Biblical and historical reasons why Mitt Romney is not a Christian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

When you break a commandment you sin. You don't have to have knowledge of the commandment to sin but it is sin nonetheless. Just like a child who takes a candy bar. That is a sin and it is breaking the law even though the young child may not know that it is wrong. Now accountability is a separate issue.

13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

---

So, what are you saying---because you did not personally eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and for those who don't even know about it---there is no penalty? They don't die? Or, are you saying that those who do not know about right and wrong are not held accountable for that? Yes, I agree---which is why I don't believe the majority of the world is going to hell as you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Boy, you do need to read the OT and see exactly what God thinks of Abraham. You guys in here just continually slam him.

---

He was justified by faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

Boy YOU need to read the OT and not read your Mormon theology into the text that clearly is not there.

Did Seth hold the priesthood?

Did Noah hold the priesthood?

Did Abraham hold the priesthood?

---

Yes, to all the above. The priesthood means that one has the authorityto act in God's name here on earth. Certainly, you can see that Noah did as he built the ark and through him the life on the planet was saved. Abraham certainly did as he was the one given the promise that it would be through him that world would be blessed. So, when Abraham gave a blessing to Isaac---was that blessing "authoritative"---did God act on it? etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

He was justified by faith.

---

So, were his ***hes justified through faith? Did the "exalted father" gives ***hes to the "righteous king" or was this just stolen goods as you say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Or, are you saying that those who do not know about right and wrong are not held accountable for that?

---

God has laws and they did not know all of these laws but when a person breaks those laws it is still sin. Likewise a young child who steals a candy bar is breaking the law and committing a sin against God but because he doesn't know better he is not accountable. So this takes us back to the question about young children who sin but (in my opinion) they will not go to hell because they are not accountable because they don't know better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

God has laws and they did not know all of these laws but when a person breaks those laws it is still sin. Likewise a young child who steals a candy bar is breaking the law and committing a sin against God but because he doesn't know better he is not accountable.

---

Okay. So, are we held accountable for the sin of Adam even though we did not eat of the tree and do we die as promised to Adam for eating the fruit? Or has that breaking of the law been justified?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

So, are we held accountable for the sin of Adam even though we did not eat of the tree

---

ESV Study Bible

Rom. 5:13 Sin was in the world before the Mosaic law was ins***uted, but it was not technically reckoned as sin before the time of the law. Paul does not mean that people were guiltless without the law, for he has already said in 2:12 that those without the written law are still judged by God (e.g., those who perished in the flood [Genesis 6–9] and those who were judged at the tower of Babel [Gen. 11:1–9]). Since people still died, this shows that they were guilty—as a consequence of Adam’s sin but possibly also as a consequence of having transgressed the universal moral law in their consciences before the written Mosaic law was given.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

Boy YOU need to read the OT and not read your Mormon theology into the text that clearly is not there.

Did Seth hold the priesthood?

Did Noah hold the priesthood?

Did Abraham hold the priesthood?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Yes, to all the above.

---

Can you give me a reference in the Bible that would confirm that these guys held the Melchizedek priesthood or the "Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

Can you give me a reference in the Bible that would confirm that these guys held the Melchizedek priesthood or the "Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God".

---

Could you even give a reference to the exact term "Aaronic Priesthood" in the OT?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

Could you even give a reference to the exact term "Aaronic Priesthood" in the OT?

---

Aaronic prieshood is a Mormon term. But you can certainly read about the Levitical priests. Start with Leviticus which goes over in detail the role of the priests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

Could you even give a reference to the exact term "Aaronic Priesthood" in the OT?

---

Aaronic prieshood is a Mormon term. But you can certainly read about the Levitical priests. Start with Leviticus which goes over in detail the role of the priests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

Boy YOU need to read the OT and not read your Mormon theology into the text that clearly is not there.

Did Seth hold the priesthood?

Did Noah hold the priesthood?

Did Abraham hold the priesthood?

---

Can you answer my question now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

Could you even give a reference to the exact term "Aaronic Priesthood" in the OT?

---

Dberrie---Billyray is trying to make the point that there was no law before Moses (so that his reading of Romans 5 works for him) by attempting to show that there was no priesthood before Moses.

This notion is patently absurd as the priesthood, by definition, means that one can act for and in behalf of God. This "holy order" is the order in which God does things. We both understand that.

