Was Jesus' Gospel only intended for the "known world" at the time?

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Was Jesus' Gospel only intended for the "known world" at the time?

Matthew 28:19
19 ¶Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

It seems illogical and unreasonable to believe in a God who would take the position: "When you Evangelicals finally invent big boats to take their missionaries across the sea in 1500 years or so, then Jesus can be a Savior to the western Hemisphere too...but not until then."

[gripper]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

Was Jesus' Gospel only intended for the "known world" at the time?

Matthew 28:19
19 ¶Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

It seems illogical and unreasonable to believe in a God who would take the position: "When you Evangelicals finally invent big boats to take you across the sea in 1500 years or so, then Jesus can be a Savior to the western Hemisphere too...but not until then."

What about the Chinese, Japanese, Australian aboriganies, etc?

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

Was Jesus' Gospel only intended for the "known world" at the time?

Matthew 28:19
19 ¶Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

It seems illogical and unreasonable to believe in a God who would take the position: "When you Evangelicals finally invent big boats to take you across the sea in 1500 years or so, then Jesus can be a Savior to the western Hemisphere too...but not until then."

Is this again part of mormonisms problem with the word all.. Jesus didn't say that he was going to visit all other nations.. It was His command that His disciples GO AND TEACH.. He also said that:

John 20:29
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Did this not mean that Jesus would not be there to show His wounds to us as He did Thomas? That those who believe would take the message of life to the nations.. It is for Jesus said:

Matthew 10:8

Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.

The other sheep are those not of Israel that would believe a remnant from the nations that He by His grace were calling out of the world and into life.. This is shown by Peter's vision, his mission to the house of Cornelius (Acts 10), and of Paul saying that he was taking the words of life to the gentiles (Acts 13:46)..

IHS jim

[BrianH]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

Was Jesus' Gospel only intended for the "known world" at the time?

Matthew 28:19
19 ¶Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

It seems illogical and unreasonable to believe in a God who would take the position: "When you Evangelicals finally invent big boats to take you across the sea in 1500 years or so, then Jesus can be a Savior to the western Hemisphere too...but not until then."

Such a claim certainly is unreasonable but ...Christians do not make such a claim. And to the degree that you are limply insinuating that we do, you are committing the straw man fallacy.

And BTW, it is equally unreasonable to ***ume that you are telling the truth when you claim that God let his Son die for the REAL gospel and then let it go missing for over 95% of the history of the church that he established by his death ...and you Mormons DO make such a claim every time you pretend to have "restored" the Lord's church.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Is this again part of mormonisms problem with the word all.. Jesus didn't say that he was going to visit all other nations.. It was His command that His disciples GO AND TEACH..

Is Jesus the Savior of those who have not been taught by his disciples? And how can those be saved who have not been taught by his disciples?

[BrianH]

Oh yeah ...and ...

It seems illogical and unreasonable to believe in a God who would take the position: "When you Evangelicals finally invent big boats to take you across the sea in 1500 years or so, then Jesus can be a Savior to the western Hemisphere too...but not until then."

Does it seem logical and reasonable that there were Hebrew American Indians quoting the New Testament and baptizing each other into the "Christian" "Church" hundreds of years before Christ himself was even born??

Really?

Get real.

-BH

.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by BrianH

Oh yeah ...and ...



Does it seem logical and reasonable that there were Hebrew American Indians quoting the New Testament and baptizing each other into the "Christian" "Church" hundreds of years before Christ himself was even born??

Really?

Get real.

-BH

.

So much more logical than God, who is all powerful, not teaching about Himself whereever and whenever He chooses. In fact, it would be more logical to see indicators that the knowledge of God has around for a long time and in many places.

Here is one example:

"Like endless boiling water, the flood is pouring forth destruction. Boundless and overwhelming, it overtops hills and mountains. Rising and ever rising, it threatens the very heavens. How the people must be groaning and suffering!"

