Why would anyone remain in the mormon church? [Archive]

MickeyS

02-26-2016, 01:33 PM

There is only one Bible. There are different versions of the one Bible. There are different in the language of the time that they were translated. There is no doctrinal change in any of them. Go to Bible Gateway and check the “differences". One could say, “Bob poked D i c k in the side for not cooking the bunny enough.” And another could say, “Robert rapped Rick in the ribs for roasting the rabbit so rare.” No Doctrinal change, only language.

Show me the confusion in doctrine between all these translations.

Christian denominations are man made but the Christian Church is God made. There are people from all Christian denominations in the Christian Church. Denominations are not the church. One church but many denominations.

Creeds are not authoritive, they supposedly reflect what is in the Bible. Not all do. Believe the Bible.

Again, which Bible?

The RSV of the Bible shows that God does not value an unborn life as equal to those already born.

In Exodus 21:22-23
the Revised Standard Version of the Bible reads like this

22 When men strive together and hurt a woman with child so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him, and he shall pay as the judges determine

23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life.

Now using the word "miscarriage" means the baby dies. So it's clearly stating that if the child dies only, then a punishment will be a fine, but if the mother died also, it shall be eye for an eye. So in this version of the Bible, God does not view an unborn life as important as that of the born.

In the King James Version is as follows

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

In this p***age, "her fruit departs" meaning exactly that, the baby comes out. If no mischief follow (the baby and mother live) there will be a fine only

However if any mischief follow (the baby or mother, or both dies) then the punishment is life for life.

So depending on what version of the Bible you read, from that one word, it changes the entire mentality of God.

Which one is right??

To say the many translations don't change the message is incorrect. This is a pretty big message to be misinterpreting. So much so that depending on the Bible they use, the Pro-Life side uses it to prove God values all life the same, the Pro-Choice side uses it to prove God Himself doesn't consider the unborn as important as those who are already born.

And I do believe the Bible...the New Testament is quite clear that God and Jesus are separate individuals and that Christ is subordinate to
His Father. It was the creeds that decided differently.

BigJulie

02-29-2016, 07:28 PM

There is only one Bible. There are different versions of the one Bible. There are different in the language of the time that they were translated. There is no doctrinal change in any of them. Go to Bible Gateway and check the “differences". One could say, “Bob poked D i c k in the side for not cooking the bunny enough.” And another could say, “Robert rapped Rick in the ribs for roasting the rabbit so rare.” No Doctrinal change, only language.

Show me the confusion in doctrine between all these translations.

Christian denominations are man made but the Christian Church is God made. There are people from all Christian denominations in the Christian Church. Denominations are not the church. One church but many denominations.

Creeds are not authoritive, they supposedly reflect what is in the Bible. Not all do. Believe the Bible.

NIV Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

KJV: Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

My question --why do none of the new versions of the Bible have the word "Godhead"--and why was it placed their originally?

So, I went to Strongs Concordance and found this for Romans 1:20

The Greek word in this case is "Theiotes" which translates as (feminine noun) "divinity, divine nature"--seems like the NIV is more correct, right? But then, why not use divine nature in the first place? Where would the KJV get Godhead? So, I look up the root of the word "theios" and the definition is (adjective) "the general name of deities or divinities used by the Greeks" and "spoken of the only true and living God: The Father, of Christ, Holy Spirit."

The three usages in the Bible for "theios" is--

Act 17:29
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

2Pe 1:3
According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

2Pe 1:4
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

When I look at all of these versus together--and the teachings in context, Godhead would be the best description. Because to understand the Godhead allows us to understand how we are the offspring of God, can receive his divine power, and receive the great and precious promises of being partakers of this divine nature. To remove the word "Godhead" removes the understanding of this divine nature.

Saxon

02-29-2016, 11:45 PM

Again, which Bible?

Again, there is only one Bible. There are different versions of the one Bible.

The RSV of the Bible shows that God does not value an unborn life as equal to those already born.

That is unfounded conjecture. The Bible is clear that God IS love. Love does not fail. Love loves. Love is God’s at***ude toward mankind. The verse is is in the context of law and justice, with no mention that God loves. God’s love is not in question or part of the context. You have just thrown that in when it isn’t there.

In Exodus 21:22-23
the Revised Standard Version of the Bible reads like this

22 When men strive together and hurt a woman with child so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him, and he shall pay as the judges determine

23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life.

Now using the word "miscarriage" means the baby dies. So it's clearly stating that if the child dies only, then a punishment will be a fine, but if the mother died also, it shall be eye for an eye. So in this version of the Bible, God does not view an unborn life as important as that of the born.

In the King James Version is as follows

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

In this p***age, "her fruit departs" meaning exactly that, the baby comes out. If no mischief follow (the baby and mother live) there will be a fine only

However if any mischief follow (the baby or mother, or both dies) then the punishment is life for life.

I am not a Hebrew reader I read English. What you are trying to push is not in agreement with what the Bible says about God and God’s love.

The translators were of different times and separated by centuries and our understanding of the English language has changed as time goes by and the English vocabulary also changes.

The following comment is more in line with what we know the love of God to be and is an explanation that is in line with what the Bible says of the love of God.

When men strive together and they hurt unintentionally a woman with child, and her children come forth but no mischief happens—that is, the woman and the children do not die—the one who hurts her shall surely be punished by a fine. But if any mischief happens, that is, if the woman dies or the children, then you shall give life for life. (Commentary on the Book of Exodus, Magnes Press, 1967)

If you want to believe your contradictory theory, you are certainly free to do so.

So depending on what version of the Bible you read, from that one word, it changes the entire mentality of God.

Which one is right??

To say the many translations don't change the message is incorrect. This is a pretty big message to be misinterpreting. So much so that depending on the Bible they use, the Pro-Life side uses it to prove God values all life the same, the Pro-Choice side uses it to prove God Himself doesn't consider the unborn as important as those who are already born.

And I do believe the Bible...the New Testament is quite clear that God and Jesus are separate individuals and that Christ is subordinate to
His Father. It was the creeds that decided differently.

If you always read the Bible as you have demonstrated, it is no wonder that you can’t understand what you are reading. They are all correct as to the message of the Bible. Your out of context grabbing of a few verses that don’t even speak about what you ar claiming is not going to lead you to anything but confusion. You seem to be well beyond circling the drain.

Your concept of the relationship that is between God and Jesus is a total bomb. Your Mormon concept has totally blinded you to the fact that there is only one God and that there is no other. The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are the one God. Jesus was God and became a Man. As a man he subjected himself to the Father. The Mormon concept has it backwards and contrary to the Bible that states that God became a man vice man becoming God.

Saxon

03-01-2016, 12:05 AM

When I look at all of these versus together--and the teachings in context, Godhead would be the best description. Because to understand the Godhead allows us to understand how we are the offspring of God, can receive his divine power, and receive the great and precious promises of being partakers of this divine nature. To remove the word "Godhead" removes the understanding of this divine nature.

How did you come to that conclusion? How does “Godhead” allow us to understand how we are the offspring of God?

I see that you have a Strong’s Concordance. You should realize that the Greek has Godhead in the Authorized (King James) version and Divinity and also Divine Nature. These are all valid English terms that can be used to translate Greek to English. The trick is to know what term to use. Greek grammar, if you understand it, will be a major guide as to what is intended and what term is most suitable. If you don’t know the language you can’t just stick any term in there because you think it sounds better, it won’t work with any high degree of accuracy.

2305 yeiothv theiotes thi-ot’-ace

from 2304; TDNT-3:123,322; n f

AV-Godhead 1; 1

1) divinity, divine nature

For Synonyms see entry 5849

BigJulie

03-01-2016, 12:48 AM

How did you come to that conclusion? How does “Godhead” allow us to understand how we are the offspring of God?

I see that you have a Strong’s Concordance. You should realize that the Greek has Godhead in the Authorized (King James) version and Divinity and also Divine Nature. These are all valid English terms that can be used to translate Greek to English. The trick is to know what term to use. Greek grammar, if you understand it, will be a major guide as to what is intended and what term is most suitable. If you don’t know the language you can’t just stick any term in there because you think it sounds better, it won’t work with any high degree of accuracy.

2305 yeiothv theiotes thi-ot’-ace

from 2304; TDNT-3:123,322; n f

AV-Godhead 1; 1

1) divinity, divine nature

For Synonyms see entry 5849

I looked at the root of the word and where it was used. To just say "divine nature" takes away from the greater understanding of the nature of God--the Godhead. Why lose the word "Godhead" from the newer additions? What is so threatening about this word now that was not threatening in earlier times?

BigJulie

03-01-2016, 12:53 AM

The translators were of different times and separated by centuries and our understanding of the English language has changed as time goes by and the English vocabulary also changes.

Your concept of the relationship that is between God and Jesus is a total bomb. Your Mormon concept has totally blinded you to the fact that there is only one God and that there is no other. The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are the one God. Jesus was God and became a Man. As a man he subjected himself to the Father. The Mormon concept has it backwards and contrary to the Bible that states that God became a man vice man becoming God.

Interesting you understand that English changes over time, but do not also acknowledge its counterpart, meaning that as our language changes, so does our understanding of past language. Divine nature, for example, may be fully understood to mean "Godhead" during the KJV times, but now does not?

And your concept of the "nature of God" may have blinded you to the concept of the Godhead--written out by those who no longer understand it be changes in beliefs over the years and what the words actually mean.

MickeyS

03-01-2016, 02:21 PM

Saxon....the word "miscarriage" is used...in English.

Miscarriage is when a baby is born prematurely and dies, it's not out of context...it's plain Englsh.

The two versions are saying completely different things. So now it's more like

"Bob poked Richard in the side for not cooking the rabbit enough" or

"Robert stabbed Rick to death for roasting the rabbit rare"

They're not saying the same thing. Period.

The baby in the ESV version of the scripture is in fact dead, and the only recourse is a fine. I know that God is love, and I know He values ALL human life the same, so I know the ESV is wrong. So that version of the Bible, in those verses, is wrong. God commanded life for life. All human life. Including the unborn. The ESV Bible does not say that. So in that version, the punishment for the death of the baby is not the same as it was. The message is different.

So how much more of that Bible could I trust? I know the Bible is the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly. So it seems your way to fix that would be to use a different book to help you understand it, at which time you would know the ESV Bible is INCORRECT. So to say all Bibles are saying the same thing, again, is inaccurate. And also brings up another issue...what Bible commentary should be used, because they all have differences in interpretation too, just saying.

I'm not misinterpreting anything, I'm reading the English text.

Saxon

03-01-2016, 10:22 PM

Interesting you understand that English changes over time, but do not also acknowledge its counterpart, meaning that as our language changes, so does our understanding of past language. Divine nature, for example, may be fully understood to mean "Godhead" during the KJV times, but now does not?

2305 yeiothv theiotes thi-ot’-ace

from 2304; TDNT-3:123,322; n f

AV-Godhead 1; 1

1) divinity, divine nature

For Synonyms see entry 5849

godhead

noun
Divinity; godhood.
Godhead
a. The Christian God, especially the Trinity.
b. The essential and divine nature of God, regarded abstractly.

Origin of godhead
Middle English godhode, godhede, from Old English godh&amacron;d : god, god; see god + -h&amacron;d, -hood.

Read more at http://www.yourdictionary.com/godhead#websters#7TcSFQJLZMI2HfRG.99

It appears that the term “Godhead” is a late arrival. The Greek term used as godhead means divinity, divine nature. The English term, godhead is not derived from the Greek but is an English term used in the following three verses.

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

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Divinity or divine nature will work as well. I think better as it gets to the point of Jesus being God without any foolishness of The Father, Son and Holy Ghost being three solitary beings.

And your concept of the "nature of God" may have blinded you to the concept of the Godhead--written out by those who no longer understand it be changes in beliefs over the years and what the words actually mean.

“My” concept of the nature of God is from the Greek term that Luke and Paul used before there was ever an English language, let alone the English term “Godhead”.

Saxon

03-01-2016, 11:09 PM

Saxon....the word "miscarriage" is used...in English.

Miscarriage is when a baby is born prematurely and dies, it's not out of context...it's plain Englsh.

What is out of context is your use of the verse you quoted to jump to the conclusion that God loves an unborn human less than a born human. The “out of context” is that the verse is not speaking or referring ti the love of God toward man, still in the womb or not.

The two versions are saying completely different things. So now it's more like

"Bob poked Richard in the side for not cooking the rabbit enough" or

"Robert stabbed Rick to death for roasting the rabbit rare"

They're not saying the same thing. Period.

What you wrote is not saying the same thing because you are not saying what I said. Your version of what I said is totally corrupt.

I said:

“Bob poked D i c k in the side for not cooking the bunny enough”, and “Robert rapped Rick in the ribs for roasting the rabbit so rare.”

The baby in the ESV version of the scripture is in fact dead, and the only recourse is a fine. I know that God is love, and I know He values ALL human life the same, so I know the ESV is wrong. So that version of the Bible, in those verses, is wrong. God commanded life for life. All human life. Including the unborn. The ESV Bible does not say that. So in that version, the punishment for the death of the baby is not the same as it was. The message is different.

So how much more of that Bible could I trust? I know the Bible is the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly. So it seems your way to fix that would be to use a different book to help you understand it, at which time you would know the ESV Bible is INCORRECT. So to say all Bibles are saying the same thing, again, is inaccurate. And also brings up another issue...what Bible commentary should be used, because they all have differences in interpretation too, just saying.

I'm not misinterpreting anything, I'm reading the English text.

How do you know if it is translated correctly?? You obviously don’t know. If you took the time to have an honest look for yourself you would see that it is correctly translated because all the versions say the same thing. The operative word is “honest”

Look at the verse you quoted from Exodus and compare the statement below.

When men strive together and they hurt unintentionally a woman with child, and her children come forth but no mischief happens—that is, the woman and the children do not die—the one who hurts her shall surely be punished by a fine. But if any mischief happens, that is, if the woman dies or the children, then you shall give life for life. (Commentary on the Book of Exodus, Magnes Press, 1967)

And Mormons don’t have different books to help you understand Mormon theology??

I am not saying that you are misinterpreting anything because you are not interpreting, but as you said, reading the English text. What you are doing is miss-reading the English text. You failed to see what the rest of the book says about the love of God before you make declarations of God’s love based on a verse that is not even referring to God’s love.

The Bible needs to be studied and cross-refer within the Bible, not simply read like a novel. If you want to claim to know what the Bible says, you need to do some work and dig out the whole idea from the Bible.

MickeyS

03-01-2016, 11:34 PM

What is out of context is your use of the verse you quoted to jump to the conclusion that God loves an unborn human less than a born human. The “out of context” is that the verse is not speaking or referring ti the love of God toward man, still in the womb or not.

What you wrote is not saying the same thing because you are not saying what I said. Your version of what I said is totally corrupt.

I said:

“Bob poked D i c k in the side for not cooking the bunny enough”, and “Robert rapped Rick in the ribs for roasting the rabbit so rare.”

How do you know if it is translated correctly?? You obviously don’t know. If you took the time to have an honest look for yourself you would see that it is correctly translated because all the versions say the same thing. The operative word is “honest”

Look at the verse you quoted from Exodus and compare the statement below.

When men strive together and they hurt unintentionally a woman with child, and her children come forth but no mischief happens—that is, the woman and the children do not die—the one who hurts her shall surely be punished by a fine. But if any mischief happens, that is, if the woman dies or the children, then you shall give life for life. (Commentary on the Book of Exodus, Magnes Press, 1967)

And Mormons don’t have different books to help you understand Mormon theology??

I am not saying that you are misinterpreting anything because you are not interpreting, but as you said, reading the English text. What you are doing is miss-reading the English text. You failed to see what the rest of the book says about the love of God before you make declarations of God’s love based on a verse that is not even referring to God’s love.

