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

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by BrianH

False.


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.


.

Thus starting the trip down the rabbit hole with what you thought was rhetorical--but never the less, I addressed your accusation. I guess we are not supposed to do that---we are to only bow to the master of all logical thought But Brian, you have convinced me of one thing. In your world, you are always right and every one else who does not agree with you is a fool. Oh well.

[BrianH]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Thus starting the trip down the rabbit hole with what you thought was rhetorical--but never the less, I addressed your accusation. I guess we are not supposed to do that---we are to only bow to the master of all logical thought But Brian, you have convinced me of one thing. In your world, you are always right and every one else who does not agree with you is a fool. Oh well.

Having fully addressed Fig's original fallacious insinuations, I see no reason why it is incorrect to then extend the conversation to show further just how vapid his positoin really is.

Again, I am not here to "convince" you of anything. You and I both know that you would sooner eat your own cat alive than admit that you had been duped by one of the 19th centuries lamest hoaxes.

And yes ...I am right. I know how much that bugs you, but your emotional reactions to the fact that I am right are of no consequence to me or anyone else.

-BH

.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by BrianH

Having fully addressed Fig's original fallacious insinuations, I see no reason why it is incorrect to then extend the conversation to show further just how vapid his positoin really is.

Again, I am not here to "convince" you of anything. You and I both know that you would sooner eat your own cat alive than admit that you had been duped by one of the 19th centuries lamest hoaxes.

And yes ...I am right. I know how much that bugs you, but your emotional reactions to the fact that I am right are of no consequence to me or anyone else.

-BH

.

Well, I don't own a cat and I personally appreciate the testimony I do have. Fig's logic is accurate. There is no reason to believe that Christ would limit himself or knowledge about Himself to one (okay about 2 and half) tribe of Israel. And, even though you want to argue against it, there are indications that knowledge of God has existed in many places around the world.

[BrianH]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Well, I don't own a cat and I personally appreciate the testimony I do have. Fig's logic is accurate. There is no reason to believe that Christ would limit himself or knowledge about Himself to one (okay about 2 and half) tribe of Israel. And, even though you want to argue against it, there are indications that knowledge of God has existed in many places around the world.

Please do your best to acctually SUPPORT your claim about Fig's logic. Just ***erting your highly predictable opinon of his claim is not the same thing as actually formulating an argument to support it.

For my part, I found it incredibly EASY to see right through the specific logical fallacy he committed: the fallacy of the "straw man".

As for your ***ertion above, since YOU are ostensibly insinuating the positive ***ertion that Christ DID reveal himself to an alleged (though unsubstantiated) vast civilization of Egyptian-writing Jewish American Indians, the onus is upon YOU to show us some reasons to think that this claim is true. Simply saying that there was no reason for him NOT to have done so is nothing short of yet another logical fallacy -the argument from silence.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by BrianH

Please do your best to acctually SUPPORT your claim about Fig's logic. Just ***erting your highly predictable opinon of his claim is not the same thing as actually formulating an argument to support it.

For my part, I found it incredibly EASY to see right through the specific logical fallacy he committed: the fallacy of the "straw man".

As for your ***ertion above, since YOU are ostensibly insinuating the positive ***ertion that Christ DID reveal himself to an alleged (though unsubstantiated) vast civilization of Egyptian-writing Jewish American Indians, the onus is upon YOU to show us some reasons to think that this claim is true. Simply saying that there was no reason for him NOT to have done so is nothing short of yet another logical fallacy -the argument from silence.

Once again, the evidence can be seen in my life--which I know you do not consider valid nor care about. But, I can see that the testimony of those in America of Christ have made a difference in my own life.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

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.

Who is going to teach people about Christ if not his followers (i.e. disciples)

Does that means that orthodox Christianity offers 2 ways to salvation:

1. By knowing and accepting Christ.
and/or
2. By being i-g-n-o-r-a-n-t about Christ.

You are basically believing in a brand of Christianity where salvation depends upon the ability of missionaries to build boats in order to teach the rest of the world (such as the Western hemisphere) about the only way to salvation.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by BrianH

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

.

No. You didn't. Dismissing isn't dealing.