-- Emperor Yao, as quoted in the Book of History, describing the flood.

Here is another:

PahanaThe true Pahana (or Bahana) is the Lost White Brother of the Hopi. Most versions have it that the Pahana or Elder Brother left for the east at the time that the Hopi entered the Fourth World and began their migrations. However, the Hopi say that he will return again and at his coming the wicked will be destroyed and a new age of peace, the Fifth World, will be ushered into the world. As mentioned above, it is said he will bring with him a missing section of a sacred Hopi stone in the possession of the Fire Clan, and that he will come wearing red. Traditionally, Hopis are buried facing eastward in expectation of the Pahana who will come from that direction.[32]

The legend of the Pahana seems intimately connected with the Aztec story of Quetzalcoatl, and other legends of Central America.[4] This similarity is furthered by the liberal representation of Awanyu, the horned or plumed serpent, in Hopi and other Puebloan art. This figure bears a striking resemblance to figures of Quetzacoatl, the feathered serpent, in Mexico. In the early 16th century, both the Hopis and the Aztecs believed that the coming of the Spanish conquistadors was the return of this lost white prophet. Unlike the Aztecs, upon first contact the Hopi put the Spanish through a series of tests in order to determine their divinity, and having failed, the Spanish were sent away from the Hopi mesas.[33]

[BrianH]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

So much more logical than God, who is all powerful, not teaching about Himself whereever and whenever He chooses. In fact, it would be more logical to see indicators that the knowledge of God has around for a long time and in many places.

Really, so you think that it really is logical to conclude that there were Jewish American Indians practicing Christianity in the Western Hemisphere hundreds of years before Christ was born?

Really? I mean ...REALLY? Plese, by all means DO explain how that is logically valid.

Here is one example:
Like endless boiling water, the flood is pouring forth destruction. Boundless and overwhelming, it overtops hills and mountains. Rising and ever rising, it threatens the very heavens. How the people must be groaning and suffering!"

-- Emperor Yao, as quoted in the Book of History, describing the flood.

Well IF there was a world-wide flood it would indeed be logical that people around the world would have known about it. But this does NOTHING to substantiate your claims that there were Jewish American Indians practicing Christianity and even quoting the New Testament long before Jesus himself had even been born.

Here is another:
The legend of the Pahana seems intimately connected with the Aztec story of Quetzalcoatl, and other legends of Central America.[4] This similarity is furthered by the liberal representation of Awanyu, the horned or plumed serpent, in Hopi and other Puebloan art. This figure bears a striking resemblance to figures of Quetzacoatl, the feathered serpent, in Mexico. In the early 16th century, both the Hopis and the Aztecs believed that the coming of the Spanish conquistadors was the return of this lost white prophet. Unlike the Aztecs, upon first contact the Hopi put the Spanish through a series of tests in order to determine their divinity, and having failed, the Spanish were sent away from the Hopi mesas.[33]

What has the Aztec snake god to do with Jewish American Indians practicing Christianity before Christ was born? And what makes you think that Jesus was "white"? Is it all those pictures you have been looking at? Here's a news flash for you - Jesus was a Jew, a semite from the Levant. We was NOT "white". (And BTW, the American Indians actually do NOT turn "white and delightsome" after converting to Mormonism - so your "prophet" was wrong about that too.

Please explain why anyone should take you seriously at this point.

-BH

.

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by BrianH

Really, so you think that it really is logical to conclude that there were Jewish American Indians practicing Christianity in the Western Hemisphere hundreds of years before Christ was born?

Really? I mean ...REALLY? Plese, by all means DO explain how that is logically valid.

Yes Really!!. If God is all powerful, it is more logical to believe that He does not limit Himself.

2 Nephi 29:
[7] Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?

[8] Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.

Well IF there was a world-wide flood it would indeed be logical that people around the world would have known about it. But this does NOTHING to substantiate your claims that there were Jewish American Indians practicing Christianity and even quoting the New Testament long before Jesus himself had even been born.