The Bible needs to be studied and cross-refer within the Bible, not simply read like a novel. If you want to claim to know what the Bible says, you need to do some work and dig out the whole idea from the Bible.

You are simultaneously misunderstanding what I am saying and proving my point.

No I did not say the same thing you did, because the two versions of the same verses did not say the same thing, I was giving a more appropriate version of your quote, because they each say something different.

But now you are saying it's ok if the Bibles are all different as long as the one message "God is love" is conveyed. However if a person seeking God only read the ESV and came across these verses, it would seem incompatible with who God really is. What conclusion is one to come to after reading that the death of an unborn child is not punishable the same as that of the mother? What message DOES that convey?

You are no longer addressing my original point and that is "THESE TWO VERSIONS SAY DIFFERENT THINGS"

Your example of Rick and Bob was saying the Bibles say the same EXACT thing through their translations, I showed you verse that shows that is incorrect.

One version shows the baby is either alive (no mischief follows) or not (mischief follows)
The other version the baby died in both situations.

They are different....do you not see that the two versions are saying completely different things? Did you look at the ESV verses and compare it to your study guide? They say different things.

You have to see that. I'm not saying I don't study the Bible. I'm not saying I don't use study guides. I do. I study the Bible, I study the Book of Mormon - Another Testament of Jesus Christ, and I rely upon modern day revelation that comes directly from God and clears of any confusions in doctrine. I don't have a perfect knowledge of everything, of course not, I learn more everyday. But no, I don't read the Bible "like a novel" lol

That does not change the facts that the various translations of the Bible do not agree in places, leave verses or words completely out (if those verses were unimportant then why were they there in the first place?) those are the facts. I was merely pointing that out.

But it's ok, you'll continue on with what you're saying, and you'll continue to show disdain for my faith, that's fine. I've seen your comments in the past, you'll continue to dance around this. So, carry on. But I'm not going to keep saying this over and over. I've shown the direct differences, you'll just keep choosing to ignore them, so, I will ignore as well :)

BigJulie

03-02-2016, 12:00 AM

2305 yeiothv theiotes thi-ot’-ace

from 2304; TDNT-3:123,322; n f

AV-Godhead 1; 1

1) divinity, divine nature

For Synonyms see entry 5849

godhead

noun
Divinity; godhood.
Godhead
a. The Christian God, especially the Trinity.
b. The essential and divine nature of God, regarded abstractly.

Origin of godhead
Middle English godhode, godhede, from Old English godh&amacron;d : god, god; see god + -h&amacron;d, -hood.

Read more at http://www.yourdictionary.com/godhead#websters#7TcSFQJLZMI2HfRG.99

It appears that the term “Godhead” is a late arrival. The Greek term used as godhead means divinity, divine nature. The English term, godhead is not derived from the Greek but is an English term used in the following three verses.

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

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Divinity or divine nature will work as well. I think better as it gets to the point of Jesus being God without any foolishness of The Father, Son and Holy Ghost being three solitary beings.

“My” concept of the nature of God is from the Greek term that Luke and Paul used before there was ever an English language, let alone the English term “Godhead”.

Without any foolishness of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? That is foolishness? I thought that is the description of your God?

And how do you see being the offspring of God and partakers of this divine nature?

Saxon

03-02-2016, 10:33 AM

The foolishness thinking that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three I dividual gods. Do you misrepresent my post on purpose?

alanmolstad

03-02-2016, 11:10 AM

The foolishness thinking that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three I dividual gods. Do you misrepresent my post on purpose?

lets be very clear then..

the father is God almighty
The Son is God almighty
The Spirit is God almighty.

Yet there are not 3 gods, but only One.>

The father is not more god than the Son is.

The Spirit is not less God almighty than the Father is.

Each person is the one true God...
But the father is not the Son
The Spirit is not the Son too.

So what we say is that "Within the nature of the one true God there are 3 persons"

MickeyS

03-02-2016, 02:13 PM

lets be very clear then..

the father is God almighty
The Son is God almighty
The Spirit is God almighty.

Yet there are not 3 gods, but only One.>

The father is not more god than the Son is.

The Spirit is not less God almighty than the Father is.

Each person is the one true God...
But the father is not the Son
The Spirit is not the Son too.

So what we say is that "Within the nature of the one true God there are 3 persons"

But if you read the Bible, it is abundantly clear that The Son is subordinate to The Father. I don't know how many times He had to say it, but He made sure He constantly spoke of The Father being greater than Him. So how can He be less than and the same as His Father?? Because He is a separate individual who is less than The Father, but is equal to and United in terms of purpose as a member of the Godhead. But the "chain of command" as it were, is that God's Will is carried out by The Son. GOD's will, GOD's plan...which is in turn carried out by The Son and The Holy Ghost.

To me it's a perfect chain of command. All things are by GOD's Hand...He directs the earth and mankind through His servants. The physical (Jesus Christ as the Jehovah of the OT acting directly on behalf of His Father, The Atonement and Resurrection) and the spiritual (The Holy Ghost dwelling within us to confirm, protect and guide us on behalf of The Father) each of these Beings serve their purpose, but it's still The Father's purpose. It's like a corporation, or army or church...anything...that has a head (God) and then those who work for and in behalf of the head.

I still don't see how trinitarians reconcile the fact they believe The Father and Son are the same Being, then believe that God has no physical body, but Christ has a body....if they were the same being, wouldn't that mean God has a body too?? Also, if you believe God is unchanging from beginning to end....how do you explain Him gaining a physical body along the way? The second that happened, it changed the entire dynamic of the trinity, and how do you do believe that and believe it's unchanging?? It literally changed. It's fraught with complete contradiction.

Understanding Gods Nature explains our purpose, divine nature and eternal destiny, through the importance of family, the importance of a physical body....I try to look at it from the other side and there are so many things that just don't...make...sense.

These are the irreconcilable discrepancies I find when attempting to believe God never has had a body, or been part of a family (although we call Him Father)

How do you explain the importance of marriage and family from the beginning of time? If God holds no importance of the concept of family, since He never had one and we won't have one after this life....WHY is it so important IN this life? So important that His Son had to enter this life within a family of a lawfully wed husband and wife. Where did this concept of husband and wife even come from, and why is it one of the most sacred things on this earth? Further, why would God give us the concept and COMMANDMENT of family, teach us the importance and joys of living within the parameters of HOLY matrimony, only for us to never have the opportunity to experience the fullness of what that means ever again?

How do you explain the obvious importance of the physical body....SO important, that Jesus Christ had to gain one, suffer and die with one, only to be reunited with it. If a physical body holds no personal meaning or importance to God, since He's never had one, then WHY is it so important that we be reunited with ours? And if you believe we're "made in His image" even if that means our spirits and not our bodies....again, WHY is the body SO important?? If we were made in His image as spirit, why then do we not just go back and dwell solely in spirit like He does? To strap us with our physical bodies again, if you believe the spirit alone is the greatest level one could reach (as you would believe he is) wouldn't be seen as a great reward, would it?

Yeah, I know ive rambled here, I just am trying to see how you view the importance of family and our bodies in an eternal perspective and how that relates at all to God and our divine nature (that come from Him)

alanmolstad

03-02-2016, 03:11 PM

But if you read the Bible, it is abundantly clear that The Son is subordinate to The Father. I don't know how many times He had to say it, but He made sure He constantly spoke of The Father being greater than Him. So how can He be less than and the same as His Father??

Because....Of this-

Jesus is fully what?...a dog?....no

fully a worm?.......no

Fully a chair?...........no

The answer is that Jesus is fully "human"
Jesus is just as human as I am.
And being fully human as I am he worships the father just as I and the rest of the Church do.
And being fully human, the Father is greater than he is, just as the father is greeter that I am too.

So when Jesus says that the father is "greater" than he is, he speaks the truth for I can say the same thing!
Both Jesus and I are fully human, and so the father is naturally greater than we are....

But the Bible also says that Jesus is equal to the father....for both are God.

So how does this wrap it all up again?
The answer is that within the nature of God there are 3 persons...(as I said already)

MickeyS

03-02-2016, 05:39 PM

Because....Of this-

Jesus is fully what?...a dog?....no

fully a worm?.......no

Fully a chair?...........no

The answer is that Jesus is fully "human"
Jesus is just as human as I am.
And being fully human as I am he worships the father just as I and the rest of the Church do.
And being fully human, the Father is greater than he is, just as the father is greeter that I am too.

So when Jesus says that the father is "greater" than he is, he speaks the truth for I can say the same thing!
Both Jesus and I are fully human, and so the father is naturally greater than we are....

But the Bible also says that Jesus is equal to the father....for both are God.

So how does this wrap it all up again?
The answer is that within the nature of God there are 3 persons...(as I said already)

I know the Bible says Jesus is equal to God in purpose, especially when he acts completely on His behalf (as Jehovah of the OT) which He does completely as God's representative on this earth. Just as the Holy Ghost acts as His spiritual representative. But God The Father is greater, as no one is equal to or greater than He.

So how can one be "less than" and "equal to"? Because Jesus Christ (who you agree is subordinate to His Father) is a separate individual than His Father, but equal in purpose , THE FATHER's purpose, as part of the Godhead, which is led by, who? God. The Father. Like Tolkien would say, One God to rule them all. There is no other God BESIDE HIM. No one is or ever will be equal to or greater than He.

How does an unchanging God change from God to human to spirit to human again and not change?

Like I said....the whole concept is contradictory.

Do you have any thoughts on what else I said? I haven't been able to get a trinitarian to explain the importance of a physical body and the family unit as it relates to God and our divine nature and eternal destiny. I wouldn't be able to understand what they believe with so many discrepancies of such important aspects of who we are.

Actually....re reading what you said, it seems you actually confirmed what I said. So wow, you actually did wrap it up almost. You almost have it Alan....SO close. Sincerely

alanmolstad

03-02-2016, 05:44 PM

MickeyS

03-02-2016, 06:41 PM

is there a question you want me to answer?

I ask cuz you can write a post with a ton of deep questions and if I just take the first one and try to answer it as best I can ....only to have you suggest I ducked all the others is....
Well its just showing this is not going to work..

I mostly can address one question in one oof posts and even then risk posting too long of a comment to get anything out of.

Are you only afraid of long comments if they don't entail ridicule mocking and copy/paste from other sources? Suddenly you're concerned about the length and frequency of your posts? Your posts can get extremely long winded (as do mine, I'm well aware) so I really didn't think that would be a great hardship. I really didn't, why would I think that would be a problem for you? But suddenly it appears it is and I see you only focus your long posts (as in LONG and many many many) on certain topics. I am trying, again, to address actual things of importance that doesn't include repeated gossip, and of which I never receive answers. Again, really negates the whole idea of a "ministry" here.

And it's funny....I'm not afraid to address your posts...

I also didn't realize you suddenly cared what I thought....interesting.

In the end, the fact that there ARE so many questions....well...that's says a lot in itself I believe. I didn't create the discrepancies, they're already there. But there were two basic topics

Why is our physical body so important?
Why is the family unit so important?

Since in the trinitarian beliefs, God has neither, and never did. Why does He hold them as important?

alanmolstad

03-02-2016, 10:03 PM

Your posts can get extremely long winded Im saying that its a lot more easy if I have to answer one question, than if a person asks a bunch of deep questions, and then when I pick one that is the most interesting and wrote an answer for it, the guy (or gal)suggests that I ducked all the others...

So to make things easy, I try to stick to one question/one answer in each ofmy posts,and even then I might tend to drag it out.

alanmolstad

03-02-2016, 10:03 PM

so again, is there a question you want me to answer?

MickeyS

03-03-2016, 08:09 AM

Im saying that its a lot more easy if I have to answer one question, than if a person asks a bunch of deep questions, and then when I pick one that is the most interesting and wrote an answer for it, the guy (or gal)suggests that I ducked all the others...

So to make things easy, I try to stick to one question/one answer in each ofmy posts,and even then I might tend to drag it out.

I asked two, is that too much??

alanmolstad

03-03-2016, 08:16 AM

MickeyS

03-03-2016, 08:24 AM

alanmolstad

03-03-2016, 08:37 AM

You didn't answer my question, do you not have an answer?

That "is"my answer.

My answer is that all the Mormon teaching on sex/marriage in the afterlife are a joke.

They are the dreamed up ideas of a guy who just wanted to have a bunch of sex with all the young girls he ran into, and needed a good cover story to make it possible.

The whole "God will kill me if you don't submit" line he would use once in a while is like something you would hear in a sleazy singles bar at Last Call....
(Yes, Not very convincing but if added with the right persuasion it worked, not all the time but once in a while)

All the other Mormon teachings on whatever topic you can name that Smith came out with were all the same concept at heart...Namely used in helping him bed-down young girls.

Smith was consumed with his "lust".
It did all his thinking.

In the story I linked to, you find a guy on the run...about to be arrested and killed,yet the moment he is alone with a girl he is after them....
Even on the run the guy couldn't stop!

MickeyS

03-03-2016, 11:39 AM

My question was....what is the importance of family? Why did God make it a holy bond? What is the significance of it? God has a purpose to ALL things. The fact that He commanded it from the beginning of human life on this earth makes it extremely important. What is the importance of it? WHY did GOD (not Joseph Smith) make the family unit something we are to fulfill, uphold and keep sacred??

If you don't have an answer, just say so. Unless you think God arbitrarily gives us commandments that mean nothing save it be just to "do what we're told". Do you not believe God has a purpose for everything He commands of us?

alanmolstad

03-03-2016, 11:46 AM

do you have a question?

alanmolstad

03-03-2016, 12:03 PM

MickeyS

03-03-2016, 12:17 PM

do you have a question?

The fact that you are blatantly ignoring all those question marks shows that you are simply unwilling, or unable to answer my question. Is it because you honestly don't know Gods purpose in creating and sanctifying the family?

You keep bringing up Joseph Snith, I'm talking about GOD. You can't tell me nobody's ever asked these questions before? Anyone, someone who hasn't even heard of the LDS church...nobody's ever asked what the purpose of family is in Gods Plan for us and our future?

alanmolstad

03-03-2016, 12:56 PM

The fact that you are blatantly ignoring all those question marks shows that you ,,,,,,
see post number #26 above...

MickeyS

03-03-2016, 02:54 PM

see post number #26 above...

You also ignored the single question mark. I've been repeating the same question, over and over and over. You have not answered it. I asked it....AGAIN in #35 above.

You can play games all you like. You told me to whittle the question down, I did. You didn't answer it. I repeated it (with additional questions that would have been answered if you simply answered the one question) and you start playing the "only ask me one question" game.

You know what the question is Alan (unless you want me to believe you have a reading comprehension problem)...do you have an answer or not?

BigJulie

03-03-2016, 10:59 PM

The foolishness thinking that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three I dividual gods. Do you misrepresent my post on purpose?

No, I didn't refer to my beliefs, but to yours. The Godhead refers to the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. You stated " I think better as it gets to the point of Jesus being God without any foolishness of The Father, Son and Holy Ghost being three solitary beings."

Okay, so you see "Godhead" or this divine nature ONLY referring to Christ then? and ignores the Father and Son? Is that what you think Paul and Peter meant when they spoke?

BigJulie

03-03-2016, 11:03 PM

Smith made up all that **** about sex/marriage in heaven.

If there is no marriage in heaven, why does Christ refer to Israel as the bride and himself the bridegroom--as if the notion of marriage existing beyond the grave is a known fact?

And why would God sanctify marriage? Why make it holy? Why was family the promise given to Abraham? Mickey S has a good question that you are avoiding.

Apologette

03-19-2016, 11:53 AM

You didn't answer my question, do you not have an answer?

I think he answered it correctly - since you are the one convinced that Smith is a prophet, you must defend that position How about proving he was a prophet?