You are saying that you believe in a form of Christianity where the salvation of millions (if not billions) depends on whether evangelical Christian missionaries can build boats in order to inform the rest of the world about the only way to salvation. And it took them 1500 years to do this.

[BrianH]

No. You didn't. Dismissing isn't dealing.

You are fibbing agian, Fig. I absolutely answered your quiestion. MY exact words: "Such a claim certainly is unreasonable but ...Christians do not make such a claim".

That is not a dismissal it is a refutation. If you really do not understand the difference between the two, just ask and I will explain it to you.

You are saying that you believe in a form of Christianity where the salvation of millions (if not billions) depends on whether evangelical Christian missionaries can build boats in order to inform the rest of the world about the only way to salvation. And it took them 1500 years to do this.

No more than you believe in a form of "Christianity" (so-called) where the "salvation" of millions (if not billions) depends on whether Mormon missionaries can inform the rest of the world (incluiding the CHRISTIAN world) about the only way to "salvation" by placing their faith in the baseless gibberish utterd by a twice-convicted occult con artist and child abuser... And it will have taken you guys far more than 1500 years to do this.

-BH

.

[BrianH]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Once again, the evidence can be seen in my life--which I know you do not consider valid nor care about. But, I can see that the testimony of those in America of Christ have made a difference in my own life.

Your life is not evidence of Mesoamerican history any more than a Scientologists life is evidence of the existence of the evil Lord Xenu somwhere in outer space, Julie.

Wake up.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

[QUOTE=BrianH;90731]You are fibbing agian, Fig. I absolutely answered your quiestion. MY exact words: "Such a claim certainly is unreasonable but ...Christians do not make such a claim".

That is not a dismissal it is a refutation. If you really do not understand the difference between the two, just ask and I will explain it to you.

Originally Posted by BrianH

No more than you believe in a form of "Christianity" (so-called) where the "salvation" of millions (if not billions) depends on whether Mormon missionaries can inform the rest of the world (incluiding the CHRISTIAN world) about the only way to "salvation" by placing their faith in the baseless gibberish utterd by a twice-convicted occult con artist and child abuser... And it will have taken you guys far more than 1500 years to do this.

-BH

.

Your ignorance is flabbergasting.

So, if there is another way to salvation for the rest of the world other than by learning about Christ then explain it to me.

Otherwise, the only other conclusion I see for you is that you DO believe in a form of Christianity where the salvation of millions (if not billions) depends on whether evangelical Christian missionaries can build boats in order to inform the rest of the world about the only way to salvation. And it took them 1500 years to do this.

[BrianH]

Your ignorance is flabbergasting.

Support your accusation that I am ignoran t of the material pertaining to this discussion.

So, if there is another way to salvation for the rest of the world other than by learning about Christ then explain it to me.

I never said there was any such way to salvation.

Otherwise, the only other conclusion I see for you is that you DO believe in a form of Christianity where the salvation of millions (if not billions) depends on whether evangelical Christian missionaries can build boats in order to inform the rest of the world about the only way to salvation. And it took them 1500 years to do this.

No more so than YOU believe in a form of "Christianity" (so called) where the "salvation" of millions (if not billions) depends on whether Mormon missionaries have ever reached any part of the world (including the CHRISTIAN world, since Christ ascended) with a message about the MORMON way to salvation - ie. confessing that a 19th century occult con artist, womanizer, counterfeiter and child molester was some kind of "prophet" with a magic rock in his hat. And it will have taken YOU guys forever to do this since there is exactly no evidence that either Christ himself, nor his apostles nor any of their churches ever taught any of the mindless garbage we find you proclaiming as the "restoration" of the earliest church.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by BrianH

Support your accusation that I am ignoran t of the material pertaining to this discussion.

Because Mormon missionaries don't have to reach every corner of the world. This life isn't the only chance people have to be taught about Christ. But from what orthodoxy teaches, it is the only chance.

But you didn't know that because you were ********.

Originally Posted by BrianH

I never said there was any such way to salvation.

You've painted yourself in a corner, unwittingly as usual.

[TheSword99]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

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?

Julie, I hope you are joking. Anyway I like Barnes Notes on Romans 1:20 which says: "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."