It substantiates my claim that a knowledge of God existed outside of Judism.

What has the Aztec snake god to do with Jewish American Indians practicing Christianity before Christ was born? And what makes you think that Jesus was "white"? Is it all those pictures you have been looking at? Here's a news flash for you - Jesus was a Jew, a semite from the Levant. We was NOT "white". -

The Aztec traditions should cause you more concern than they do me.

[James Banta]

[QUOTE=BigJulie;90656]

Yes Really!!. If God is all powerful, it is more logical to believe that He does not limit Himself.

2 Nephi 29:
[7] Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?

[8] Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.

It substantiates my claim that a knowledge of God existed outside of Judism.

The Aztec traditions should cause you more concern than they do me.

If we receive more of God's word would it not agree with the word from God we already have? If in one word we see that we are save by God's grace through faith and NOT OF WORKS. And then along come a "new revelation" that says we are saved by Grace but only after all we can do. That is 100% DIFFERENT than salvation being of his works through faith plus nothing, and including the statement that insists that it is NOT OF WORKS..

Worship of a snake man is not a worry to those of us that believe that God has forever been God. That He is the Only God that has ever existed or will ever exist.. We conform our faith to God's word.. We don't invent our religion and then try to force the Bible to support it.. That is the practice of mormonism.. Can you understand that from the time of Columbus to the missionaries being sent into the Indians nations in the late 1800's the major desire for these was to make Jesus and His work known to the Indian people? That is working as Jesus commanded to take His message of life to the whole world.. No one ever believes that the great commission was only for the Roman world but for all mankind.. IHS jim

[BrianH]

[QUOTE=BigJulie;90656]

Yes Really!!. If God is all powerful, it is more logical to believe that He does not limit Himself.

So then why are you NOT a Moonie or a Scientologist? After all, they claim bogus "revelations" too. So why would God -the God of truth- "limit himself" to only the absurdities of the Mormon religion? Scientologists claim that human life was descended from beings who flew to earth in special airplanes 15 trillion years ago and were dumped into volcanoes where their spirits having been frozen by the evil Lord Xenu actually thawed out and began inhabiting the lower life forms that eventually evolved into YOU. So, now ...how is it that you are not a Scientologist, Julie? Their claims are no more absurd than yours. And why would God limit himself to only the absurdities of Mormonism?

2 Nephi 29:
[7] Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?

[8] Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.

It substantiates my claim that a knowledge of God existed outside of Judism.

First of all, that's irrelevant. Your claim is NOT that there was "a knowledge of God outside Judaism". There is little doubt about that. But that is not your claim, nor is it the claim of your religion and it most certainly is not the claim you are failing to support here and now. Your claim is that there really was a vast civilization of Egyptian-writing Jewish American Indians who practiced Christianity before Christ was even born (in direct contradiction, BTW, to what even YOUR cult calls the "word of God" - the Bible). Of course, you don not even know on which continent this supposedly happened, but you like to pretend that it really did happen.

Furthermore, why should anyone believe that the Book of Mormon somehow "substantiates" its own claims. Are we supposed to think it is telling the truth because it says so? The Moonies say THEY are telling the truth. Using your damaged logic, you have an obligation to believe them.

This is like watching you try to pick yourself up off the floor by your own shoelaces and then insisting that you have succeeded, because you FEEEEEL that you have. But looking at it from the outside, all an even minimally conscious person could do in reaction is scratch their head and wonder what you had been smokin'.

The Aztec traditions should cause you more concern than they do me.

Why? The Aztecs did not even exist until many hundreds of years AFTER the so-called "Nephites" and they certainly never lived in New York! But DO, by all means, try to break the Mormon mold here, Julie: try supporting that claim instead of just regurgitating it as a means to create more smoke to hide your failure to substantiate any of your other claims.

-BH

.

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE][QUOTE=James Banta;90662]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

If we receive more of God's word would it not agree with the word from God we already have?