Apologette

03-19-2016, 11:54 AM

Apologette

03-19-2016, 12:01 PM

If there is no marriage in heaven, why does Christ refer to Israel as the bride and himself the bridegroom--as if the notion of marriage existing beyond the grave is a known fact?

And why would God sanctify marriage? Why make it holy? Why was family the promise given to Abraham? Mickey S has a good question that you are avoiding.

Is there something wrong with the schools that Mormons attend? I've noticed here and over on CARM that Mormons have a dearth of ability to understand what the word "metaphor" means. For instance, we have a strange Mormon over there that says Satan is a real and poweful "god," and will rule over an everlasting kingdom. He posts here as well - dberrie. He doesn't seem to understand that Paul was using a metaphorical phrase, "god of this world" to describe Satan. Based on this poor excuse for Grammar, dberrie has come up with the doctrine that Satan is a real and powerful god - so, unless you Mormons are now teaching that Satan, your "heavenly father's" second son, and Mormon Jesus' literal brother, was exalted without having had a physical body, I'd like to know how Satan was able to become a god in your mythology?

Now, Julie, what do you think the word "bride" is intended to mean in the verse you quoted? Does that mean that Jesus dragged every woman in the body of Christ to some temple and was sealed to them? Does it mean Jesus dragged every MAN in the church into some temple and got sealed to them as well (given the Mormon hatred of anything smacking of ****sexuality, I think you'd have to admit that is not a possibility)? So, what does it mean? Put on an academic hat for a minute, and think it through. Look up the word metaphor, and then you figure out what that verse means.

I don't think Christians should have to explain over and over and over again things that are self-evident by context to even a five year old.

MickeyS

03-20-2016, 07:53 AM

Holy Moly there's a lot of anger or something going on here. My goodness

MickeyS

03-20-2016, 08:09 AM

I think he answered it correctly - since you are the one convinced that Smith is a prophet, you must defend that position How about proving he was a prophet?

Lol, no he didn't answer it at all. I didn't ask him anything about Joseph Smith. I'm asking him about HIS beliefs about God. I'm trying to understand what he believes, because I see gaping holes that don't make sense. So I'm trying to understand.

So, no, he didn't answer my question. A much ruder person than me would say that perhaps there is something wrong with the school's you and Alan attend as there seems to be a "dearth" of reading comprehension going on here. But I'm not. But that could be the direction this conversation could keep heading, but I don't think those remarks are necessary.

These are my questions, please note they have nothing to do with Joseph Smith. Here, I offered this option to Alan, I'll offer it to you. Look at the questions as if a non-Mormon is asking because they want to understand better. The fact that a Mormon is asking the question doesn't mean there shouldn't be an answer. Either there is an answer or there's not.

My question was....what is the importance of family? Why did God make it a holy bond? What is the significance of it? God has a purpose to ALL things. The fact that He commanded it from the beginning of human life on this earth makes it extremely important. So what is the importance of the family unit, husband & wife, mother & father...etc..that it has been COMMANDED and sanctioned by God.

There is no reason to not answer the question unless you simply don't know. That is all that I was saying. So perhaps you can answer it for me. Because, I have to tell you, if I had been truly looking for someone to explain it to me because I'm looking to leave the LDS Church but there are beliefs among other Christian churches I don't understand, you would have completely shut me down.

Although I have yet to discern a purpose in this forum, I have heard people make comments that it is an "outreach" to members of "cults". I have yet to see any of that going on, and this is a very good example of that. So maybe you can answer that as well Apologette. What do YOU believe this forum is designed to do?

Thanks~

Apologette

03-20-2016, 08:24 AM

Mormons remain in their cult because they are conditioned to do so. They are afraid of losing their family if they leave; they are afraid, afraid afraid. The Mormon culture is oppressive and highly vindictive. I don't throw pearls to be trampled on by those who hate the Biblical Gospel - I post for those not yet indoctrinated and brainwashed. Stay away from Mormonism because in the end it will own you. Come to Christ, to the foot of the Cross (which Mormons deny) and be saved by His Blood - not the blood of Joseph Smith!

MickeyS

03-20-2016, 08:42 AM

Apologette

03-20-2016, 03:38 PM

Smith made up all that **** about sex/marriage in heaven.

Smith made it up as a means to convince his wife to allow him to bed other women.

Smith dreamed up the whole- "God gave you to me" line as a means to break-down the natural resistance a young girl would have to being pursued by this creepy guy.

Whats your next question?

He sure did.....especially the part about the adultery angel visiting him with a fiery sword telling him he had to marry little girls and the wives of other men behind Emma's back - Of course that must be the most hideous line I've ever heard from a man. Emma must have known what a philandering weirdo she married, but she had eloped and I doubt she'd have been welcomed back home - especially after her lazy husband wouldn't farm the land his father-in-law bought for him, along with a home! Joe never was the kind for hard work - falsely prophesying always came easier.

Apologette

03-20-2016, 03:40 PM

Christian

03-22-2016, 06:53 AM

We remain in the Church of Jesus Christ because we read our Bibles.

False. Baptism for the dead is one.

Since you cannot find ONE CHRISTIAN IN THE BIBLE that was ever baptized for the dead (the heathens did that), joey smith's pretends remain joseph smith's made-up junk.

Christian

03-22-2016, 07:13 AM

Confused Mickey posted:

Which Bible?
KJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, RSV, NASV, NEB, TEV, HCSB, NLT, TNIV, GNV, CET.....???

With confusion in doctrine between all these translations as well as the major doctrinal differences between all the Christian denominations...what Bible, and which "Christian" church?"

Which Bible do the mormons follow? The kjv? The 'joe smith inspired' version?

And which book of mormon? The original one or the current one with over 4,000 CHANGES in it?

And which MORMON CHURCH (You DO know there are over 150 different kinds [want me to list them, their leaders, and the dates of their origins again?] and all of THEIR doctrinal differences?

It's so funny that you believe The Bible is that "last word" in authority, and then believe in the extra-biblical creeds that came later and added to the Bible. Oh, but that was different right?

It's so funny that YOU believe the many versions of joey smith's stories are the 'last word' in authority, or for that matter that the fairy-tales joey smith made up CENTURIES LATER have any 'authority' in the sight of God at all.

And yes, I know, you will quote your single Isaiah verse that was dealing with the worship of false gods and idols. And your verse stating no other god "beside me" means no other God or being is equal to or more than Him. Which is true. He is and always will be our God, we will always worship Him, and no being, including His Son is equal to or greater than He. All are dependent upon Him.

Except it is NOT JUST ONE verse. It is NOT just 'beside me.'

1 P***age (not just one verse)

Isa 43:10
10 "You are My witnesses," says the Lord,
"And My servant whom I have chosen,
That you may know and believe Me,
And understand that I am He.
Before Me there was no God formed,
Nor shall there be after Me.
NKJV

Isa 44:6
6 "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel,
And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
'I am the First and I am the Last;
Besides Me there is no God.
NKJV

Let's see now, that makes TWO. Do you REALLY WANT TO CALL GOD A LIAR?

Isa 44:8
8 Do not fear, nor be afraid;
Have I not told you from that time, and declared it?
You are My witnesses.
Is there a God besides Me?
Indeed there is no other Rock;
I know not one.'"
NKJV

That makes THREE. So you have only proven that your 'prophet' is a liar.

AND that you don't know your Bible.

From the Above:
THERE EXISTS ONLY ONE REAL GOD
THERE WERE NEVER ANY OTHERS
THERE NEVER WILL BE ANY OTHERSTHE ONE REAL GOD THAT EXISTS DOES NOT EVEN KNOW ANY OTHER REAL GODS.

Joey smith lied to you.

So arm yourself with your one verse against the dozens of verses in the New Testament especially, that clearly and repeatedly teach the Father and The Son are separate (but one in purpose)

SHOW US EVEN ONE VERSE that says the Father and Son are separate GODS. Even joey smith (in the first printing of the bom) believed they are one.

Even as far as making SURE it's crystal clear during the baptism of Jesus (an account repeated in more than one Gospel) showing the Father, The Son & The Holy Ghost are separate individuals,

But NOT separate Gods. Separate 'persons." Even joey smith believed that according to the first printing of the bom.

and man still had to create their own definition that suited what THEY believe God should be.

Yep, joey smith and the other cultists like him did EXACTLY THAT.

Christian

03-22-2016, 07:20 AM

confused way posted:

Three degrees of glory. Joey's daffynishun of the Biblical p***age PLUS all his own dung isn't from God. It is his own invention.
Church structure joey smith's made-up version is his own invention.
Nature of God joey smith's made-up gods are NOT THE REAL GOD OF THE BIBLE. They are joey smith's own invention
Role of man And like many other cultists have done, joey smith tried to 're-define' that too. It is his own invention.

So all you have are joey smith's made-up inventions! They are not from God at all!

Apologette

03-22-2016, 07:35 AM

Mormons are so ill informed that they believe that different translations of the M****CRIPTS mean that the meaning is changed. They have no clue about the Bible, and never study its origin or how we came to receive the Bible. They simply are clueless, since they have "prayed" about Joe Smith's phony book, and been answered by some demon, and then turn and attack the Bible. Have you ever seen a group that attacks God's Word so much as the Mormons? At the heart of Mormon heresy is the belief that the Bible is faulty, and then they turn around and embrace the obviously false Book of Mormon which some demon has attested to in their mind. They allow a demon to direct them, and turn their backs on God's Word. Only God can release them from such bondage!

Anyone actually wanting to study the Bible's history is welcomed to read this: https://www.christianhistoryins***ute.org/magazine/article/how-we-got-our-bible-recommended-resources/

Apologette

03-22-2016, 07:43 AM

So basically you're saying this isn't an outreach to "cult" members?

Also, you had an answer to what Julie was saying, and it was from the Bible. So do you just pick and choose your "pearls" or do you have an answer? The Bible is discussed all the time here. I don't understand why you won't answer.

The TBMs who come to post on apologetic sites aren't open to the Gospel of Christ because in most instances God has allowed them to believe a lie. They need deliverance. I post for those your cult is trying to deceive, trying to lure into the darkness.

2 Thes. 2:11: For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie

MickeyS

03-22-2016, 08:59 AM

The TBMs who come to post on apologetic sites aren't open to the Gospel of Christ because in most instances God has allowed them to believe a lie. They need deliverance. I post for those your cult is trying to deceive, trying to lure into the darkness.

2 Thes. 2:11: For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie

So again, you still are unable to answer my question.

alanmolstad

03-22-2016, 01:42 PM

God does not marry people...

People marry each other.

God and his church can bless a marriage....but the church does not actually "marry" people to each other....

This is why Paul could offer the advice that its better to not get married.
This shows us that being married is not a command...for if it were a command then Paul was going against that command when he told his church to not seek getting married if their p***ions will allow it.

But the fact is, human p***ion can get the best of people, and for that sake of such people, they still can get married.
But let us never think that because we are married we are somehow better off then they who are not married, for the truth is the opposite.

alanmolstad

03-22-2016, 01:45 PM

This also is why Mormonism is against marriage...for they were founded by a guy who ran around on his wife.

Its so bad, that when poor Smith ran out of reasons for young girls to sleep with him, he would fall back on the old stand-by of a John talking to a Hooker...and he would offer the girl $5 bucks if they would let him sleep with them.

This means that all of Mormonism is actually the result of a John's idea on how to get girls to agree to have sex with him.

MickeyS

03-22-2016, 04:26 PM

Genesis 2:24
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh

This came IMMEDIATELY after God created Eve. So, you're saying this is not important to
God then. Interesting. Doesn't make sense, but interesting.

As far as it NOT being a commandment. God commanded Adam & Eve to multiply & replenish the earth, which they cannot do without having sexual relations, which they cannot have without being married.

How was it then not commanded?

So you're answer is, marriage, family...isn't important to God then? Husbands wives, mothers fathers, nothing? One is just a way to have sex, and the other is a byproduct of sex.

AND....people are better off not being married, and actually Gods servants teach that getting married should be avoided if possible.

And I would want to leave the LDS church for that because...??

dberrie2000

10-25-2016, 02:30 PM

Christian

10-26-2016, 06:52 AM

Hi Mickey. I believe the most interesting and overlooked point in Genesis 2 is the fact Adam and Eve were husband and wife in immortality--before they became mortals.

Which of course, is hogwash. Genesis 2 says no such thing. IF YOU THINK IT DOES, please give us chapter and verse where it does. You can't find it, of course.

You must be 'ribbing' us! :rolleyes:

dberrie2000

10-26-2016, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post Hi Mickey. I believe the most interesting and overlooked point in Genesis 2 is the fact Adam and Eve were husband and wife in immortality--before they became mortals.

Which of course, is hogwash. Genesis 2 says no such thing. IF YOU THINK IT DOES, please give us chapter and verse where it does. You can't find it, of course.

You must be 'ribbing' us! :rolleyes:

The pronouncement of physical death was not until after the Fall. Death entered through the fruit:

Genesis 2:17---King James Version (KJV)
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Are you claiming Adam and Eve were already mortals--and they would have died anyway?

Christian--Genesis 2 was before the Fall:

Genesis 2:24-25---King James Version (KJV)
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Christian

10-26-2016, 02:13 PM

berry posted:

Originally Posted by Christian http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?p=170217#post170217)
Which of course, is hogwash. Genesis 2 says no such thing. IF YOU THINK IT DOES, please give us chapter and verse where it does. You can't find it, of course.

You must be 'ribbing' us! :rolleyes:

The pronouncement of physical death was not until after the Fall. Death entered through the fruit:

Genesis 2:17---King James Version (KJV)
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Are you claiming Adam and Eve were already mortals--and they would have died anyway?

They were indeed mortal (PHYSICAL BEINGS) before the fall and no, they would NOT have died.

Christian--Genesis 2 was before the Fall:

Genesis 2:24-25---King James Version (KJV)
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Yep, they WERE ALIVE PHYSICAL BEINGS, not 'spirit babies' or even 'spirit people' before the fall. Your pretense of a 'momma goddess' (or a BUNCH of them) impregnated by a 'daddy god' to pop out 'bubble spirit babies' is completely foreign to the Hebrew faith AND the Christian faith, and NOBODY IN THE CHURCH JESUS BUILT ABOUT 2,000 years ago believed or taught such trashy nonsense.

Sorry berry, but you blew it again with your ***UMPTIONS of fiction. You believe it only because your conman common criminal 'prophet' (No better than the 'father' of all of those 'flds' kids) who tried to shoot his way out of jail INVENTED the idea.

If Jesus were a 'spirit brother of satan,' that would make Jesus a demon too! But you don't seem to care.

Christian

10-26-2016, 02:15 PM

So again, you still are unable to answer my question.

I don't see where you ever POSTED any question that has not been addressed, showing joey smith to be the common criminal and false prophet that he was before he was sent to eternal hell.

dberrie2000

10-26-2016, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post Hi Mickey. I believe the most interesting and overlooked point in Genesis 2 is the fact Adam and Eve were husband and wife in immortality--before they became mortals.

Which of course, is hogwash. Genesis 2 says no such thing. IF YOU THINK IT DOES, please give us chapter and verse where it does. You can't find it, of course.

You must be 'ribbing' us! :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 The pronouncement of physical death was not until after the Fall. Death entered through the fruit:

Genesis 2:17---King James Version (KJV)
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Are you claiming Adam and Eve were already mortals--and they would have died anyway?

Christian--Genesis 2 was before the Fall:

Genesis 2:24-25---King James Version (KJV)
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Yep, they WERE ALIVE PHYSICAL BEINGS,

And so was Christ here--that does not mean they were mortals:

Luke 24:39---King James Version (KJV)
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

alanmolstad

10-28-2016, 04:30 AM

You kinda lose the train of thought when you put on quote next to another, next to another, next to another, all with different subjects within them....

alanmolstad

10-28-2016, 04:35 AM

the tree of life gave the eater the ability to live forever...

