works whatsoever--for salvation. Faith that is alone for salvation. No works necessary.

You question Jesus announcing on the cross that one of the thieves would be with Him in paradise? What works did he have, stealing? Since when is stealing one of the works James used to show examples of the Law of Liberty? James shows us that we must not show respect to persons because of their wealth, We should cloth the naked and feed the hungry, and show mercy to all. Are you ready to judge me or any Christian as not doing these things? Just where is your evidence that I have not seen to the needs of my fellow man, or that I have shown prejudice because of their amount of wealth.. You do know that these things are the Law of Liberty James was speaking of, don't you. Or do you see baptism, laying on of hands, and temple work the way to do the works James is calling the Church to do?


I know--which means you believe that dead faith saves one:

James 2:26---King James Version (KJV)

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.


I accuse the LDS church of teaching a salvation through dead works that are not Biblical.. Dead works like ***hes, temple work for the living and the dead all by a priesthood authority that is unbiblical and therefor nonexistent (Matthew 7:22-23).. I agree with both James and Paul. With James that is we must not ignore the Law of Liberty that tells me to love my fellow man, and Paul that tells me I am called to preform the Good Works that He before ordained that I should preform.. I have been busy telling people like you about Him, I have been a help to those in need, and an aid in giving to those who we as an American people have rejected.. Where am I failing the admonition James gave in this p***age? I am not questioning your helps or giving to the poor.. I have no reason to do so.. What makes you believe you have the right to question mine? Clearly My faith is alive and well and your works seem to be as dead as dry bones.. IHS jim

John T
01-14-2014, 11:12 PM
I for one don't like opening a can of worms, but I also believe if we took every word out of the Holy Bible tha was even a bit suspicious of its authencticity I believe it wouldn't change the True of Salvation, and the meaning of God's Grace.

RFH:

It is not you who are "opening a can of worms" but it is the poster to whom I replied through you who is throwing buckets of untrue and inaccurate things on this forum WITH THE SINGULAR HOPE OF DESTROYING CHRISTIANITY.

As a result, this filth needed to be countered because I can imagine him clicking his heels together under the desk on which he keyboards as an expression of joy because he is spreading so much FALSE things.

You did nothing wrong, RFH. What I did was to scuttle the sources from which he gets that garbage in hopes that he will look very silly if he repeats posting that stuff the Mormons wrote. HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT HE DID NOT CITE HIS SOURCES? Isn't that sort of thing called "PLAGIARISM"??

The things I posted from memory, were things that are not taught in Sunday School, and they come only if one takes much church history in grad school. So they are not usually in the everyday knowledge of church history for Joe and Jane Pewsitter.

If I may, I do want to acknowledge that I find your phrase "if we took every word out of the Holy Bible.. " somewhat troubling. I know your intention was good, not evil. I also agree with what I essentially believe you are saying, but for me, a person who takes the inerrancy of Scripture very seriously, that a study of the nature and transmission of Canon to find the truth of this, and similar small "questionable" sections of Scripture does not take away ANYTHING from the full God-inspired text of the New Testament; rather I believe it enhances it.

No, I am not correcting you; instead, it is my aim to supply you with knowledge, and if you PM me, I can give you the ***les some wonderful books to buy which coverf the area I just described.

In the interim, remember that it is the one who attempts to destroy the Bible who will ultimately face the wrath of God. It is a true saying, "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of an angry God."

nrajeffreturns
01-15-2014, 06:44 AM
I believe that the original ending to Mark was probably lost, and someone added the additional details based on tradition...

But what about

"God's word will not return void" and
"God is able to keep His words from being tampered with" and
"The Bible is 100% complete" ????

RealFakeHair
01-15-2014, 09:44 AM
But what about

"God's word will not return void" and
"God is able to keep His words from being tampered with" and
"The Bible is 100% complete" ????

I do know that the LDSinc. is 100% complete BS!

nrajeffreturns
01-16-2014, 06:42 AM
I do know that the LDSinc. is 100% complete BS!

100% complete Backed by the Savior! Correct! :)

RealFakeHair
01-16-2014, 08:52 AM
100% complete Backed by the Savior! Correct! :)

Well not exactly, but keep trying.

nrajeffreturns
01-16-2014, 09:47 PM
Well not exactly, but keep trying.

100% Blessed and Saved ?

James Banta
01-17-2014, 08:28 AM
100% Blessed and Saved ?

Aren't most of us that live in the United States BLESSED? The Christian is Justified and Saved.. IHS jim

nrajeffreturns
01-17-2014, 01:46 PM
Aren't most of us that live in the United States BLESSED? The Christian is Justified and Saved.. IHS jim

Then I guess anyone who believes they're automatically saved the moment they merely believe, is full of B.S., right Jim? :)

RealFakeHair
01-17-2014, 03:42 PM
Then I guess anyone who believes they're automatically saved the moment they merely believe, is full of B.S., right Jim? :)

Well maybe you can help me out anyways, at what point is a person exaltated after he believes in the real Jesus of the Holy Bible?

nrajeffreturns
01-17-2014, 10:51 PM
Well maybe you can help me out anyways
I am willing to try.


at what point is a person exaltated after he believes in the real Jesus of the Holy Bible?
LDS doctrine is that when you first accept Jesus and decide to have faith in Him, that's the first step onto the path that leads to eternal life. There is a second step, a third step, and so on. If you stay on the path all the way to its end, then it will lead you to that destination. On Judgment Day, those who followed the path will inherit eternal life. Those who chose other paths will get what awaits them at those other destinations.