It does agree...it just disagrees with your interpretation of your reading.

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by BrianH

So then why are you NOT a Moonie or a Scientologist? After all, they claim bogus "revelations" too. So why would God -the God of truth- "limit himself" to only the absurdities of the Mormon religion? Scientologists claim that human life was descended from beings who flew to earth in special airplanes 15 trillion years ago and were dumped into volcanoes where their spirits having been frozen by the evil Lord Xenu actually thawed out and began inhabiting the lower life forms that eventually evolved into YOU. So, now ...how is it that you are not a Scientologist, Julie? Their claims are no more absurd than yours. And why would God limit himself to only the absurdities of Mormonism?

Your arguement that someone else says they have revelation does not undo the proof of my own life. If I state that I have lived by and trusted that 1+1=2, stating that someone else believes that 1+1=3 does not lessen my own experience or the truth that I have lived.

Why? The Aztecs did not even exist until many hundreds of years AFTER the so-called "Nephites" and they certainly never lived in New York! But DO, by all means, try to break the Mormon mold here, Julie: try supporting that claim instead of just regurgitating it as a means to create more smoke to hide your failure to substantiate any of your other claims.

-BH

.

As stated, you will disclaim any "proof" that I offer. So, why offer? (They did the same with Christ so I am in good company )

[BrianH]

[QUOTE=BigJulie;90668]

Your arguement that someone else says they have revelation does not undo the proof of my own life. If I state that I have lived by and trusted that 1+1=2, stating that someone else believes that 1+1=3 does not lessen my own experience or the truth that I have lived.

The "proof" of your life is nothing more than the regurgitation of what you have been told to "think". Just repeating your claims is insufficient as a reason to think those claims are actually TRUE. I am asking you to provide reasons WHY even a minimally conscious person would think you are telling the truth, Julie. Just repeating what you have been told to "think" by your leaders is not even close to providing any reasons to think those claims are true. How is it that you cannot understand the difference?

As stated, you will disclaim any "proof" that I offer. So, why offer? (They did the same with Christ so I am in good company )

This is just one of the usual LDS cop-outs/excuses. You cannot provide any reasons to believe you and you know it. All you can do is repeat your mantras just as you have been trained to do and then try to blame ME for not falling for that bluntly lame and utterly transparent trick.

Julie, if you cannot actually support your claims, then you best not make them in a forum where they will be questioned. Is that not obvious to you by now?

I note with interest, that, as usual, the Mormon has failed to respond to my request that she simply provide us with some reasons to think that there REALLY WAS a vast civilization of Egyptian-writing Jewish American Indians who practiced Christianity before Christ himself was even born.


-BH

.

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE=BrianH;90670]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

The "proof" of your life is nothing more than the regurgitation of what you have been told to "think". Just repeating your claims is insufficient as a reason to think those claims are actually TRUE. I am asking you to provide reasons WHY even a minimally conscious person would think you are telling the truth, Julie. Just repeating what you have been told to "think" by your leaders is not even close to providing any reasons to think those claims are true. How is it that you cannot understand the difference?


This is just one of the usual LDS cop-outs/excuses. You cannot provide any reasons to believe you and you know it. All you can do is repeat your mantras just as you have been trained to do and then try to blame ME for not falling for that bluntly lame and utterly transparent trick.

Julie, if you cannot actually support your claims, then you best not make them in a forum where they will be questioned. Is that not obvious to you by now?

-BH

.

As we learn that faith is that which is hoped for, the evidence which is not seen--why are you seeing this as a "mormon cop-out"??---to the world, faith is a cop-out for every believer in Christ. I give you my evidence, you invalidate it. That has always been the role of the non-believers--always has been and always will be. If my life is not proof enough, nothing ever will be.

To the unbeliever, Moses never parted the Red Sea and Christ never rose from the dead. Those who live by the faith of those things will never make sense to those who don't. Nor will my faith or "proof" of my experience ever make sense to you. Just know that I am content in my knowledge of Jesus Christ and the life that I live. I love others and will never do anything to harm you.