There is evidence that Adam and Eve had never eaten of the tree of life in the story, as well as evidence that even after they had sinned they still had the chance to eat of the tree of life and live forever in the story...

dberrie2000

10-28-2016, 05:35 AM

the tree of life gave the eater the ability to live forever...

There is evidence that Adam and Eve had never eaten of the tree of life in the story,

Could you explain to us, if Adam and Eve were already going to die--then what would have been the efficacy of this pronouncement?

Genesis 2:17---King James Version (KJV)
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

It is commonly thought death and sin were introduced into the world at the point they partook of the fruit, hence--the need for a Redeemer, both to conquer physical death(resurrection)--and sin(died for the sins of the world).

alanmolstad

10-28-2016, 05:40 AM

Could you explain to us,.........

Genesis 2:17---King James Version (KJV).... thou shalt surely die.

....

...."sin sprang to life and I died."

Paul says this...but Adam could also have said this too...

dberrie2000

10-28-2016, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View PostCould you explain to us,.........

Genesis 2:17---King James Version (KJV).... thou shalt surely die.

...."sin sprang to life and I died."

Paul says this...but Adam could also have said this too...

What is your evidence the warning given in Gen2:17 didn't apply to both physical and spiritual death?

alanmolstad

10-28-2016, 01:49 PM

What is your evidence the warning given in Gen2:17 didn't apply to both physical and spiritual death?

where does the term "spiritual death" appear in the Bible again?

dberrie2000

10-29-2016, 05:09 AM

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post What is your evidence the warning given in Gen2:17 didn't apply to both physical and spiritual death?

where does the term "spiritual death" appear in the Bible again?

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/spiritual-death.htm

God Warned Adam About Spiritual Death

And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die" (Gen 2:16,17)
Adam was righteous and resided in the garden of Eden, a paradise garden only for the righteous, but lived with the ever-present danger of spiritual death.

Again-- What is your evidence the warning given in Gen2:17 didn't apply to both physical and spiritual death?

alanmolstad

10-29-2016, 06:30 AM

There you go again....quoting a term to me that does not appear in the Text and that you cant find no matter how hard you look....

You want my opinion of your term "Spiritual Death"?...fine, here it is.

I cant find that term in the Bible, and when I ask you to look for it you cant find it as well.
This points out to me in a big way a flaw in your whole line of reasoning...

There are a lot of words in the story of Genesis....if you have a question about any of the words in the Text as written in Genesis?...then ask, (as I know a few things about that book of the Bible due to my many,many posts on the topic of Creationism vs Evolution)......so I would love to address any questions anyone might have about the words that appear in the Genesis Text as recorded.

But when people start asking me questions about terms and words that are not found in the text?...I just think that ends up in a pointless debate over things that ,( because they dont actually appear in the text but are just personal conclusions), cant be proved one way or the other because of a basic lack of them appearing in the text.

dberrie2000

10-29-2016, 12:17 PM

There you go again....quoting a term to me that does not appear in the Text and that you cant find no matter how hard you look....

You mean such as "Trinity", "faith alone", "co-eternal", "once-saved-always-saved", "rapture", etc?

alanmolstad

10-29-2016, 03:43 PM

You mean such as "Trinity", "faith alone", "co-eternal", "once-saved-always-saved", "rapture", etc?asfar asI can see,,,they also do not appear in the Genesis story of Adam....

I can answer a question you might have as to what actually appears in the genesis text...but if you just want to talk about your personal conclusions?.....then thats a pointless effort.

alanmolstad

10-29-2016, 04:18 PM

so,,,,the idea that Adam and Eve would have lived forever....its a nice idea and all,,,and there was a way in the story for that to happen..

Its to eat of the tree of life.

But I dont see anywhere that Adam expected to live forever without eating of the tree of life....

do you?

dberrie2000

10-29-2016, 05:17 PM

so,,,,the idea that Adam and Eve would have lived forever....its a nice idea and all,,,and there was a way in the story for that to happen..

Its to eat of the tree of life.

Since the tree of life was already in the Garden, and they were not forbidden to partake of it--what is your evidence they did not partake of it?

alanmolstad

10-29-2016, 05:49 PM

What evidence do I have that they did not go watch the newest Star Wars movie?.....

What evidence do I have that they did not play ring-around-the-rosy?....

My answer:
All I can say is that the Text tells us what it wants us to know...
I dont need to add anything just to make it fit with my ideas about what it "should" have said....

And that means:
I can not teach that Adam had already eaten of the tree of life unless I can see a verse that teaches that he did.

also, there is the idea that we get with the words found in the text, "He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

If eating the tree of life means you only gained a weird type of life that was "temporary forever" then there would be no point in trying to stop Adam from eating...

If the life the tree of life gave could be taken away from Adam later, then what is the point in stopping him from eating??????

Who would care if Adam ate or not?...if God could take away that type of life???

And another thing:
Consider the word "Forever"
The word the Bible used, "forever" mean unending.....not just "until later".

So the words used in the Bible are very solidly telling us that to eat of the tree of life is to live forever regardless of what God wanted or not....

and that is why God had to kick Adam out of the garden....

and that means that Adam had not eaten yet, (or else the "live forever" verse would be in full effect)

So in conclusion: the idea that Adam expected to live forever without eating from the tree of life is not supported by the Bible.

dberrie2000

10-30-2016, 03:45 AM

So in conclusion: the idea that Adam expected to live forever without eating from the tree of life is not supported by the Bible.

You have not established Adam had not eaten of the tree of life.

1 Corinthians 15:21---King James Version (KJV)
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

Could you explain what man death came by?

alanmolstad

10-30-2016, 07:27 AM

dberrie2000

10-30-2016, 02:17 PM

Can I proved that Adam didn't go see the newest Star Wars movie?

And the reason is I can only prove things that are actually written in the bible. ..

Does the bible say Adam ever ate from the tree of life? ...No.

Does the bible even hint that Adam ate of it?...No.

Can we say he ate based only on a lack of proof he didnt?...No.

If Adam brought physical death into the world--then it was not there until the Fall:

1 Corinthians 15:21---King James Version (KJV)
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

Who was the man which death came by?

alanmolstad

10-30-2016, 02:48 PM

Im just pointing out that there is not squat for support for the idea that Adam had eaten of the Tree of Life......ever!

If he ever had eaten, then he would have had the ability to "Live Forever"

Tolive forever means you cant die....no matterwhat you cant die...

If Adam had eaten and then somehow God took away his life, then the Bible could NOT say that by eating you would "live forever"

If God took away his life after Adam had eaten, then the Bible lies when it says by eating Adam would live forever.

The moment we read that Adam could eat and live forever it proves 100% that he had not eaten yet.
Thats a fact!!!

So Adam never once ate of the Tree of Life.

And that fits nicely with the fact that God says Himself that if Adam were to eat he would live forever.
This is why God had to kick Adam out of the garden to keep him from eating.

So, Adam never ate from the Tree of Life, ...case-closed!

alanmolstad

10-30-2016, 02:57 PM

inother words....

To live forever, is to have "eternal life"

If you are said to have eternal life, and then you somehow lose this?, it was not eternal!

The christian teaching is that via God's Grace we have "eternal life".
Our salvation is 100% ***ured.
My salvation cant be changed......its a done deal....the decision is already past.

I have p***ed from death, to life...

Nothing can be added to this, nor taken away.
My works do not add anything to this fact....nor do my sins take it away.

dberrie2000

10-30-2016, 03:01 PM

If Adam brought physical death into the world--then it was not there until the Fall:

1 Corinthians 15:21---King James Version (KJV)
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

Who was the man which death came by?

Im just pointing out that there is not squat for support for the idea that Adam had eaten of the Tree of Life......ever!

If he ever had eaten, then he would have had the ability to "Live Forever"

Tolive forever means you cant die....no matterwhat you cant die...

If Adam had eaten and then somehow God took away his life, then the Bible could NOT say that by eating you would "live forever"

I couldn't help but notice you did not answer the question:

If Adam brought physical death into the world--then it was not there until the Fall:

1 Corinthians 15:21---King James Version (KJV)
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

Who was the man which death came by?

alanmolstad

10-30-2016, 09:27 PM

Stand by to have your mind ****n.....

Yes,we get p***ed to us all things from Adam,including our ability to die...this is true...

But, (stand by for this next part)
but, Adam did not change physically after he sinned!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WHAT?!

Yep,look it up...
Adam did not change physically...nothing bad happened to his body...he did not degenerate.

Lots of people think that something changed within Adam (like his DNA) when he sinned...that suddenly he "became mortal".....

But this idea is wrong!

"Wrong Alan? How can it be wrong,if that is what so many Christians and other religions believe?"

Well kids its wrong because the idea that Adam suddenly "became mortal" is not based on the text of the Bible.

The idea that after Adam sinned he changed and became mortal is an invented idea.

Want to prove this for yourself?
...good!
Just answer this one question.

" Why did Adam die?"

Did God kill Adam?
Does the Bible tell us that God killed Adam?

No the Bible does not say that God had to kill Adam at all..

So why did Adam die?....the answer is this...

Adam died ONLY because he did not eat of the tree of life.

Thats the answer.

That also is the ONLY answer found in the Bible.

All the other answers you hear listed in your church, (regardless of your religion) are false.
They are invented to make the story agree with some teaching that they also hold.

But if you stick to only what you can prove in the Bible, then the only reason the Bible lists as to why Adam,(and all his children to this very day) will die is that before Adam could get over to the Tree Of Life and eat and live forever, he got kicked out.

Its that simple.

So lets just look at the text and read what it says.

The Text tells us that if Adam would have eaten of the Tree Of Life he would live forever.

This means that at the time God kicked Adam out, Adam had not yet eaten.

This means that Adam was still in his "natural" condition.
Adam was still the way God had made him....and in order for Adam to live forever he needed to eat of the tree of life.....

So mankind was not created in a natural state with the natural ability to live forever.

Humans were not created with a body that would naturally live forever.
(That's going to shake up a few people I know, but this is the facts of the text)...

We humans were not created with bodies that would naturally last forever, and that is why God gave us the tree of Life, so we all could eat of it and all of us live forever.

This also is why the Bible tells us that all death came to us from Adam....Because of the sin and the fact that Adam got the boot we still share the mortal state that Adam was created within,and because Adam was not allowed to eat of the tree of life we share in the death that we get via Adam....

Had Adam not sinned, we would be able to be born and eat of the tree of life.

But because of the sin of Adam, death rules us.

(Because this true reading of Genesis is new to so many Christians and Mormons reading this,Im going to copy/paste this onto its own topic section of the forum so that it will be easy to find.)

dberrie2000

10-31-2016, 04:34 AM

I couldn't help but notice you did not answer the question:

If Adam brought physical death into the world--then it was not there until the Fall:

1 Corinthians 15:21---King James Version (KJV)
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

Who was the man which death came by?

Yes,we get p***ed to us all things from Adam,including our ability to die...this is true...

Would there have been any need for Christ to come and provide the resurrection for mankind--if Adam had not sinned?

1 Corinthians 15:21---King James Version (KJV)
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

alanmolstad

10-31-2016, 05:12 AM

Would there have been any need for Christ to come and provide the resurrection for mankind--if Adam had not sinned?

1 Corinthians 15:21---King James Version (KJV)
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

Let me answer that fine question by just building on the points I have made already above:

As I have shown above, the first human did not "degenerate" physically after he sinned.
Rather than "becoming mortal" he "stayed the same" as he was created.

Adam was created with a normal human body that needed to eat of the Tree of Life to be able to live forever.

So the type of human body that Adam was created with, is the very same type of human body he would p*** on to the whole human race, and to you and I too.

So we share in our human bodies the same ability to die as Adam had when he was created out of the dust of Genesis.

But.....we also have a human body that once given the fruit of the Tree Of Life will live forever.

So yes, all human death is the result of Adam's sin, this is very clear in the bible.
But lets not forget that we also share Adam's ability to live forever if we get a chance to eat of the Tree Of Life too!

Had Adam not sinned, he was given clear ability and the chance to eat of the tree of Life and live forever.

The tree of life was not banned by God before the sin of Adam....it was always there in the garden and was free for Adam to eat of at any time.

(This is he reason God kicked him out of the garden)

So had Adam not sinned, then all humans would have current ability to stretch forth their hands and eat of the tree of Life and live forever...

But thats not how it worked out.....clearly.

And so that is why Christ had to come and die so as to put things right again.
But had Adam not sinned,then all of us would lead vastly different lives as we would be able to eat of the tree of Life right now and live forever.

So the reason we die now is not because the human body of Adam changed, rather the answer is that after he sinned Adam was kept from the chance to eat of the Tree of Life and live forever...

But we do see in the Book Of Revelation, that the Tree Of Life is once again offered to mankind to eat from and live forever.

Now as for the other question some may have after reading all this ,
"Is the Tree Of Life a real tree, or is it a symbol of something else?"

My answer is that I am right now only dealing with "WHAT" the Bible says...

I will leave it to others and another time to talk about what it all means.....

alanmolstad

10-31-2016, 05:31 AM

Now I know that reading what I'm posting here might cause both some Christians and many Mormons to start to try to disagree with me.

I get that...

This is because both some Christians and most Mormons have a few ideas about Genesis that are clearly not supported by the Text in Genesis.

I have battled long and hard against the Young Earth Creationism views held by many within the Christian church.
As well as I have battled hard against all the Mormon teachings of a preexistence.

Both the Christian view of YEC and the Mormon teaching of a preexistence are in error in my view and need to be totally abandoned in favor of the Truth that actually is taught in God's word.

So before the Mormon reading this has the knee-**** reaction and starts quoting me Mormon books about the preexistence, and before my Christian brother or sister starts quoting me books my Ken Ham about the Flintstones, I would simply ask everyone to calm down, open their Bible, and read what is written there and compare with Im saying to what is found in the Text...

That's what they did with Paul's teachings, and so that is all I ask you do with mine too.

dberrie2000

10-31-2016, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post

1 Corinthians 15:21---King James Version (KJV)
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

Would there have been any need for Christ to come and provide the resurrection for mankind--if Adam had not sinned?

Let me answer that fine question by just building on the points I have made already above:

As I have shown above, the first human did not "degenerate" physically after he sinned.

Since Adam grew old and died after the Fall--and returned to the dust--I suppose there was a degeneration.

alanmolstad

10-31-2016, 05:49 AM

Since Adam grew old and died after the Fall--and returned to the dust--I suppose there was a degeneration.

Well.....in a way...

IguessI have to make this a bit more clearwith my wording...

When I say that Adam did not"degenerate " after he sinned...Im talking about a change.
Im saying that the body of Adam before he sinned was the very same body after...

I dont know how else to put this I guess?...LOL

That the need Adam's body had to eat of the tree of life that he had after he sinned was the same need he had to eat before he sinned...

Nothing changed...

God did not change Adam after he sinned.

The human body we have is the same type Adam had when created.

God did not change Adam's body after the sin...

In other words...Adam was going to die.
Adam was created with a normal human body that would get old, get sick, and would die.

The frailness of Adam's human body was the reason God also planted the tree Of Life and gave it to Adam to eat from and live forever.

So the body of Adam was just like the mortal bodies of any other creature God made.
We are apart of the earth...
God created a human body out of the same stuff as are the birds, the fish, the great apes....we all are mortal as created.

So the fact that Adam grew old and later died is not because God changed him into a mortal, rather its because Adam was created as a normal mortal creature from the beginning!!!