They are without excuse - God has given them so clear evidence of his existence and claims, that they have no excuse for their idolatry, and for hindering the truth by their iniquity. This was the case with the Gentile world. They had the means of knowing so much of God, as to show the folly of worshiping dumb idols; compare Isaiah 44:8-10. They had also traditions respecting his perfections; and they could not plead for their crimes and folly that they had no means of knowing him. If this was true of the pagan world then, how much more is it true of the world now?

Yes, we are without excuse for not believing in God. And when we believe in God we will also believe in God the Son.

[BrianH]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

Because Mormon missionaries don't have to reach every corner of the world. This life isn't the only chance people have to be taught about Christ. But from what orthodoxy teaches, it is the only chance.

You have failed: I never said that they had to hit every corner of the world and you have yet to establish that Christ died for nothing here in THIS life, if there is always an eternal range of OTHER opportunities to join the Mormon pantheon of demigods

But you didn't know that because you were ********.

Disputing YOUR clamis does not make one ig norant, Fig. Just because you cannot support your claims does not mean that others are ignoran t.

You've painted yourself in a corner, unwittingly as usual.

Really ...? Go ahead and SHOW ME where Jesus Christ or any of his disciples taught the Masonic occult rituals conveyed in the Mormon Temple, Fig. SHOW MEwhere they taught about secret p***words and magic underpants, and secret handshakes required to become one of the Mormon gods. Go ahead ...at least try, for once, to actually SUPPORT the necessary infrences of your own claims before you try to hide your inabilty to do so behind the kind of empty rhetoric you have just demonstrated.

-BH

.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by TheSword99

Julie, I hope you are joking. Anyway I like Barnes Notes on Romans 1:20 which says: "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."

They are without excuse - God has given them so clear evidence of his existence and claims, that they have no excuse for their idolatry, and for hindering the truth by their iniquity. This was the case with the Gentile world. They had the means of knowing so much of God, as to show the folly of worshiping dumb idols; compare Isaiah 44:8-10. They had also traditions respecting his perfections; and they could not plead for their crimes and folly that they had no means of knowing him. If this was true of the pagan world then, how much more is it true of the world now?

Yes, we are without excuse for not believing in God. And when we believe in God we will also believe in God the Son.

I was being somewhat facetious regarding the tree. I can understand these verses in context of my beliefs, but I don't understand them in context of yours. Are you saying a belief in God the Father is enough and if someone lives and dies with no knowledge of Jesus Christ, they are still saved? And even if they don't understand God the Father in terms of the OT?

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I was being somewhat facetious regarding the tree. I can understand these verses in context of my beliefs, but I don't understand them in context of yours. Are you saying a belief in God the Father is enough and if someone lives and dies with no knowledge of Jesus Christ, they are still saved? And even if they don't understand God the Father in terms of the OT?

It's no use, Julie. One people are trapped in the cult of orthodoxy, such as Brian, it's extremely hard to get them to discern when the sun is out.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I was being somewhat facetious ....

fa·ce·tious/fəˈsēSHəs/
Adjective: Treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant

(Oh dont make a face, ....Like Im the only one who googled...)

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

It's no use, Julie. One people are trapped in the cult of orthodoxy, such as Brian, it's extremely hard to get them to discern when the sun is out.

I find the problem isn't their understanding of their own orthodoxy as much as getting out of the paradigm that is their orthodoxy to ask the obvious questions which they can observe and see around them. But, I do not give up hope here. I think that if a kind and patient conversation is had, we can both see new things and learn new things about each other's paradigms.

P.S. Don't let Brian bother you. He is in a world of his own making and there is no sense nor enjoyment in joining him.

[BrianH]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I find the problem isn't their understanding of their own orthodoxy as much as getting out of the paradigm that is their orthodoxy to ask the obvious questions which they can observe and see around them. But, I do not give up hope here. I think that if a kind and patient conversation is had, we can both see new things and learn new things about each other's paradigms.

P.S. Don't let Brian bother you. He is in a world of his own making and there is no sense nor enjoyment in joining him.

This is fascinating. Observe here how the Mormons try to comfort each other despite the glaring fact that they are observably incapable of supporting their ***ertions and they know it ...So, as usual, they can only try to make ME the topic. Neither Fig nor Julie have even TRIED to respond to the incredibly simple challenges that have been posed for them. In every case all they can do is writhe, squirm, deflect and ultimately turn and render personal attacks. If the Mormons were telling the truth, it would be reasonable, to say the least, to expect them to be able to do something more than the rhetorical equivalent of stamping their feet, crying and INSISTING that they are right. Apparently they cannot get above such behaviors.