[BrianH]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

As we learn that faith is that which is hoped for, the evidence which is not seen--why are you seeing this as a "mormon cop-out"??---to the world, faith is a cop-out for every believer in Christ. I give you my evidence, you invalidate it. That has always been the role of the non-believers--always has been and always will be. If my life is not proof enough, nothing ever will be.

So then according to your damaged logic, YOU should be a Scientologist, since YOU have not seen the evil Lord Xenu or a Thetan.

Julie, the challenge you are hoping to flee here is not a matter of "faith". If the so-called "Nephites" really existed, then their mere existence as a civilization would be easily observed in the M***IVE volumes of evidence of Mesoamerica. As it happens there is not a single molecule of such evidence of any kind. No linguistic evidence, no artifacts, no cities, no biology, no oral traditions, no ANYTHING. Claims about ancient civilizations are not supported by regurgitating canned lines about "faith" in those claims, Julie. My goodness ...THINK, woman ...THINK.

So, do you REALLY think that a person should believe something BECAUSE there is exactly NO evidence for it?

If so, then why are you not a Moonie instead of a Mormon. The Moonies claim that Sun Myung Moon is the reincarnation of Christ and they will tell you to have "faith" too. They will even ask you to pray about it and listen to the Holy Spirit, cuz HE most certainly will (according to them) confirm that they are right.

When you are done with that, explain why you are not a JW, or a Christadelphian, or even a Catholic. They too will all tell you that you just have to BELIEEEEEEEVE them with all your heart to make it all seem true.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by BrianH

Oh yeah ...and ...
Does it seem logical and reasonable that there were Hebrew American Indians quoting the New Testament and baptizing each other into the "Christian" "Church" hundreds of years before Christ himself was even born??

Really?

Get real.

-BH

.

So you don't want to deal with the question? I don't blame you. orthodoxy just doesn't provide the answer.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by BrianH

So then according to your damaged logic, YOU should be a Scientologist, since YOU have not seen the evil Lord Xenu or a Thetan.

Julie, the challenge you are hoping to flee here is not a matter of "faith". If the so-called "Nephites" really existed, then their mere existence as a civilization would be easily observed in the M***IVE volumes of evidence of Mesoamerica. As it happens there is not a single molecule of such evidence of any kind. No linguistic evidence, no artifacts, no cities, no biology, no oral traditions, no ANYTHING. Claims about ancient civilizations are not supported by regurgitating canned lines about "faith" in those claims, Julie. My goodness ...THINK, woman ...THINK.

So, do you REALLY think that a person should believe something BECAUSE there is exactly NO evidence for it?

If so, then why are you not a Moonie instead of a Mormon. The Moonies claim that Sun Myung Moon is the reincarnation of Christ and they will tell you to have "faith" too. They will even ask you to pray about it and listen to the Holy Spirit, cuz HE most certainly will (according to them) confirm that they are right.

When you are done with that, explain why you are not a JW, or a Christadelphian, or even a Catholic. They too will all tell you that you just have to BELIEEEEEEEVE them with all your heart to make it all seem true.

-BH

.

You may an illogical jump that if I say that I have experienced 1+1=2 and have come to trust it and believe it, then that means that I believe anything you disagree with. If I was not Christian and wanted to use your same tactics, I could say that since you cannot prove the Moses parted the Red Sea (other than your own scriptures), that you must also believe in every other "illogical" religious belief such as Moonies or Scientology.

Regardless, I agree with Fig, you are not addressing the question posed in the thread.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

You may an illogical jump that if I say that I have experienced 1+1=2 and have come to trust it and believe it, then that means that I believe anything you disagree with. If I was not Christian and wanted to use your same tactics, I could say that since you cannot prove the Moses parted the Red Sea (other than your own scriptures), that you must also believe in every other "illogical" religious belief such as Moonies or Scientology.