And then Adam never got a chance to eat of the tree of Life due to his sin, and so because of that sin and the fact that adam never ate, we still share in the mortal human body that Adam had when he was created.

questions?

alanmolstad

10-31-2016, 05:53 AM

Im still struggeling to find the right wordstouse that dont cause you to messup what Im saying...

:)

I mean to say, that God created Adam with a body that would age, get sick, and die.

So this means that when Adam sinned,God did not have to do anything to Adam's body to make it age, get sick and die.

alanmolstad

10-31-2016, 05:57 AM

We know the created body of Adam was designed to die like a normal creature because God gave Adam the tree Of Life.

Its the tree of life that was the only means Adam had to live forever without ever death.

If the Body of Adam would have been created with a natural ability to live forever,then the tree of Lifeis pointless....

But the tree of Life is very important in the Bible...it is how Adam could have lived forever.

alanmolstad

10-31-2016, 05:57 AM

any questions?

dberrie2000

10-31-2016, 07:50 AM

alanmolstad

10-31-2016, 02:23 PM

What is your evidence there was not a change in Adam's body?

1 Corinthians 15:21---King James Version (KJV)
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

.
Thank you for asking this question...I am very happy to see some interest in this topic!

Its a like this:

I will now ask and answer 2 questions that will show how you question is answered right in the text.

QUESTION #1 - what is the result of eating from the Tree Of Life?....
ANSWER: to live forever.

QUESTION #2 - What happens if you do not eat from the Tree Of Life?
ANSWER : you die.

So now I hope that this point is clear to you.
If you have more doubts about these two questions and their answer, just let me know.

dberrie2000

11-01-2016, 06:13 AM

Well.....in a way...

IguessI have to make this a bit more clearwith my wording...

When I say that Adam did not"degenerate " after he sinned...Im talking about a change.

What is your evidence there was not a change in Adam's body?

1 Corinthians 15:21---King James Version (KJV)
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

What is your evidence death was not introduced in the Fall? Where do we find death in pre-Fall scripture?

Alan--if God had pronounced physical death upon Adam prior to the Fall--then death did not come by man--but by God.

Thank you for asking this question...I am very happy to see some interest in this topic!

Its a like this:

I will now ask and answer 2 questions that will show how you question is answered right in the text.

QUESTION #1 - what is the result of eating from the Tree Of Life?....
ANSWER: to live forever.

QUESTION #2 - What happens if you do not eat from the Tree Of Life?
ANSWER : you die.

So now I hope that this point is clear to you.

If you have more doubts about these two questions and their answer, just let me know.

Thanks, Alan.

The point clear to me is this one:

If God had pronounced physical death upon Adam prior to the Fall--then death did not come by man--but by God.

1 Corinthians 15:21---King James Version (KJV)
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

alanmolstad

11-01-2016, 06:14 AM

Hi Alan, interesting topic but I must disagree with your premise. Humans die from sickness and disease, Adam was not subject to these before sin
entered the world.......

The answer the Bible has to that is "Tree Of Life"

The tree of Life is how we know for 100% that Adam was created as a typical mortal like we are too.

The tree Of Life is God's idea.
God planted the tree Of Life near Adam in the garden, and we know from the text that the result of any person eating from the tree of life is what?

The result of eating from the tree of Life is what?________

The answer is that the result you get when you eat of the Tree of Life is that you "live forever"!

This is why God was forced to kick Adam out of the garden.
god knew that if Adam were to ever eat of the tree of Life that the result would be that Adam would "live forever" and God did not want Adam to live forever.

So God kept Adam away from the tree of life so that man cant live in a state of sin forever.

This points us to the fact that the Bible is saying that Adam was created as a typical normal mortal creature.

Adam was created as a normal mortal, but with eating of the Tree of Life this same normal mortal creature would be able to live forever!

Humans are designed by their Creator to be able to eat and live forever!

We are also designed to "need" to eat to be able to live forever...
The "needed" design element is that god created us as mortals.

This is what the Bible says...

alanmolstad

11-01-2016, 06:24 AM

What is your evidence there was not a change in Adam's body?

.
The tree Of Life.

Eating of the tree of life changes you.

Not eating and you remain as you were.

Adam did not have eternal life and then lost it, because if you can lose "eternal" life you never had it in the first place!......

Hence the word "eternal"

If you can live "forever"and then later die, you can not say that you ever lived "forever"

God says to eat is to live forever.
This means Adam had never eaten ...ever...

To not eat means you remain unchanged.

Adam did not eat.
Adam remained unchanged.

The point of the Tree in the first place is to chage the man and allow him to live forever.
So Adam was designed to eat and change and live forever....

Adam would change and have eternal life if he ate.
But if Adam did not eat, he would remain unchanged....

and mortal.

dberrie2000

11-01-2016, 08:00 AM

The tree Of Life.

Eating of the tree of life changes you.

Not eating and you remain as you were.

Alan--thanks for your comments. My question to you now is this:

1 Corinthians 15:21---King James Version (KJV)
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

Alan--if God had pronounced physical death upon Adam prior to the Fall--then death did not come by man--but by God. Right?

alanmolstad

11-01-2016, 05:54 PM

What was the reason that God planted the Tree Of Life in the Garden?

Thats the answer to your question about where is death from...

Why did God plant the tree in the garden?
What would happen to Adam if he were to eat of the Tree of life?
If Adam had eaten of the tree of Life, would it have changed him?

dberrie2000

11-01-2016, 08:26 PM

What was the reason that God planted the Tree Of Life in the Garden?

Thats the answer to your question about where is death from...

Death is from the Tree of Life?

Why did God plant the tree in the garden?
What would happen to Adam if he were to eat of the Tree of life?
If Adam had eaten of the tree of Life, would it have changed him?

The specific answers to those questions are not found in the scriptures.

But this is:

1 Corinthians 15:21---King James Version (KJV)
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

Alan--if God had pronounced physical death upon Adam prior to the Fall--then death did not come by man--but by God. Right?

alanmolstad

11-01-2016, 09:13 PM

The specific answers to those questions are not found in the scriptures.

Well just think about it for a second and I'm sure you get it...

Remember its the "Tree Of Life"!

It can only do one thing....

What can it do?

dberrie2000

11-02-2016, 04:05 AM

Well just think about it for a second and I'm sure you get it...

Remember its the "Tree Of Life"! It can only do one thing....

What can it do?

I'm not sure the Tree of Life is limited to "only one thing", as the scriptures do not explain the total function of the Tree of Life.

I thought our conversation centered on whether Adam was immortal or mortal in the garden, and whether partaking of the fruit of the tree of good and evil brought physical death into the world for mankind.

That is what I would like to focus on--and speculation about the Tree of Life might not get us there.

I would like to pursue another avenue of thought:

1 Corinthians 15:21---King James Version (KJV)
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

Alan--if God had pronounced physical death upon Adam prior to the Fall--then death did not come by man--but by God. Right?

alanmolstad

11-02-2016, 04:21 AM

Im only asking what can we read that the tree Of life can do?....what is the one thing in the Genesis story of the fall that eating from the tree does for a person?

alanmolstad

11-02-2016, 04:34 AM

The most important key thing we find in the study of the Book of Genesis about the condition of Adam when he was first created is found in the Tree of Life.

The Tree of life is why Adam died.

The tree of life is why all of the children of Adam die.

The Tree of Life is why we die too...

The tree of life only has one function in the Genesis story, it has only one ***.

The tree of *** offers eternal life.
Thats it.
Thats all it does in the story.
You eat of it and you live forever.
Thats what it does in the story.

you don't eat of it, you die.

Adam did not eat of it in the story.
Adam died.

It's that simple.

So you want to know why Adam died?.....look at what happens to the Tree of Life that was planted in the garden to make sure humans never died.
Remember, thats the reason we read in the text for God planting the tree so close to the man....
It was there to make sure that men never died.

alanmolstad

11-02-2016, 04:38 AM

The Tree of Life changes you.
When you eat of it you are changed.
The moment you eat of it your flesh goes from being naturally mortal, to everlasting.

Thats how we know God created humans as mortal creatures.
The tree of Life is the proof we find that Adam was created out of the dust as a mortal creature,

Humans were designed as mortal creatures that had the ability to eat of the Tree of Life and live forever.

That is why the Tree Of Life is so important in understanding the mortal state man was created in.
It was the act of eating from the tree of Life that was to keep Adam from death.

The moment God kicked man out of the garden and out of reach of the Tree, man was condemned.
The moment Adam was unable to eat, he was doomed.
And that is why Adam died just like any other animals in creation.

Adam was created as a mortal creature, and he died as a mortal creature

alanmolstad

11-02-2016, 05:46 AM

Im not sure where the false idea that Adam was created different than us got started?
Perhaps it was just a invented story told to little children when a teacher did not know the answer to a question?

But regardless of where the story got started, what we have clearly seen is that the actual Text of the Bible shows us that Adam was a completely normal human, just are mortal as we all today.

I have run into this same false teaching about Adam in my story of Young Earth Creationism many times.

The YEC teachers are well known to have added all kinds of weird things to be said about Adam>

Like Adam was 8 foot tall
Or had a 3' foot long foot print.
Or could run 100 mph, and jump over buildings, and was faster that a speeding bullet,,,(Oh wait, that's Superman....skip that last part)

Anyway the point is that a lot of false teachers have built up a whole bunch of false teachings about Genesis,and they have created their own ideas about what Adam was like when created.

They want to make him different.
They want him to be something we are not.
They want such things to be true because they have had to hang a whole bunch of other invented ideas on the Fact that Adam had to be different to make everything else they believe work.

They need Adam to be created different

I believe he was the same as us.

dberrie2000

11-02-2016, 05:50 AM

The Tree of Life changes you.
When you eat of it you are changed.
The moment you eat of it your flesh goes from being naturally mortal, to everlasting.

Thats how we know God created humans as mortal creatures.

How do you collate that statement with the testimony of the scriptures?

1 Corinthians 15:21---King James Version (KJV)
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

Are you identifying the "by man came death," phrase in 1Cor15:21--as God Himself?

Alan--God did not become man until 4,000 years later. The only man, as to the Garden-- was Adam.

alanmolstad

11-02-2016, 05:56 AM

dberrie2000

11-02-2016, 06:36 AM

yes...thats what Im saying
We were created to live forever by eating the tree of life.

That was the way Adam was created.

Remember there is no point in God planting a tree of life that brings eternal life to mortal creatures, if man was created already with eternal life.

You cant lose eternal life...

(If you think you lost your eternal life, you never had it in the beginning because eternal life last forever.....(hence the word "Eternal) )

I'm not arguing eternal life--but immortality. All will inherit immortality through Christ's resurrection--but all will not inherit eternal life. They are two different things.

There isn't any evidence partaking of the tree couldn't maintain their immortality. It just isn't specifically explained in the scriptures.

One can go from immortality to mortality--and maybe even eternal life to mortality--as we see that in the case of Christ.

To focus on Adam and whether he had immortality or mortality before the Fall:

Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post The Tree of Life changes you.

When you eat of it you are changed.

The moment you eat of it your flesh goes from being naturally mortal, to everlasting.

Thats how we know God created humans as mortal creatures.

How do you collate that statement with the testimony of the scriptures?

1 Corinthians 15:21---King James Version (KJV)
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

Are you identifying the "by man came death," phrase in 1Cor15:21--as God Himself?

Alan--God did not become man until 4,000 years later. The only man, as to the Garden-- was Adam.

I have started a new thread where we can focus your answer on that question--"Adam in the garden".

Christian

11-04-2016, 03:16 PM

dberry posted:

I'm not arguing eternal life--but immortality. All will inherit immortality through Christ's resurrection--but all will not inherit eternal life. They are two different things.

Since when did 'all inherit immortality through Christ's resurrection?'

There isn't any evidence partaking of the tree couldn't maintain their immortality. It just isn't specifically explained in the scriptures.

One can go from immortality to mortality--and maybe even eternal life to mortality--as we see that in the case of Christ.

Christ did lots of things you cannot do. When was the last time YOU tried to walk on water? Jesus is God, you are not.

To focus on Adam and whether he had immortality or mortality before the Fall:

How do you collate that statement with the testimony of the scriptures?

1 Corinthians 15:21---King James Version (KJV)
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

Are you identifying the "by man came death," phrase in 1Cor15:21--as God Himself?

Alan--God did not become man until 4,000 years later. The only man, as to the Garden-- was Adam.

I have started a new thread where we can focus your answer on that question--"Adam in the garden".[/QUOTE]

I 'collate' it by sorting the parchment from the newspaper, from the computer screen. :rolleyes:

I will exegete it this way:

Because Adam sinned, Spiritual death came into the world. This p***age is about SPIRITUAL death, not just physical death. YOU STILL DIE PHYSICALLY.

1 Cor 15:20-24
20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.
NKJV

Heb 9:27-28
27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.
NKJV

It says NOTHING about Jesus ending physical death or physical immortality (living forever). We still die physically. Jesus died ONCE to bear the sins of many. We are forgiven our sins because of Jesus, have eternal life because of Jesus; but we still die physically.

So don't walk out in front of a bus on the freeway yet. . .you will still die.

alanmolstad

11-04-2016, 04:23 PM

I get dizzy with so many quoted in one post and so many colors used...

dberrie2000

11-04-2016, 06:25 PM

Because Adam sinned, [/COLOR]Spiritual death came into the world. This p***age is about SPIRITUAL death, not just physical death. YOU STILL DIE PHYSICALLY.

1 Cor 15:20-24
20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

For me--it's self defeating to postulate a theory it was not physical death which Adam introduced into the world in the Fall--and then cite scripture that supports it was physical death:

1 Corinthians 15:20-21---King James Version (KJV)
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since [COLOR="#FF0000"]by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

Some points here:

1) The Resurrection is a physical resurrection--and addresses the physical death. It's the physical body that's raised.

2) If this death came by man--then Adam introduced it, as, if it were through God Adam was mortal--then it would not be--"by man came death,"

Christian

11-18-2016, 01:15 PM

For me--it's self defeating to postulate a theory it was not physical death which Adam introduced into the world in the Fall--and then cite scripture that supports it was physical death:

1 Corinthians 15:20-21---King James Version (KJV)
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

Some points here:

1) The Resurrection is a physical resurrection--and addresses the physical death. It's the physical body that's raised.

2) If this death came by man--then Adam introduced it, as, if it were through God Adam was mortal--then it would not be--"by man came death,"

So you think good mormons like yourself will never physically die?

IF your theory were correct, you would be physically INDESTRUCTABLE.

dberrie2000

11-20-2016, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post For me--it's self defeating to postulate a theory it was not physical death which Adam introduced into the world in the Fall--and then cite scripture that supports it was physical death:

1 Corinthians 15:20-21---King James Version (KJV)
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

Some points here:

1) The Resurrection is a physical resurrection--and addresses the physical death. It's the physical body that's raised.

2) If this death came by man--then Adam introduced it, as, if it were through God Adam was mortal--then it would not be--"by man came death,"

So you think good mormons like yourself will never physically die?

I'm not sure you understand the argument here, nor do I see anything in my above post which suggest any such thing as you postulate.

Even Christ died--and He was perfect. How good one is has nothing to do with the fact all men will die physically, as to the mortal body.

The point is-- Adam introduced death to mankind through his disobedience--not God.

If that is true--then Adam was immortal in the Garden, prior to the partaking of the fruit.

Christian

11-20-2016, 05:40 PM

I'm not sure you understand the argument here, nor do I see anything in my above post which suggest any such thing as you postulate.

Even Christ died--and He was perfect. How good one is has nothing to do with the fact all men will die physically, as to the mortal body.

The point is-- Adam introduced death to mankind through his disobedience--not God.

If that is true--then Adam was immortal in the Garden, prior to the partaking of the fruit.

I am immortal. . .Spiritually.
I am MORTAL. . .physically.

