Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 107

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

  1. #51
    James Banta
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    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.
    Would you mind showing where Christianity in Her tradition disagrees with the scriptures.. I say that mormonism as it began was a trinitarian religion holding the one true eternal God as it's God. Then Joseph Smith changed that into three Gods. And created gods at that.. This is fact and is incontestable, it is history..

    In 2 Nephi 31:21 it clearly reads:
    2Nephi 31:21
    And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

    Then Smith teaches that:

    I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three cons***ute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it!

    And who can contradict it; Jesus can:

    Mark 12:29
    And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord


    I have shown you, AGAIN, that mormonism has changed their doctrine as to the nature of God, from that of the God taught in the Bible to that which is clearly his private invention outside the teaching of the Bible and the BofM.. So how have the traditions of Christian Church been changed from the teaching of the Bible.. I say it hasn't been changed that the Gospel of Jesus is for all time and all people. It hasn't changed, it won't change, it is intended for the "whole world" at all times. IHS jim

  2. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by James Banta View Post
    Would you mind showing where Christianity in Her tradition disagrees with the scriptures..
    How about I show you how Christianity has evolved over the years and their intrepretation of scripture has evolved as well. This is not hard to do as many historians make note of it.
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  3. #53
    James Banta
    Guest

    Default

    [QUOTE=BigJulie;90772]
    How about I show you how Christianity has evolved over the years and their intrepretation of scripture has evolved as well. This is not hard to do as many historians make note of it.
    I don't care how you or others believe that the Church has evolved over the years. I want to see how the Church today is outside the teaching of the Bible.. Take for instance baptism.. Are we outside the Bible in teaching that only the blood of Jesus has cleansing power to make us clean before a Holy God. That water no matter what prayer is said, not matter what authority is claimed is only water and has no power to cleanse sin from the soul of anyone.. Show me how that is a corruption of the Bible message.. Show me that priesthood is the authority to act in God's name when we believe it is an office of sacrifice and only sacrifice. That Jesus was the last and in the only High Priest.. Show me where I am wrong and I have corrupted the Bible just in these two doctrines.. If I haven't then why does mormonism teach that the waters of baptism cleanses a person of sin (You said that yourself). If you agree that priesthood is only a sacrificial office then why does mormonism call it the power to act in God's name? just those two are areas where I find mormonism to be a corruption of the Bible.. Show me where they are not and show me why Christianity is a corruption.. That should be easy for you after all Smith said that God told him that all our churches are wrong that all our teachers are corrupt.. So DO IT! The only reason you haven't is because you CAN'T, not Biblically anyway.. IHS jim

  4. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by James Banta View Post

    I don't care how you or others believe that the Church has evolved over the years. I want to see how the Church today is outside the teaching of the Bible..
    Well, as I said, to believe any religion has not evolved is naive.

    Take for instance baptism.. Are we outside the Bible in teaching that only the blood of Jesus has cleansing power to make us clean before a Holy God. That water no matter what prayer is said, not matter what authority is claimed is only water and has no power to cleanse sin from the soul of anyone.. Show me how that is a corruption of the Bible message..
    The corruption in of the Bible message can be seen when people do not understand how someone is baptized. Your acknowledgement that some can believe they can be "spiritually" baptized alone is not congruent at all with Bible teachings. Christ was baptized. He showed us how it was done. That a religion or person has "evolved" into thinking that a physical baptism is now unnecessary--as I said can be compared to those who do not feel that marriage is necessary as long as they know they love each other and are committed to each other. The words in the Bible are the same, but the word "baptism" has taken on a whole different meaning than God ever intended. The very fact that "spiritual" baptism alone without physical baptism compares equally to spiritual baptism shown by physical baptism shows just how far man has evolved their own thinking away from what God intended (as could be said the same for those who believe that a spiritual marriage is enough without a physical marriage.)
    Last edited by BigJulie; 06-15-2011 at 12:21 PM.
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  5. #55
    James Banta
    Guest

    Default

    [BigJulie;90781] Well, as I said, to believe any religion has not evolved is naive.
    I guess I am naive because I see the same doctrines taught in the Bible held to be the truth here by all of us that here that call ourselves Christian. I don't see that as the case in mormonism.. Every time there is a difference between what the Bible teaches and what mormonism teaches we get that "Oh that is a corruption of the Bible". That is said without a word of scholarship or support.. It just disagrees with the teachings of Joseph Smith so it is wrong and he is right.. I am sorry but just the reverse is the actual truth..

    The corruption in of the Bible message can be seen when people do not understand how someone is baptized. Your acknowledgement that some can believe they can be "spiritually" baptized alone is not congruent at all with Bible teachings. Christ was baptized. He showed us how it was done. That a religion or person has "evolved" into thinking that a physical baptism is now unnecessary--as I said can be compared to those who do not feel that marriage is necessary as long as they know they love each other and are committed to each other. The words in the Bible are the same, but the word "baptism" has taken on a whole different meaning than God ever intended. The very fact that "spiritual" baptism compares equally to physical baptism shows just how far man has evolved their own thinking away from what God intended.
    And I said I agreed that baptism is a real ordinance that identifies us as belonging to Jesus. I don't agree with those that believe in just a spiritual baptism but I don't reject a spiritual baptism either.. The actual water baptism is NOT like the baptism of Jesus.. That was the same baptism we find in Acts 19 called the baptism of John.. Paul rebaptized those in Christian baptism.. Then the Holy Spirit came upon them.. The baptism of John is not Christian baptism so therefore Jesus did not receive the same baptism as Christians receive.. I believe avoiding baptism is a sin. After we have a command to baptize. I believe following the commandments is ALWAYS the right thing to do.. But we all sin.. and the Bible tell us that if we confess that we are sinners that the blood, THE BLOOD not water, of Jesus cleanses us from ALL sin.. Would that include the mistaken idea that water baptism is unnecessary? Wouldn't that be part of ALL sin? It is a good thing that the Church as a whole, ALL THE BELIEVERS IN JESUS) practice water baptism..