What Billyray needs to prove then, is that no one acted in behalf of God prior to Moses. We can see that this is not the case. Obviously, Noah acted in behalf of God when he built the ark. Obviously, when Abraham gave a blessing to Isaac (and not to Esau), it was authoritative as the birthright went to Isaac and not Esau even though Esau was the first born child. We can also see that Jacob gave an authoritative blessing to his sons--one of whom was Judah and in which we can see, Christ did come from that line.

So, this notion that there was no law before Moses and no priesthood before Moses is absurd to say the least. Billyray does not believe it because it isn't spelled out clearly enough for him, but anyone who is reading the OT can clearly see that the priesthood was in effect in the OT, if for no other reason, Abraham gave ***hes to Melchezedic. Obviously, in order for Abraham (whom God calls "exalted father") gave ***hes to Melchezedic (which means righteous king), a priesthood was in effect. Also, if Abel was making righteous sacrifices to the Lord, the priesthood was in effect.

But, we can learn from Moses, that the law that was given to him was not the same law that was given to his fathers--as is clearly told to Moses and he clearly tells to the Israelites. Hence, the Levitical Priesthood was not the same law, but there was a law before (and a priesthood before), this is obvious. So, the question for Billyray is --what was that law or what was that priesthood since CLEARLY the "fathers" of Moses were under it and Moses understands this clearly as he is the one to explain that it is a new covenant that they are under and not the covenant that was "cut" with their fathers.

Gen 14:18 ¶ And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he [was] the priest of the most high God

Hbr 7:9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth ***hes, payed ***hes in Abraham.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Dberrie---Billyray is trying to make the point that there was no law before Moses (so that his reading of Romans 5 works for him) by attempting to show that there was no priesthood before Moses.

---

Romans 5:13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

When was there NO law IN the world?

You believe that they were under the law of the gospel from Adam to Moses, which would include baptism, laying on of hand for the gift of the Holy Ghost, Melchizedek priesthood and all the other ordinances. Where do you find all of these things pre Moses?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Gen 14:18 ¶ And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he [was] the priest of the most high God

Hbr 7:9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth ***hes, payed ***hes in Abraham.

---

Abraham gave Melchizedek 10% of recovered stolen property and gave the remaining 90% to their rightful owners. This is hardly a model for ***hing. Melchizedek is never ever given the commandment to ***he and you never ever see him pay ***hes on any of his increase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

Romans 5:13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

When was there NO law IN the world?

You believe that they were under the law of the gospel from Adam to Moses, which would include baptism, laying on of hand for the gift of the Holy Ghost, Melchizedek priesthood and all the other ordinances. Where do you find all of these things pre Moses?

---

No, you are defining what you think "the law" is---suffice it to say that it is clear that there was a law from Adam to Moses as can be clearly seen in the reading of the Old Testament.

Or were you thinking that it was okay that Cain killed Abel as there was "no law" according to you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

Abraham gave Melchizedek 10% of recovered stolen property and gave the remaining 90% to their rightful owners. This is hardly a model for ***hing. Melchizedek is never ever given the commandment to ***he and you never ever see him pay ***hes on any of his increase.

---

Oh--look at the lengths you go to make who God calls "exalted father" giving ***hes to what God calls the king of Salem "righteous king" and also the "king of peace"---look at what lengths you go to disqualify the ***hes that Abraham gave to Melchizedek all to make your "not law theory until Moses" work. And what about Levi paying ***hes to Abraham?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

So, this notion that there was no law before Moses and no priesthood before Moses is absurd to say the least.

---

Then show me the Melchizedek priesthood and the law of the gospel from Adam to Moses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Oh--look at the lengths you go to make who God calls "exalted father" giving ***hes to what God calls the king of Salem "righteous king" and also the "king of peace"---look at what lengths you go to disqualify the ***hes that Abraham gave to Melchizedek all to make your "not law theory until Moses" work. And what about Levi paying ***hes to Abraham?

---

Show me where ***hing is commanded in the Bible. It is in the Bible, look for it and get back to me with the answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

Show me where ***hing is commanded in the Bible. It is in the Bible, look for it and get back to me with the answer.

---

Yes, I get it now--you think that Abraham paid ***hes to Melchizedek and Levi paid ***hes to Abraham because they sucked it out of their thumb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

Then show me the Melchizedek priesthood and the law of the gospel from Adam to Moses.

---

What is obvious is that the priesthood existed prior to Moses as can be clearly seen. So, what do you believe this priesthood to be?

***hing wasn't commanded until the Law.

7:9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth ***hes, payed ***hes in Abraham.

This doesn't say that Levi paid ***hes to Abraham.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

***hing wasn't commanded until the Law.

7:9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth ***hes, payed ***hes in Abraham.