You (if you are REALLY a mormon) are immortal, but SPIRITUALLY DEAD.
ALL MORMONS ARE MORTAL. . .physically, and they will DIE physically as well.

And I am WAITING FOR YOU TO PRODUCE ONE SINGLE SCRIPTURE that says that Adam would have never died physically if he had not sinned.

Of course all you can do is SPECULATE (as you have done). NO SCRIPTURE says that.

Christian

11-20-2016, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by Christian View Post
IF they ever read their Bibles? NONE of the mormon-specific junk exists in the Bible or any first century writing. . .joseph smith made it all up. Upon reading the Bible ANYONE seeking God would notice that.
Which Bible?
KJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, RSV, NASV, NEB, TEV, HCSB, NLT, TNIV, GNV, CET.....???

With confusion in doctrine between all these translations as well as the major doctrinal differences between all the Christian denominations...what Bible, and which "Christian" church??

It's so funny that you believe The Bible is that "last word" in authority, and then believe in the extra-biblical creeds that came later and added to the Bible. Oh, but that was different right?

And yes, I know, you will quote your single Isaiah verse that was dealing with the worship of false gods and idols. And your verse stating no other god "beside me" means no other God or being is equal to or more than Him. Which is true. He is and always will be our God, we will always worship Him, and no being, including His Son is equal to or greater than He. All are dependent upon Him.

So arm yourself with your one verse against the dozens of verses in the New Testament especially, that clearly and repeatedly teach the Father and The Son are separate (but one in purpose) Even as far as making SURE it's crystal clear during the baptism of Jesus (an account repeated in more than one Gospel) showing the Father, The Son & The Holy Ghost are separate individuals, and man still had to create their own definition that suited what THEY believe God should be.

Same Bible, different translations. Some translations are better than others some of the GOOD ones are better than some of the LOUSY ONES that have been put forth to promote specific cults such as the NLT (jw) and the 'Feminist Bible' and the so-called 'inspired version' (which even the mormon religions seem to not use even though joe smith supposedly looked at the rock in his hat to 'translate' it.). . .

You and your religion obviously know little to NOTHING about REALLY TRANSLATING from one language to another.

NOBODY I HAVE EVER HEARD OF believes the 'creeds' as being 'authoritative' over the Bible. They were NEVER 'added to the Bible.' Your religion is sharing its ignorance with you.

And your private interpretation of Isaiah 43:10, 44:6, 44:8, etc etc etc is just plain SILLY AND NONSENSE

Of course the Father and Son are 'separate' Persons, but they are NOT EVER referred to as separate GODS. GOD DOES NOT LIE. Your cult has once again lied to you.

dberrie2000

11-20-2016, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post I'm not sure you understand the argument here, nor do I see anything in my above post which suggest any such thing as you postulate.

Even Christ died--and He was perfect. How good one is has nothing to do with the fact all men will die physically, as to the mortal body.

The point is-- Adam introduced death to mankind through his disobedience--not God.

If that is true--then Adam was immortal in the Garden, prior to the partaking of the fruit.

I am immortal. . .Spiritually.
I am MORTAL. . .physically.

That's all well and good Christian, but the scripture given was a reference to physical death:

1 Corinthians 15:20-21---King James Version (KJV)
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

Saxon

11-21-2016, 10:24 AM

No, I didn't refer to my beliefs, but to yours. The Godhead refers to the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. You stated " I think better as it gets to the point of Jesus being God without any foolishness of The Father, Son and Holy Ghost being three solitary beings."

Okay, so you see "Godhead" or this divine nature ONLY referring to Christ then? and ignores the Father and Son? Is that what you think Paul and Peter meant when they spoke?

Your seeming inability to comprehend the English language is frustrating. You don't seem to retain anything from one post to the other.

I have stated that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit ARE THE ONE GOD. This includes the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the "godhead" and the "divine nature".

What I had stated about what is foolishness concerning the current discussion is the idea that you insist that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate gods. There is only one God.(See Isaiah 43:10 to 12 and Isaiah 44:6 and 8)

Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.
Isaiah 43:12 I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, that I am God.

Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Isaiah 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Saxon

11-21-2016, 10:26 AM

Where did you find the "root" and what is it??

alanmolstad

11-22-2016, 05:52 AM

And I am WAITING FOR YOU TO PRODUCE ONE SINGLE SCRIPTURE that says that Adam would have never died physically if he had not sinned.

[/COLOR]

What I see in the Text is that the Tree Of Life kinda proves to us very clearly that Adam was first created as a normal mortal creature, and that the point of planting the Tree Of Life is that when man eats of it he gets to live forever.

Thats the TOF's point in being in the garden.

Now it is true that the only reason Adam would later die of old age is due to the sin, but we have to keep in mind that the results of the sin, (or the wages of sin) was that Adam was kept away from the Tree Of Life..

Thats why he died later...

He died later only because he was unable to eat due to his sin.

dberrie2000

11-22-2016, 07:47 AM

What I see in the Text is that the Tree Of Life kinda proves to us very clearly that Adam was first created as a normal mortal creature,

Again--if that is true--then God was responsible for introducing death, as part of man's inherent nature.

The scripture has man as the one who introduced death through Adam's disobedience:

1 Corinthians 15:21---King James Version (KJV)
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

Could you identify who the man is in the "by man came death"?

alanmolstad

11-22-2016, 07:52 AM

Again--if that is true--then God was responsible for introducing death, as part of man's inherent nature.

The scripture has man as the one who introduced death through Adam's disobedience:

1 Corinthians 15:21---King James Version (KJV)
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

Could you identify who the man is in the "by man came death"?

Adam did not die until after the sin...so there was no human death in the garden at all....none...zip....zero...

Also, the fact that God planted the Tree Of life in the garden for man to eat proves 100% that man was created mortal and needed to eat to live forever....

dberrie2000

11-22-2016, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post Again--if that is true--then God was responsible for introducing death, as part of man's inherent nature.

The scripture has man as the one who introduced death through Adam's disobedience:

1 Corinthians 15:21---King James Version (KJV)
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

Could you identify who the man is in the "by man came death"?

Adam did not die until after the sin...so there was no human death in the garden at all....none...zip....zero...

No one is arguing that.

The question being--could you identify the man in "since by man came death,?

Who is that a reference to?

alanmolstad

11-22-2016, 10:10 AM

n "since by man came death,?

As I have said in the past when debating people who trust the Young Earth teachings, when I was a much younger man I attended the 8-week ORIGINS cl*** taught by ken ham personally.

Although during the cl*** i only once asked Ken Ham a question, I would be constantly asked questions by my cl***mates over the next few years as it became clear to my church friends that i did not trust anything that Ken Ham was teaching.

One time in a after-cl*** discussion with my friends I asked them, "Why did Adam die?"
__________________________________________________ _____________

Why did Adam die?
He sinned.

So the sin killed him?..the moment he sinned he dropped over dead?
No he lived for many years yet.

But what killed him?
God said that if he ate of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil he would die.

Is that what the Bible says?...for my bible says that the "day" he eats of the tree he will die....So did he die that very same day?
Well yes and no, he did live for a long time after, but that day he died, just 'spiritually"

In other words..."invisibly"?
Yes...he died in the flesh years later but he died that same day spiritually.

Thats fine, except for one thing, Thats not in the BIBLE!
What do you mean?

The Bible tells us that god told Adam that the day he eats of the tree he will die, case closed, there is not a word about living for years but just dying spiritually that same day!

Well we know it could not be just talking about physical death because Adam lived long past that day, so it must be talking about spiritual death.
Why?
Ummm....
Why must it be talking about something that it does not say one word about in the text?

Well unless its talking about Adam dying spiritually then there is a problem as God clearly said he would die that very same day..

Oh I get it now, the way you understand the story kinda forces you to come up with the "He died spiritually" because without that answer God's words are in error?
yes...

Well....there is not a hint that god was talking about Adam just dieing spiritually that same day, thats an invented idea just to help get God off the hook.

You might just as well say "Adam died Metaphysically"...or "Romantically"... or "symbolically" as they are just as not found in the text as saying he died "spiritually"...

All such invented answers are just aimed at getting God off the hook of being wrong...

and they are groundless...and false....

They have no support in the Bible...

So what killed Adam then?

The only thing the Bible says killed Adam! what the Bible says, and that that Adam died at a very old age.....

Thats all?..but what about God's judgement?

God's judgement is the real reason he died at all.

What do you mean?

Just read the story and look for any sign that God changed Adam, or that God killed Adam?
Well, we dont see that in the story.

That's right, there is nothing in the whole story about Adam to suggest that God changed Adam in even the slightest way after the sin.

So why did he die?

Look at the story, does God kill Adam?

No,, not directly.

Thats right, what is the only thing God does in the story that effects Adam's life and condemns him to death?
He kicks Adam and Eve out of the garden.

YES! thats why Adam died.

The only thing God does against the flesh and human nature of Adam was to kick him out of the garden so that Adam could not eat of the Tree of Life and live forever..

Thats all God does...

Yet the moment God does this, it condemns Adam to death.

So Adam was not changed?
Adam was not changed in his flesh or his human nature...the body of Adam did not change...Yet he died by this one single act by God in judgement.

and it happens that very day....

Christian

11-22-2016, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by Christian http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?p=166759#post166759)
IF they ever read their Bibles? NONE of the mormon-specific junk exists in the Bible or any first century writing. . .joseph smith made it all up. Upon reading the Bible ANYONE seeking God would notice that.

[QUOTE=MickeyS;166761]Which Bible?
KJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, RSV, NASV, NEB, TEV, HCSB, NLT, TNIV, GNV, CET.....???

[quote]
NONE OF IT IS IN ANY DECENT TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE. Joey smith tried to ADD junk to the Bible to make it 'look like' it was in there, but even the LDS RELIGION does not use HIS 'translation' much at all. THEY USE the KJV.

dberrie2000

11-23-2016, 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 No one is arguing that.

The question being--could you identify the man in "since by man came death,?

1 Corinthians 15:21---King James Version (KJV)
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

Who is that a reference to?

As I have said in the past when debating people who trust the Young Earth teachings, when I was a much younger man I attended the 8-week ORIGINS cl*** taught by ken ham personally.

Although during the cl*** i only once asked Ken Ham a question, I would be constantly asked questions by my cl***mates over the next few years as it became clear to my church friends that i did not trust anything that Ken Ham was teaching.

One time in a after-cl*** discussion with my friends I asked them, "Why did Adam die?"

I'm not sure what Ken Ham has to do with my question--nor your belabored post.

My question is simply--who is the reference of "by man came death", referring to in 1Cor15:21?

I'm looking for a name.

alanmolstad

11-23-2016, 03:58 PM

I'm not sure what Ken Ham has to do with my question--nor your belabored post.

My question is simply--who is the reference of "by man came death", referring to in 1Cor15:21?

I'm looking for a name.
see post Number #120 above...

dberrie2000

11-23-2016, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View PostI'm not sure what Ken Ham has to do with my question--nor your belabored post.

My question is simply--who is the reference of "by man came death", referring to in 1Cor15:21?

I'm looking for a name.

see post Number #120 above...

I don't see any answer there. It would not be hard to post that specific name from your post--would it?

I mean--if you don't mind posting a long, belabored post--then you shouldn't mind giving us a quick name--should you?

It boils down to Adam--or God--so it can't require more than four letters, at the most.

Com'on Alan--you can do it.

alanmolstad

11-23-2016, 08:23 PM

.......-you can do it.

http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?4043-Adam-in-the-Garden&p=170367#post170367

( see post number #36 )

dberrie2000

11-23-2016, 08:59 PM

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

I don't see any answer there. It would not be hard to post that specific name from your post--would it?

I mean--if you don't mind posting a long, belabored post--then you shouldn't mind giving us a quick name--should you?

It boils down to Adam--or God--so it can't require more than four letters, at the most.

Com'on Alan--you can do it.

http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?4043-Adam-in-the-Garden&p=170367#post170367

( see post number #36 )

Awww, com'on Alan--you can do it.

You just spent way more time and characters than just telling us who it might be--Adam--or God.

alanmolstad

11-23-2016, 09:20 PM

http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?4043-Adam-in-the-Garden&p=170367#post170367

( see post number #36 )

dberrie2000

11-24-2016, 06:46 AM

http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?4043-Adam-in-the-Garden&p=170367#post170367

( see post number #36 )

Alan--we are still awaiting a name for 1Cor15:

1 Corinthians 15:21---King James Version (KJV)
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

Could you identify who the "man" is there which death came by?

It's either Adam or God--which one?

alanmolstad

11-24-2016, 08:12 AM

Alan--we are still awaiting........?

See -
http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?4043-Adam-in-the-Garden&p=170522#post170522

Post number # 100

dberrie2000

11-24-2016, 08:26 AM

See -
http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?4043-Adam-in-the-Garden&p=170522#post170522

Post number # 100

Thanks for trying, Alan.

Well, there we have it, folks. I call it diversion, but you decide why Alan can't give us a direct answer:

1 Corinthians 15:21---King James Version (KJV)
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

Could you identify who the "man" is there which death came by?

It's either Adam or God--which one?

I will provide a direct answer--it's Adam who is identified as the man whom physical death came by, in 1Cor15:21.

And if that is true--then God did not introduce physical death into the Garden, from the onset--physical death came through Adam's disobedience in the Garden.

That's lends to the possibility Adam was immortal until he partook of the fruit.

Christian

11-24-2016, 02:01 PM

erunderr posted:

Originally Posted by Christian View Post
IF they ever read their Bibles?

We remain in the Church of Jesus Christ because we read our Bibles.

Why would anyone remain in the mormon religion because they read a book they CAN'T UNDERSTAND?

1 Cor 2:14-15
14 But the natural man (If you follow the 'jesus' of the mormon religion, you are NOT saved by the REAL Jesus on the Bible) does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
NKJV

NONE of the mormon-specific junk exists in the Bible or any first century writing. . .joseph smith made it all up.

False. Baptism for the dead is one.

You CANNOT NAME ONE SINGLE CHRISTIAN IN THE WHOLE BIBLE who ever 'baptized' anyone for the dead. UNBELIEVERS did it, but they (like the mormons) never thought it out. IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE RESURRECTION, how can you say you believe in THE RESURRECTION?

Paul asked UNBELIEVERS who were baptizing for the dead, that question. Why did those UNBELIEVERS baptize for their dead if the dead are not raised at all?

The p***age:

1 Cor 15:29
29 Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?
NKJV

NOTICE the personal pronouns. Does Paul say that the CHRISTIANS eve did it? No he does not. Does Paul ever say HE did it? No he does not.

Apparently YOU cannot read any better than joey smith could.

Christian

11-24-2016, 02:27 PM

And so was Christ here--that does not mean they were mortals:

Luke 24:39---King James Version (KJV)
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

So you think adam and eve were NOT appointed to die before the judgement?
You think God LIED when He had the writer of the Hebrews write:

Heb 9:26-28
of Himself. 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many.
NK

alanmolstad

11-24-2016, 08:38 PM

the tree of life!!!!!

The tree of life was not there to take of space...

The tree of life only has one ***
It offers eternal life to mortals who eat of it....thats what it does...

dberrie2000

11-25-2016, 07:05 AM

So you think adam and eve were NOT appointed to die before the judgement?

If physical death came through man(Adam)--then obviously--physical death was not part of the original creation:

1 Corinthians 15:21---King James Version (KJV)
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

You think God LIED when He had the writer of the Hebrews write:

Heb 9:26-28
of Himself. 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many.
NK

Well--no. But can you show where Adam died more than once, as to the physical death?

That does not address when physical death was introduced.

alanmolstad

11-25-2016, 07:10 AM

The tree of life was not there to take of space...

dberrie2000

11-25-2016, 07:19 AM

The tree of life was not there to take of space...