There are Bible verses to support this doctrine, if you are interested.

James Banta
01-18-2014, 01:04 PM
I am willing to try.


LDS doctrine is that when you first accept Jesus and decide to have faith in Him, that's the first step onto the path that leads to eternal life. There is a second step, a third step, and so on. If you stay on the path all the way to its end, then it will lead you to that destination. On Judgment Day, those who followed the path will inherit eternal life. Those who chose other paths will get what awaits them at those other destinations.

There are Bible verses to support this doctrine, if you are interested.

I am interested, show them to us we can discuss them.. Maybe I am seeing the Bible with perverted eyesight, maybe you are.. Then again it's most likely the same verses I have answered again and again. The verses that are calling for obedience as the quilifier to salvation. The same obedience that no LDS I have ever spoken to has claimed to have.. IHS jim

RealFakeHair
01-21-2014, 11:46 AM
I am willing to try.


LDS doctrine is that when you first accept Jesus and decide to have faith in Him, that's the first step onto the path that leads to eternal life. There is a second step, a third step, and so on. If you stay on the path all the way to its end, then it will lead you to that destination. On Judgment Day, those who followed the path will inherit eternal life. Those who chose other paths will get what awaits them at those other destinations.

There are Bible verses to support this doctrine, if you are interested.

Great, now I am a very lazy person so could you bring it down to maybe just 3 steps?

James Banta
01-21-2014, 12:38 PM
Then I guess anyone who believes they're automatically saved the moment they merely believe, is full of B.S., right Jim? :)

Wrong jeff. those that don't believe in the God revealed in the Bible are those that are ****ed.. All who believe no matter what works they have done are saved.. All those who are saved are saved by the grace of God.. Grace in UNMERITED favor.. It can't be earned or deserved it is only bestowed. Salvation, as Paul puts it, is either by grace or by works. It is NOT BOTH.. Since he makes it clear that it is by grace and NOT OF WORKS.. You are being 100% unbiblical.. Now show me that Paul was a liar, and while you are doing that show me also that Jesus is a liar too as he said that those that believe in Him will not perish but have everlasting life.. Give up this man invented earn and gain salvation that mormonism teaches and come to the Jesus of the Bible that did all the work and offers you His salvation through Faith in Him.. IHS jim

neverending
01-21-2014, 12:40 PM
I am willing to try.


LDS doctrine is that when you first accept Jesus and decide to have faith in Him, that's the first step onto the path that leads to eternal life. There is a second step, a third step, and so on. If you stay on the path all the way to its end, then it will lead you to that destination. On Judgment Day, those who followed the path will inherit eternal life. Those who chose other paths will get what awaits them at those other destinations.

There are Bible verses to support this doctrine, if you are interested.

Are you referring to the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms? Let's not mince words. Those who know Mormonism are aware of the 3 different heavens. Is it also true that you don't believe in hell even though the Bible makes it quite clear that it does exist and is where unbelievers will go along with blasphemers, the sons of perdition and Satan and his minions.
Matthew 10:28, "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (NKJV) (http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/p/newkingjamesver.htm) Matthew 25:41, "Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels (http://christianity.about.com/od/whatdoesthebiblesay/a/angelsbible.htm) ...' " (NKJV)

Matthew 13:41–42, "The Son of Man (http://christianity.about.com/od/newtestamentpeople/p/jesuschrist.htm) will send his angels, and they will remove from his Kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. And the angels will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (NLT)
Matthew 13:50, ... throwing the wicked into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (NLT) Revelation 20:15, "And anyone whose name was not found recorded in the Book of Life (http://christianity.about.com/od/glossary/qt/JZ-Book-Of-Life.htm) was thrown into the lake of fire.' (NLT)

I will be in the telestial kingdom according to the Stake President when James and I were questioning and had our doubts about the truthfulness of J.Smith and Mormonism. Yes, and we were told we would be there along with King David. "WOW" James said, "for if God can call David a man after his own heart, then it must be quite the place."

James Banta
01-21-2014, 12:45 PM
Great, now I am a very lazy person so could you bring it down to maybe just 3 steps?


I don't believe jeff can cut it down.. You better stay with Jesus, He cut it down to just trusting Him.. One little thing and then when those time hit you and your faith is shaken He saves us in our puny weak faith.. Once you have a child that child is yours forever. My son is 40.. He has had trouble with wanting to be my son but I never let him go.. You were born spiritually of Him, he will never let you go either.. Once you are born of Him you are His forever He will never let you go.. IHS jim

RealFakeHair
01-21-2014, 01:32 PM
I don't believe jeff can cut it down.. You better stay with Jesus, He cut it down to just trusting Him.. One little thing and then when those time hit you and your faith is shaken He saves us in our puny weak faith.. Once you have a child that child is yours forever. My son is 40.. He has had trouble with wanting to be my son but I never let him go.. You were born spiritually of Him, he will never let you go either.. Once you are born of Him you are His forever He will never let you go.. IHS jim

Well, I might let it go to step four, but that's it. I'm exhausted just thinking about it.