This doesn't say that Levi paid ***hes to Abraham.

---

You keep believing that Billyray, as it is the ONLY way you can make Romans 5 make what you think it should. You can keep believing that God was silent until Moses. I, on, the other hand can clearly see that God was very active in teaching His children even prior to Moses which is why Cain and Abel were giving sacrifices and why Abraham was paying ***hes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

You keep believing that Billyray, as it is the ONLY way you can make Romans 5 make what you think it should.

---

Prove me wrong BigJ. Show me the law of the gospel pre Moses. Show me baptism. Show me laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. Show me the commandment for ***hing pre Moses. Show me temple ordinances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

Prove me wrong BigJ. Show me the law of the gospel pre Moses. Show me baptism. Show me laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. Show me the commandment for ***hing pre Moses. Show me temple ordinances.

---

The Old Testament has proved you wrong Billyray--you just need to take the time to read it and understand it.

You remind me of what I used to say to my children---"s.tupidity is no excuse" when they tried to say to me---"but you didn't say that mom" as an excuse for doing something wrong or not doing something right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

The Old Testament has proved you wrong Billyray--you just need to take the time to read it and understand it. -

---

What you want me to do is to read your theology into the text like you do even though it is not there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

What you want me to do is to read your theology into the text like you do even though it is not there.

---

No, just the opposite. You are trying to make the OT fit your theology so Romans 5 fits what you think it should. Once you accept that a law was given pre-Moses and a new law given to Moses, then you understand the Moses's "fathers' had a covenant/law which is precisely why when Moses gives the law to the Israelites, he explains that it is not the covenant the Lord "cut" with their fathers, but is the covenant received "today"--or the day Moses gave it.

That is Biblical Billyray. So, not only can you not prove their was no law pre-Moses, there are scriptures in direct contradiction to what you believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Dberrie---Billyray is trying to make the point that there was no law before Moses (so that his reading of Romans 5 works for him) by attempting to show that there was no priesthood before Moses.

This notion is patently absurd as the priesthood, by definition, means that one can act for and in behalf of God. This "holy order" is the order in which God does things. We both understand that.

---

Patently false, to be sure. Paul plainly stated that Abraham was under the gospel of Christ.

Galatians3:6-9--"Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

7Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

8And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

9So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham."

Galatians3:18-19--"For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

19Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator."

The Mosaic Law was added to what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

Romans 5:13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

When was there no law IN the world?

---

There never was. The "Law" is Paul's reference to the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law came into being at a certain point in time. That in no way precludes the fact that Abraham lived under the gospel.

Galatians3:18-19--"For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

19Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator."

The Mosaic Law was added to what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

There never was. The "Law" is Paul's reference to the Mosaic Law.

---

Romans 5:13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no Law.

If there was a law pre Moses then what did Paul mean by " but sin is not imputed when there is no law?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Once you accept that a law was given pre-Moses and a new law given to Moses. . .

---

I am interested in this theory that there was a higher law that was given then downgraded because of unrighteousness. Where can I read about this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

The Mosaic Law came into being at a certain point in time

---

Why did God change the law from a higher law to a lower law? Where can I read about this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

Patently false, to be sure. Paul plainly stated that Abraham was under the gospel of Christ.

---

Can you show me this gospel given in the OT pre Moses?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

I am interested in this theory that there was a higher law that was given then downgraded because of unrighteousness. Where can I read about this?

---

In Deut. is where you can read about the Mosiac law --which is also why everyone except two (Joshua and Kaleb) were killed off prior to going into the promises land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

Can you show me this gospel given in the OT pre Moses?

---

You can read through the OT and see it throughout AND this is verified in the NT:

Galatians3:6-9--"Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

7Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

8And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

9So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham."

Galatians3:18-19--"For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

19Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

You can read through the OT and see it throughout AND this is verified in the NT:

---

I can't find it in the OT BigJ can you show me some verses?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

You can read through the OT and see it throughout AND this is verified in the NT:

---

Can you give me the NT definition of the gospel? The way Paul would define it since you are quoting Paul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

Why did God change the law from a higher law to a lower law? Where can I read about this?

---

Billyray--I already printed that for you:

Galatians3:18-19--"For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

19Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator."

What was the Law added to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

What was the Law added to?

---

I can't find the law of the gospel pre Moses, can you show me all the laws that predates Moses?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

What was the Law added to?

---

This is very interesting DB. So you believe that there were a set number of laws and that more laws were added to the existing laws?