The tree of life was not where?

alanmolstad

11-25-2016, 10:40 AM

The tree of life was not where?

The Tree of Life (TOL) brings eternal life to mortals who eat from it.

This is its *** in the Genesis story.

and we can thereby understand that this is why God planted it into the garden....

To bring eternal life to Adam...

So what this means is that God created Adam as a mortal who was in need of eating of the TOL to live forever.

dberrie2000

11-25-2016, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post The tree of life was not there to take of space...

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post The tree of life was not where?

The Tree of Life (TOL) brings eternal life to mortals who eat from it.

This is its *** in the Genesis story.

and we can thereby understand that this is why God planted it into the garden....

To bring eternal life to Adam...

So what this means is that God created Adam as a mortal who was in need of eating of the TOL to live forever.

Again--the tree of life was not where?

Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post The tree of life was not there to take of space...

Where do we find any reference to God creating Adam mortal, or that he had to eat of the tree of life to live forever--before he partook of the fruit?

alanmolstad

11-25-2016, 01:58 PM

the moment God planted the tree in the garden, you know that man was created mortal...

The result of a mortal eating the tree of life is to have everlasting life...thats what it does to mortals.

The reason the tree was planted in the garden was to be food for the man....

Only the tree of Knowledge was to not be food...so the tree of life was 100% food for the man...

This is why we can know that man was created mortal and that eating give us eternal life..

So if someone were to ask me, "If Adam were to not have sinned, would he then live forever?..my answer would be that "Yes, Adam would have lived forever had he not sinned, because God had planted the tree Of Life for that reason.

dberrie2000

11-26-2016, 06:34 AM

the moment God planted the tree in the garden, you know that man was created mortal...

That does not touch upon my question.

Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post The tree of life was not there to take of space...

Again--the tree of life was not where?[/quote]

The result of a mortal eating the tree of life is to have everlasting life...thats what it does to mortals.

Where do we find immortals cannot eat of the tree of life?

Either way--Adam and Eve were still immortals in the Garden, and Adam still introduced death into the world:

1 Corinthians 15:21---King James Version (KJV)
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

Erundur

12-03-2016, 06:04 PM

Why would anyone remain in the mormon religion because they read a book they CAN'T UNDERSTAND?
Maybe because they believe it. Besides, look at all the people who remain in the protestant religion because they read a book they CAN'T UNDERSTAND.

You CANNOT NAME ONE SINGLE CHRISTIAN IN THE WHOLE BIBLE who ever 'baptized' anyone for the dead.
And you CANNOT NAME ONE SINGLE UNBELIEVER IN THE WHOLE BIBLE who ever 'baptized' anyone for the dead. So what?

Does Paul say that the CHRISTIANS eve did it? No he does not. Does Paul ever say HE did it? No he does not.
Does Paul say that the UNBELIEVERS ever did it? No, he does not.

Apparently YOU cannot read any better than joey smith could.
Apparently joey smith can read better than YOU.

Christian

12-07-2016, 09:41 AM

erunder posted:

Originally Posted by Christian http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?p=170528#post170528)Why would anyone remain in the mormon religion because they read a book they CAN'T UNDERSTAND?

Maybe because they believe it. Besides, look at all the people who remain in the protestant religion because they read a book they CAN'T UNDERSTAND.

So you are saying that there are UNBELIEVERS in both groups? I agree, there are. But in the mormon group, even those who BELIEVE in the mormon religion do not understand the Bible.

You CANNOT NAME ONE SINGLE CHRISTIAN IN THE WHOLE BIBLE who ever 'baptized' anyone for the dead.

And you CANNOT NAME ONE SINGLE UNBELIEVER IN THE WHOLE BIBLE who ever 'baptized' anyone for the dead. So what?

Does Paul say that the CHRISTIANS eve did it? No he does not. Does Paul ever say HE did it? No he does not.

Does Paul say that the UNBELIEVERS ever did it? No, he does not.

SURE He does.

1 Cor 15:29-30
29 Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?
NKJV

Apparently joey smith can read better than YOU.

Looks like he cannot. The people Paul was speaking to were UNBELIEVERS (they did not believe Jesus or anyone else was raised from the dead.

dberrie2000

12-08-2016, 06:22 AM

The people Paul was speaking to were UNBELIEVERS (they did not believe Jesus or anyone else was raised from the dead.[/COLOR]

What is your evidence of that?

1 Corinthians 1:1-2---King James Version (KJV)
1 Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:

dberrie2000

12-08-2016, 06:23 AM

Erundur

12-08-2016, 10:46 AM

SURE He does.

1 Cor 15:29-30
29 Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?
NKJV

Where? The verse you cited doesn't say anything about UNBELIEVERS.

Berean

01-09-2017, 09:20 AM

Christian is correct. Paul asked why do "they" baptize for the dead. He didn't say "we."

Christian

01-09-2017, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by Christian View Post
SURE He does.

1 Cor 15:29-30
29 Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?
NKJV

Where? The verse you cited doesn't say anything about UNBELIEVERS.

IF you bothered READING THE TEXT including the slightest amount BEFORE my quote to see what the CONTEXT of Paul's statement WAS ABOUT, Paul is addressing folks who do NOT BELIEVE IN THE RESURRECTION. . .UNBELIEVERS, since Jesus WAS resurrected by that time.

alanmolstad

01-09-2017, 12:37 PM

Mormonism is not really my bag...

But I also see you guys have listed a Bible verse in your conversation, and its a verse I have not really had come up before now before..

So I will have a look at 1 Cor 15:29-30 and tell you my understanding of its teachings...

alanmolstad

01-09-2017, 12:55 PM

Ok,,,,Im back after spending a long time reading and dealing with the text at and around 1 Cor 15:29-30.

When read in full-context, you do see that the dead are being baptized by non-Christians.

Paul is just using them as part of his defense of the idea of the resurrection.

I have no idea what religion is into the concept of "Baptizing for the dead' but Paul is very clear they are not actually connected to the Christian church.

It is very clear in how Paul is dealing with the "they" who do not believe in the resurrection, and the "we" who do believe.

The context clearly teaches that the "they" are non-Christians...case-closed!

Berean

01-09-2017, 01:02 PM

IF they ever read their Bibles? NONE of the mormon-specific junk exists in the Bible or any first century writing. . .joseph smith made it all up. Upon reading the Bible ANYONE seeking God would notice that.

Good point. Actually I personally believe he plagiarized Spalding.

The Book of Mormon is silent on the peculiar doctrines that separate Mormonism from Christianity, including:

Aaronic priesthood
Baptisms for the dead
Celestial marriage
Church organization
Exaltation
Polytheism
Three heavens

Can any Mormon explain why this is?

If you just follow the teachings found in the Book of Mormon, see below, you're not too far removed from the Christian tenets. As Apologette pointed out in another thread, Spalding was a Christian and also believed the following (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?4062-Why-should-we-CHRISTIANS-believe-joe-smith-s-fantasies&p=170840&viewfull=1#post170840);

One God manifest in Three Persons;
Father, Son and Holy Spirit;
God is Spirit;
Faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation,
No preexistence for man;
Salvation without baptism;
Heaven or hell;
Polygamy condemned; etc.

These teachings are all found in that same "most correct book on the earth" which the Mormon Missionaries who show up at my door want me to read and pray on to know if it's true. Why should I waste my time if Mormons don't follow any of it's teachings? I already have the Bible and it's a slam dunk that it's true.

Erundur

01-09-2017, 02:18 PM

Christian is correct.
He has not been able to provide any evidence of that.

Paul asked why do "they" baptize for the dead. He didn't say "we."
He didn't say "unbelievers" either. "They" is not a synonym of "unbelievers."

alanmolstad

01-09-2017, 03:00 PM

He has not been able to provide any evidence of that.

He didn't say "unbelievers" either. "They" is not a synonym of "unbelievers."

The "They" he is talking about in that whole section is the "they" that dont believe in the resurrection.

So "they" are unbelievers.

The 'we" are the believers.
The "we" are Christians...

The 'we" people dont baptize for the dead.

I cant find a word in the bible that teaches that "we' Christians are baptizing the dead...

Berean

01-09-2017, 04:21 PM

He has not been able to provide any evidence of that.

He didn't say "unbelievers" either. "They" is not a synonym of "unbelievers."

Repeating the statement won't change it into something you want to hear. Paul clearly said "they" which indicates Paul is not referring to the people he is speaking directly to but someone else. Otherwise he would have said "we."

In this case he is referring to "those" who do baptize for the dead. who were unbelievers then and still are today.

And while you're here, why exactly "do" you baptize for the dead, since the Book of Mormon, allegedly the most correct book on the earth, teaches that "this life" is the time to repent, or else you will remain in your sin forever?

2 Ne 9:38 in fine, wo unto all those who die in their sins ; for they shall return to God, and behold his face, and remain in their sins.

Mosiah 2:36 And now, I say unto you, my brethren, that after ye have known and have been taught all these things, if ye should transgress and go contrary to that which has been spoken, that ye do withdraw yourselves from the Spirit of the Lord, that it may have no place in you to guide you in wisdom’s paths that ye may be blessed, prospered, and preserved—

[that sounds final to me]

37 I say unto you, that the man that doeth this, the same cometh out in open rebellion against God; therefore he listeth to obey the evil spirit, and becometh an enemy to all righteousness; therefore, the Lord has no place in him, for he dwelleth not in unholy temples.

38 Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever.

39 And now I say unto you, that mercy hath no claim on that man; therefore his final doom is to endure a never-ending torment.

Alma 11:37 And I say unto you again that he cannot save them in their sins ; for I cannot deny his word, and he hath said that no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore, how can ye be saved, except ye inherit the kingdom of heaven? Therefore, ye cannot be saved in your sins.

[you must work to overcome them] (Alma 11:37)

Alma 34;30And now, my brethren, I would that, after ye have received so many witnesses, seeing that the holy scriptures testify of these things, ye come forth and bring fruit unto repentance.

31Yea, I would that ye would come forth and harden not your hearts any longer; for behold, now is the time and the day of your salvation ; and therefore, if ye will repent and harden not your hearts, immediately shall the great plan of redemption be brought about unto you.

32For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors .

33And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses , therefore, I beseech of you that yedo not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this...

34Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis , that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal...

35For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you;...

D&C 1: 31 For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;

32 Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven;

33 And he that repents not, from him shall be taken even the light which he has received; for my Spirit shall not always strive with man, saith the Lord of Hosts.

[so, why should Mormons believe this? Because:]

1 Nephi 13:24, 10:14, 15:13 imply that the Book of Mormon restores the "fullness";

D&C 20:9 says the Book of Mormon contains the "fullness of the Gospel"; also 27:5, 42:12;

D&C 10:67-68 says the complete gospel is repentance - whoever declares more is "against me";

2 Nephi 32:3 says that the words of Christ (in the Book of Mormon) will tell you everything you must do;

Mosiah 18:18-20 says to teach nothing but repentance and faith.

3 Nephi 11:31-40 Jesus declares that his "doctrine" is faith, repentance and baptism, and that "whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil..." and will go to hell (v 40)

So tell me please, why do LDS still baptize for the dead?

Erundur

01-09-2017, 05:11 PM

Repeating the statement won't change it into something you want to hear.
Then stop doing it.

Paul clearly said "they" which indicates Paul is not referring to the people he is speaking directly to but someone else.
Actually, it was the translators who said "they." Paul did not write in English.

The pronoun "they" can be used in a generic sense to mean "people" in general, not just "unbelievers" or "people other than us." He would have meant "they" in this sense because the practice of baptism for the dead is not restricted only to the church at Corinth.

So tell me please, why do LDS still baptize for the dead?
To provide the ordinance of baptism to those who didn't have the opportunity to receive it in this life. You didn't know that?

alanmolstad

01-10-2017, 08:17 AM

He didn't say "unbelievers" either. "They" is not a synonym of "unbelievers."

It depends on the context...

"They" can refer to people that drive too fast....

"They" can refer to people that sing rock songs.

and "they" can be talking about people that have red hair...it all depends on the context.

So in the context of the verses in question, Paul is going on and on talking about people that dont believe in the resurrection....they also have other strange ideas too Im sure....LOL

So the "they" Paul is pointing to is the unbelievers and their false ideas and practices .

and one more thing....the term "they" is always compared to the other term 'we"

We are not "they".

Berean

01-10-2017, 08:43 AM

Then stop doing it.

Actually, it was the translators who said "they." Paul did not write in English.

The pronoun "they" can be used in a generic sense to mean "people" in general, not just "unbelievers" or "people other than us." He would have meant "they" in this sense because the practice of baptism for the dead is not restricted only to the church at Corinth.

To provide the ordinance of baptism to those who didn't have the opportunity to receive it in this life. You didn't know that?

Nonsense.

You're the one who keeps repeating the false notion that the word "they" means "we."

The word used is ποιήσουσιν which means "shall they do."

Mormons shouldn't attempt exegesis because as unbelievers you lack the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and therefore are incapable of understanding the Gospel.

Not to mention, you kicked my question to the curb... why do Mormons baptize for the dead when Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon claim that everything you need to know can be found in the Book of Mormon, yet we don't find anything at all about baptism for the dead in the Book of Mormon and yet Mormons still practice that. So why do you buck against the goads and not follow the teachings of the Book of Mormon, but instead the teachings of men?

Will you answer that for me please?

Berean

01-10-2017, 09:21 AM

That does not touch upon my question.

Again--the tree of life was not where?

Where do we find immortals cannot eat of the tree of life?

Either way--Adam and Eve were still immortals in the Garden, and Adam still introduced death into the world:

1 Corinthians 15:21---King James Version (KJV)
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

The tree of life was "in the midst of the Garden." (Gen 2:9)

Genesis seems to indicate that Adam and Eve would not live forever. Can you explain how they can be immortal, yet still must eat from the tree of life to live forever?

Genesis 3:22 (http://biblehub.com/genesis/3-22.htm)Yahweh God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil. Now, lest he put forth his hand, and also take of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever..." 23 (http://biblehub.com/genesis/3-23.htm)Therefore Yahweh God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 (http://biblehub.com/genesis/3-24.htm)So he drove out the man; and he placed Cherubs at the east of the garden of Eden, and the flame of a sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.

You see, this is the problem Mormons encounter when attempting to "teach" Christians what the Bible says. Christians have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who "enables" us to understand. Mormons are unbelievers and lack the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which is necessary to understand the Gospel. Without this indwelling, Mormons are "always learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Even as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so do these also oppose the truth; men corrupted in mind, who concerning the faith, are rejected." (2 Tim 3:7,8).

So I'll be waiting for your answer...

Erundur

01-10-2017, 10:35 PM

Nonsense.
Nice stop-think mechanism.

You're the one who keeps repeating the false notion that the word "they" means "we."
CFR!

Not to mention, you kicked my question to the curb... why do Mormons baptize for the dead when Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon claim that everything you need to know can be found in the Book of Mormon, yet we don't find anything at all about baptism for the dead in the Book of Mormon and yet Mormons still practice that. So why do you buck against the goads and not follow the teachings of the Book of Mormon, but instead the teachings of men?

Will you answer that for me please?
No, because your question depends on multiple false premises.

Berean

01-11-2017, 07:14 AM

Nice stop-think mechanism.

Nonsense

It was a statement of fact. Everything you said was absolute nonsense.

CFR!

BACK UP A POST OR TWO AND READ THE SCRIPTURES I POSTED AND THE DEFINITION FOR ποιήσουσιν!

No, because your question depends on multiple false premises.

Nice stop-think mechanism.

Nonsense

How about if you dissect my argument point by point, (which you conveniently ignored, deleted and brushed off with the wave of a hand), and demonstrate these alleged "false premises?" Since my argument consisted ONLY of Mormon "scriptures" are you saying that your scriptures contain false premises? If I have taken them "out of context" as Mormons must do with Bible verses to prove Mormon doctrines, please demonstrate this by placing them in proper context for us, if you will please.