Regardless, I agree with Fig, you are not addressing the question posed in the thread.

But Julie I do have evidence of an extra biblical nature that testifies of the red Sea p***age (http://www.bibleprobe.com/exodus.htm). God has not left the Christian without evidence.. It is mormonism that is doing all the jumping to conclusions.. IHS jim

[BrianH]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

You may an illogical jump that if I say that I have experienced 1+1=2 and have come to trust it and believe it, then that means that I believe anything you disagree with.

No YOU are making the the illogical jump because you have IGNORED the FACT that the proposition that 1+1=2 is objectively verifyable. So are historical propositions as large as the existence of a vast civilization. Your error lies in the fact that your programmed emotional reactions to your own life are not in any way objective, and thus are insuffient as a means to test the validity of propositions about history. The ONLY means to confirm a HISTORICAL ***ertion are HISTORICAL means. We know conclusively, for example that the nation of Israel existed in the Levant becuase of the immeasurable volume of every possible kind of evidence that so clearly details that civlization

If I was not Christian and wanted to use your same tactics, I could say that since you cannot prove the Moses parted the Red Sea (other than your own scriptures), that you must also believe in every other "illogical" religious belief such as Moonies or Scientology.

Again, your comparison is totally bogus because there is no independent means by which to test the proposition that Moses parted the Red Sea. There cannot be any means to test if a body of water was separated 4,000 years ago. The existence of civlizations on the other hand abnsolutely CAN be and routinely ARE understood by means of the kind of evidence that civilizations leave to history[/quote]

Regardless, I agree with Fig, you are not addressing the question posed in the thread.

YOU are the one who created the rabbit trail here. I am only following YOUR avoidance of the topic. Would you like to quite deviating from the issue at hand?

-BH

.

[BrianH]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

So you don't want to deal with the question? I don't blame you. orthodoxy just doesn't provide the answer.

I just DID deal with the question. Try actually R E A D I N G the post BEFORE you execute your knee-****, programmed reactions.

-BH

.

[TheSword99]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

Is Jesus the Savior of those who have not been taught by his disciples? And how can those be saved who have not been taught by his disciples?

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is intended for all people in all ages til the end of the world. Jesus is the Savior of the world. Does one need to be taught by the apostles? You know what the Holy Scriptures says? It says man is without excuse because God has made himself known to His creatures through His creation.

The lds has failed to grasp that Christ's gospel is a simple one. We do not need years of leaning to come to Christ with humble hearts.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by BrianH

Oh yeah ...and ...



Does it seem logical and reasonable that there were Hebrew American Indians quoting the New Testament and baptizing each other into the "Christian" "Church" hundreds of years before Christ himself was even born??

Really?

Get real.

-BH

.

Here is the beginning of the rabbit trail. Sorry Brian. So, back to Fig's questions.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by TheSword99

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is intended for all people in all ages til the end of the world. Jesus is the Savior of the world. Does one need to be taught by the apostles? You know what the Holy Scriptures says? It says man is without excuse because God has made himself known to His creatures through His creation.

The lds has failed to grasp that Christ's gospel is a simple one. We do not need years of leaning to come to Christ with humble hearts.

So, are you saying that one should be able to look at a, let's say, tree and from that deduce that mankind has a Savior named Jesus Christ even if that person was born in 1000 bc in South America?

[BrianH]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Here is the beginning of the rabbit trail. Sorry Brian. So, back to Fig's questions.

False.

Had you bothered to actually READ the preceeding post (the one to which your cited post is an obvious addendum), you might have seen that I directly addressed Figs topic by pointing out the straw man fallacy it contains.

THEN AFTER addressing his fallacious insinuiations I posted a counter argument (in the form of a rhetorical question that remains unanswered) and YOU began the digression by failing (as usual) to address that argument.

Read. Think and Understand. You will gain credibility that way.

-BH

.