This is also hilarious. The Mormons (including Julie) claim that there really was, somewhere in the Western Hemisphere (they do not know where), a vast, technologically sophisticated (for the day) civilization of Egyptian-writing Jewish American Indians who raised elephants, rode around in chariots, operated a monetary economy, built huge cities and practiced Christianity all before Christ was even born ...but Julie says that I am in a world of my own making.

This is what happens to people who turn into Mormons, folks. Beware.

-BH

.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by BrianH

This is fascinating. Observe here how the Mormons try to comfort each other despite the glaring fact that they are observably incapable of supporting their ***ertions and they know it ...So, as usual, they can only try to make ME the topic. Neither Fig nor Julie have even TRIED to respond to the incredibly simple challenges that have been posed for them. In every case all they can do is writhe, squirm, deflect and ultimately turn and render personal attacks. If the Mormons were telling the truth, it would be reasonable, to say the least, to expect them to be able to do something more than the rhetorical equivalent of stamping their feet, crying and INSISTING that they are right. Apparently they cannot get above such behaviors.

This is also hilarious. The Mormons (including Julie) claim that there really was, somewhere in the Western Hemisphere (they do not know where), a vast, technologically sophisticated (for the day) civilization of Egyptian-writing Jewish American Indians who raised elephants, rode around in chariots, operated a monetary economy, built huge cities and practiced Christianity all before Christ was even born ...but Julie says that I am in a world of my own making.

This is what happens to people who turn into Mormons, folks. Beware.

-BH

.

"For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbours, and laugh at them in our turn?'' Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice (aptly so named for this whole forum.)

[TheSword99]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

It's no use, Julie. One people are trapped in the cult of orthodoxy, such as Brian, it's extremely hard to get them to discern when the sun is out.

At least we have traditional Christianity on our side. The lds began in the 1800's and many of your teachings are not recognizable by the apostles or early Christian writers..

[TheSword99]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I was being somewhat facetious regarding the tree. I can understand these verses in context of my beliefs, but I don't understand them in context of yours. Are you saying a belief in God the Father is enough and if someone lives and dies with no knowledge of Jesus Christ, they are still saved? And even if they don't understand God the Father in terms of the OT?

How were people in the OT saved? The same way we are today. By faith. God did not change how He saves people. It has always been by faith. The object of one's faith for salvation has always been God.. Genesis 15:6 tells us that Abraham believed God and that was enough for God to credit it to him for righteousness. OT people did not have the same revelation about the world's sin problem like we do because Christ had not yet come and died.

In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son. (Heb. 1:1-2).

Our salvation is still based on the death of Christ, our faith is still the requirement for salvation, and the object of our faith is still God. Today, for us, the content of our faith is that Jesus Christ died for our sins, He was buried, and He rose the third day

[BrianH]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

"For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbours, and laugh at them in our turn?'' Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice (aptly so named for this whole forum.)

Except for YOU, of course ...right?

-BH

.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by TheSword99

How were people in the OT saved? The same way we are today. By faith. God did not change how He saves people. It has always been by faith. The object of one's faith for salvation has always been God.. Genesis 15:6 tells us that Abraham believed God and that was enough for God to credit it to him for righteousness. OT people did not have the same revelation about the world's sin problem like we do because Christ had not yet come and died.

In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son. (Heb. 1:1-2).

Our salvation is still based on the death of Christ, our faith is still the requirement for salvation, and the object of our faith is still God. Today, for us, the content of our faith is that Jesus Christ died for our sins, He was buried, and He rose the third day

So, you believe that EVERYONE has had the opportunity to understand about God and who He is (such as Abraham) prior to their death. Is this correct?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by TheSword99

At least we have traditional Christianity on our side. The lds began in the 1800's and many of your teachings are not recognizable by the apostles or early Christian writers..

Actually, tradition often disagrees with your "traditional Christianity." We've already had threads to discuss that. Christianity has evolved into what it is today just as every other religion. To think otherwise is naive.