Here they are again for our enjoyment.:

And while you're here, why exactly "do" you baptize for the dead, since the Book of Mormon, allegedly the most correct book on the earth, teaches that "this life" is the time to repent, or else you will remain in your sin forever?

2 Ne 9:38 in fine, wo unto all those who die in their sins ; for they shall return to God, and behold his face, and remain in their sins.

Mosiah 2:36 And now, I say unto you, my brethren, that after ye have known and have been taught all these things, if ye should transgress and go contrary to that which has been spoken, that ye do withdraw yourselves from the Spirit of the Lord, that it may have no place in you to guide you in wisdom’s paths that ye may be blessed, prospered, and preserved—

[that sounds final to me]

37 I say unto you, that the man that doeth this, the same cometh out in open rebellion against God; therefore he listeth to obey the evil spirit, and becometh an enemy to all righteousness; therefore, the Lord has no place in him, for he dwelleth not in unholy temples.

38 Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever.

39 And now I say unto you, that mercy hath no claim on that man; therefore his final doom is to endure a never-ending torment.

Alma 11:37 And I say unto you again that he cannot save them in their sins ; for I cannot deny his word, and he hath said that no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore, how can ye be saved, except ye inherit the kingdom of heaven? Therefore, ye cannot be saved in your sins.

[you must work to overcome them] (Alma 11:37)

Alma 34;30And now, my brethren, I would that, after ye have received so many witnesses, seeing that the holy scriptures testify of these things, ye come forth and bring fruit unto repentance.

31Yea, I would that ye would come forth and harden not your hearts any longer; for behold, now is the time and the day of your salvation ; and therefore, if ye will repent and harden not your hearts, immediately shall the great plan of redemption be brought about unto you.

32For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors .

33And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses , therefore, I beseech of you that yedo not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this...

34Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis , that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal...

35For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you;...

D&C 1: 31 For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;

32 Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven;

33 And he that repents not, from him shall be taken even the light which he has received; for my Spirit shall not always strive with man, saith the Lord of Hosts.

[so, why should Mormons believe this? Because:]

1 Nephi 13:24, 10:14, 15:13 imply that the Book of Mormon restores the "fullness";

D&C 20:9 says the Book of Mormon contains the "fullness of the Gospel"; also 27:5, 42:12;

D&C 10:67-68 says the complete gospel is repentance - whoever declares more is "against me";

2 Nephi 32:3 says that the words of Christ (in the Book of Mormon) will tell you everything you must do;

Mosiah 18:18-20 says to teach nothing but repentance and faith.

3 Nephi 11:31-40 Jesus declares that his "doctrine" is faith, repentance and baptism, and that "whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil..." and will go to hell (v 40)

So tell me please, why do LDS still baptize for the dead? And why is it a "false premise" to say that the Book of Mormon does not teach proxy baptism, when the Book of Mormon says nothing of proxy baptism and then insists it contains everything one needs to know and do to reach exaltation?

Erundur

01-11-2017, 11:40 AM

Nonsense

It was a statement of fact. Everything you said was absolute nonsense.
So you're actually claiming that Paul wrote in English? I'm content at this point to let the readers decide which of us is posting nonsense.

BACK UP A POST OR TWO AND READ THE SCRIPTURES I POSTED AND THE DEFINITION FOR ποιήσουσιν!
How could I have written anything in your post? The challenge was for you to provide references to my posts "repeating the false notion that the word 'they' means 'we.'"

Nice stop-think mechanism.
Simply parroting back someone else's line regardless of applicability is another stop-think mechanism.

Identifying logical fallacies is not a stop-think mechanism. On the contrary, it requires thought.

How about if you dissect my argument point by point, (which you conveniently ignored, deleted and brushed off with the wave of a hand), and demonstrate these alleged "false premises?"
You don't know what the false premises are in your question? Okay, try these:

* I kicked your question to the curb.
* Joseph Smith claimed that everything we need to know can be found in the Book of Mormon.
* The Book of Mormon claims that everything we need to know can be found in the Book of Mormon.
* I do not follow the teachings of the Book of Mormon, but instead the teachings of men.

And while you're here, why exactly "do" you baptize for the dead, since the Book of Mormon, allegedly the most correct book on the earth, teaches that "this life" is the time to repent, or else you will remain in your sin forever?
To provide the ordinance of baptism to those who didn't have the opportunity to receive it in this life. (Second response)

So tell me please, why do LDS still baptize for the dead?
To provide the ordinance of baptism to those who didn't have the opportunity to receive it in this life. (Third response)

Christian

01-11-2017, 03:16 PM

Nice stop-think mechanism.

CFR!

From Berean:
Not to mention, you kicked my question to the curb... why do Mormons baptize for the dead when Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon claim that everything you need to know can be found in the Book of Mormon, yet we don't find anything at all about baptism for the dead in the Book of Mormon and yet Mormons still practice that. So why do you buck against the goads and not follow the teachings of the Book of Mormon, but instead the teachings of men?

No, because your question depends on multiple false premises.

WHICH premise do you think is wrong?:confused:
1. That the book of mormon does NOT claim "that everything you need to know can be found in the Book of Mormon"
OR
2. that the book of mormon does NOT say anything at all about the baptism of the dead at all?

EITHER should be PROVABLE by you showing the CHAPTER, VERSE, or PAGE NUMBERS of your book of mormon references.

SHOW US THE EVIDENCE he is wrong, or remain lost in ignorance.

SO FAR YOU have no credibility because you cannot BACK UP what you CLAIM.

Christian

01-11-2017, 03:19 PM

Erunder. . .

YOU seem to be the one who can't make 'CHRISTIANS' out of people who do NOT BELIEVE IN THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST.

THAT makes your claim about 'they' and 'we' in the 1 Corinthians p***age bogus.

PROVE ME WRONG, if you think you can!

Erundur

01-11-2017, 04:21 PM

WHICH premise do you think is wrong?:confused:
1. That the book of mormon does NOT claim "that everything you need to know can be found in the Book of Mormon"
OR
2. that the book of mormon does NOT say anything at all about the baptism of the dead at all?
Neither. I identified the false premises in post #160.

Berean

01-11-2017, 07:23 PM

So you're actually claiming that Paul wrote in English? I'm content at this point to let the readers decide which of us is posting nonsense.

That would be you, posting nonsense.

Here is proof that the word used is "they." Not "we."

Click both links below..

1 Corinthians 15:29 (http://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/15-29.htm) Conj (http://biblehub.com/abbrev.htm)
GRK: (http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/15.htm) Ἐπεὶ τί ποιήσουσιν
NAS: Otherwise, what will those
KJV: Else what shall they do
INT: otherwise what will they do

. 1 Corinthians 15:29 Conj GRK: Ἐπεὶ τί ποιήσουσιν NAS: Otherwise, what will those
KJV: Else what shall they do INT: otherwise what will they ...
//biblehub.com/str/greek/1893.htm - 30k

How could I have written anything in your post? The challenge was for you to provide references to my posts "repeating the false notion that the word 'they' means 'we.'"

Simply parroting back someone else's line regardless of applicability is another stop-think mechanism.

No, you just don't understand poetic justice. I made you eat your own words.

Written anything in my post? I don't follow you. How could you have written something in my post?

Again, the word used, is "they."

Which I have now shown you at least twice.

And actually, since I've proved that you don't know what you're talking about, my ****ogy better suits your false claims that the word "they" really mans "we."

Identifying logical fallacies is not a stop-think mechanism. On the contrary, it requires thought.

Making bald ***ertions and dodging my questions is your stop-think mechanism

And evidently you don't know what a logical fallacy is.

You don't know what the false premises are in your question? Okay, try these:

* I kicked your question to the curb.

Yes you did. Here it is again:

Why do Mormons baptize for the dead when Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon claim that everything you need to know can be found in the Book of Mormon, yet we don't find anything at all about baptism for the dead in the Book of Mormon and yet Mormons still practice that. So why do you buck against the goads and not follow the teachings of the Book of Mormon, but instead the teachings of men?

* Joseph Smith claimed that everything we need to know can be found in the Book of Mormon.

Read very slowly now, and try to follow along and form a rational thought or two... Joseph Smith said, "I told the brethren that the B. of M. was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book" (T. of P.J.S., p. 194).

Here, Joseph Smith clearly states that the precepts found in of the the Book of Mormon are the "keystone" of the Mormon religion, and will get one nearer to God than any other book. This includes the D&C, the Bible and the PofGP, and implies that these other scriptures do not contain the "fullness" that the Book of Mormon contains. So my statement, logically is correct. If P = Q, then /P = /Q. Joseph Smith claims the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth, and the Book of Mormon claims it contains everything a Mormon needs to know. Since Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, (or should I say plagiarized it from contemporary authors?), it's only logical to expect that Smith knows this claim, that the Book of Mormon contains everything a Mormon must know. which the Book of Mormon clearly makes for itself. See below.

* The Book of Mormon claims that everything we need to know can be found in the Book of Mormon.

I don't mind repeating myself, especially since it proves that you don't have a clue what the Book of Mormon teaches and that's because Mormons don't follow its teachings. You guys have been taught to follow the D&C and PofGP, which disagree with and contradict both the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

I know the following is troubling for you but you really need to deal with the reality of what is being taught here.

Here it is again:

2 Nephi 32:3 says that the words of Christ (in the Book of Mormon) will tell you everything you must do;

Mosiah 18:18-20 says to teach nothing but repentance and faith.

3 Nephi 11:31-40 Jesus declares that his "doctrine" is faith, repentance and baptism, and that "whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil..." and will go to hell (v 40)

So can I get you to acknowledge that these verses say exactly what they mean? If so, why don't you follow these teachings? That's the reality.

* I do not follow the teachings of the Book of Mormon, but instead the teachings of men.

I agree. Thanks for admitting that.

To provide the ordinance of baptism to those who didn't have the opportunity to receive it in this life. (Second response).

Second dodge, you mean.

Do you even read my posts? The Book of Mormon clearly teaches that there is no "second chance." THIS lifetime is the time to repent, or you are sealed to Satan for eternity in the lake of fire. I'll only give you one reference, and you can do your homework and re-read my post. 2 Ne 9:38 in fine, wo unto all those who die in their sins ; for they shall return to God, and behold his face, and remain in their sins.

What part of "those who die in their sins, will remain in their sins" don't you understand? What part of "sealed to Satan for eternity" don't you comprehend? There is no second chance.

To provide the ordinance of baptism to those who didn't have the opportunity to receive it in this life. (Third response)

Fourth reiteration... but that is baloney because there is NO second chance. NOW, this lifetime, is the time to repent. You cannot say later, I "will" repent. You must become absolutely sinless, and do it NOW.

RIGHT now.

Alma 34;30And now, my brethren, I would that, after ye have received so many witnesses, seeing that the holy scriptures testify of these things, ye come forth and bring fruit unto repentance.

31Yea, I would that ye would come forth and harden not your hearts any longer; for behold, now is the time and the day of your salvation ; and therefore, if ye will repent and harden not your hearts, immediately shall the great plan of redemption be brought about unto you.

32For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors .

33And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses , therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this...

34Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis , that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal...

35For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you;...

So if you have been sealed to Satan for eternity, and there is no second chance, again, why do Mormons perform proxy baptisms, when there is no basis for any such evil and ****ing practice? Evil and ****ing because it is not taught in the Book of Mormon, which claims that it teaches all you must know and do.

Are you following this now? It's simple logic. If P = Q, then /P = /Q. Proxy baptism is an unauthorized practice, according to the Book of Mormon, because it plainly says all those "who so shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil..." and will go to hell (v 40).

Now please start reading my posts so you don't cause yourself to look like a fool and I don't have to repeat myself half a dozen times.

Erundur

01-11-2017, 09:11 PM

That would be you, posting nonsense.
Right, definitely me and not the guy who thinks Paul wrote in English.

No, you just don't understand poetic justice. I made you eat your own words.
Hardly. It's going to take a lot more than mere mindless parroting.

Written anything in my post? I don't follow you. How could you have written something in my post?
No idea; you tell me. You're the one who cited your post as a CFR for something I wrote.

Making bald ***ertions and dodging my questions is your stop-think mechanism
ROFL!

And evidently you don't know what a logical fallacy is.
That's not evident at all. I'm the one who's pointing out your logical fallacies, which requires a knowledge of what a logical fallacy is.

Yes you did.
That is a lie. I've directly answered your question three times already (with many more repe***ions to come, I suspect.)

Why do Mormons baptize for the dead
To provide the ordinance of baptism to those who didn't have the opportunity to receive it in this life. (Fourth response)

when Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon claim that everything you need to know can be found in the Book of Mormon, yet we don't find anything at all about baptism for the dead in the Book of Mormon and yet Mormons still practice that. So why do you buck against the goads and not follow the teachings of the Book of Mormon, but instead the teachings of men?
Your question still contains three false premises (can you identify that logical fallacy?). Keep working on it.

Joseph Smith said, "I told the brethren that the B. of M. was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book" (T. of P.J.S., p. 194).
But where did he say that everything we need to know can be found in the Book of Mormon?

I agree. Thanks for admitting that.
Reading comprehension fail!

Second dodge, you mean.
False. A dodge is the opposite of answering, which is what I did.

Do you even read my posts?
Sometimes.

The Book of Mormon clearly teaches that there is no "second chance."
Has someone disputed this?

Now please start reading my posts so you don't cause yourself to look like a fool and I don't have to repeat myself half a dozen times.
Then please start writing something worth reading that doesn't cause yourself to look like a fool and repeat yourself half a dozen times when you have already been answered.

alanmolstad

01-12-2017, 04:23 AM

...........Then please start writing something worth reading...........

As topics go along, sometimes I have seen the guests start to care a bit too much about the posts of others.

It's when the posts stop being deeply thought out views that a person can be proud of, and start being just little shots tossed back and forth that the conversation drifts nearer to being only concerned with the snarky .

Berean

01-12-2017, 10:06 AM

As topics go along, sometimes I have seen the guests start to care a bit too much about the posts of others.

It's when the posts stop being deeply thought out views that a person can be proud of, and start being just little shots tossed back and forth that the conversation drifts nearer to being only concerned with the snarky .

You're right. My experience with Mormons is that their sole intent is to derail the discussion and hide the facts. Mormons are only concerned with protecting the prophet. Their arguments need not have anything to do with the truth. Mormons are taught, and even encouraged to lie, if necessary, with absolutely no consequence to them for doing so, and even if they know it's a lie, you will still be blessed for it:

President Harold B. Lee quoted LDS Prophet Heber J. Grant, saying, "Brethren, keep your eye on the President of this church. If he tells you to do anything and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it. But you don't need to worry: the Lord will never let His mouthpiece lead this people astray" (Ensign, October, 1972, p. 7).

BTW, if that is true, then the New Testament church could not be led astray either.

President J. Ruben Clark said, "When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God."1" (Improvement Era, June, 1945, p. 354).

The Lord Almighty leads this Church, and he will never suffer you to be led astray if you are “found doing your duty. You may go home and sleep as sweetly as a bade in its mother’s arms, as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray....” ( Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 9:289)

“...learn to do as you are told. ...if you are told by your leader to do a thing, do it, none of your business whether it is right or wrong.” (Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, 6:32)

“If you do things according to counsel and they are wrong, the consequences will fall on the heads of those who counseled you, so don’t be troubled.” (William Clayton’s Journal, p. 334)

“God made Aaron to be the mouthpiece for the children of Israel, and He will make me to be god to you in His stead, and the Elders to be mouth for me; and if you don’t like it, you must lump it.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 363/History of the Church, 6:319-20)

“I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 13:95)