    Hey just last year a friend in England wanted to have a baptism preformed on herself. This was in the Anglican church. The Church of England. You know one of those churches mormonism points out with disdain for practicing the baptism of babies by sprinkling.. The Pastor agreed and took her into a pool and baptized her by immersion.. Cool don't you think? What does that prove? It proves that if a person wants water baptism they can get it no matter what church you belong to withing the Christian family.. But what does it mean to us? It mean we as identifying ourselves as being in Jesus.. It tells the world that we have been recreated as His children, that we are no longer of the world and children of Satan, that we belong to Jesus.. It's really a good thing and we praise God when someone willingly enters the waters of baptism to make that public statement that they are His.. Does it save them, NO! That happened long before they were baptized.. IHS jim

  6. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James Banta View Post

    And I said I agreed that baptism is a real ordinance that identifies us as belonging to Jesus. I don't agree with those that believe in just a spiritual baptism but I don't reject a spiritual baptism either.. The actual water baptism is NOT like the baptism of Jesus.. That was the same baptism we find in Acts 19 called the baptism of John.. Paul rebaptized those in Christian baptism.. Then the Holy Spirit came upon them.. The baptism of John is not Christian baptism so therefore Jesus did not receive the same baptism as Christians receive.. I believe avoiding baptism is a sin. After we have a command to baptize. I believe following the commandments is ALWAYS the right thing to do.. But we all sin.. and the Bible tell us that if we confess that we are sinners that the blood, THE BLOOD not water, of Jesus cleanses us from ALL sin.. Would that include the mistaken idea that water baptism is unnecessary? Wouldn't that be part of ALL sin? It is a good thing that the Church as a whole, ALL THE BELIEVERS IN JESUS) practice water baptism..
    I never said that is was not Christ who cleanses us from sin, my point is that it is Christ who teaches us to be baptized. So, to you, avoiding baptism is a sin and your baptism is not like Christ's baptism and "ALL THE BELIEVERS IN JESUS practice water baptism?" And yet you say,

    I don't agree with those that believe in just a spiritual baptism but I don't reject a spiritual baptism either
    You are getting clear as mud here. Those who follow Christ--do they get baptized, yes or no? Does Christ expect us to be baptized? Is it okay in your book to get "spiritually" baptized alone, as it is Christ who saves and not the water? (As I said, I agree it is Christ who saves, which is why when He says, be baptized, , we are--so the question is, how do you see it?)
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  7. #57
    Walrus
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James Banta View Post
    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
    Evidence isn't faith. I'm glad that more and more is coming out to support the events of the Bible. And I really don't care, but am also glad that as time goes, the Book of Mormon is being established by science, not destroyed. Note: lack of evidence means nothing...in the 1840's, the Book of Mormon was criticized because:
    1. No one ever heard of records preserved on metal plates
    2. American Indians didn't work with cement, and they didn't have large stone cities.
    3. Swords couldn't be 'stained'
    4. The area couldn't sustain the populations described in the BoM
    5. Some practices mentioned are too bizarre..like collecting the limbs of falling enemies and taking them to a king, or why would women and children think themselves murderers, why would burying weapons of war keep one from digging them up and using them?
    6. No one, that early on, could build a ship that would sail that distance.
    and more...

    1. Metal plates, and stone boxes (like the one JS found the plates in) have been found.
    2. they did and they did
    3. 'swords' were made using flint embedded in wood..which can stain, and can easily chop limbs
    4. Tierra Preta...wiki it...a man made, created my man around 480BC and used until 950 AD. Matches the BoM account of Nephites cultivating the ground and becoming very prosperous....oh..Tierra Preta is the most fertile ground on earth and its a mystery...using the vast fields of it could easily sustain the populations in the BoM
    5. Such practices were normal in the time period and culture..to prove your victory. At the same time, in the BoM, where the women and children thought themselves awful murderers, public human sacrifice was practiced and participated by women and children. That entire BoM population of repenting people relocated to another area...why? maybe to get away from the human sacrificing culture they used to belong to.
    6. Some old school Columbus Archeologists are still stubborn but its pretty much becoming mainstream knowlegde that Pre-Columbus sailors hit the shores of America

  8. #58
    Walrus
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James Banta View Post

    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..
    Whoa...the Bible says, once or twice, that you are saved by Grace and not of works. Then in about...lets be reasonable..10 other places it tells us we'll be held acountable for our works, good or bad, we're going to be judged of our works, by their fruits ye shall know them, with out works, faith is dead..etc etc.

    How do you nullify all these, God's Words, with one word that fits your religious perspective? They're together..they work hand in hand...Christ actually COMING DOWN and ATONING had to be DONE. ACTED. FINISHED. It was a work, not Grace alone, not Faith alone...for if Christ did not Atone, a work of faith and love, then all would have been for naught. To act IS to have faith. IS to effectuate Grace.
    We must ask...we must ask Christ to by our Saviour, and then we must follow him. If we don't, we're cut off...opps..grace has no affect on one who does not have a broken heart and contrite spirit. Answers to prayers are given by the Grace of God..but mostly, for the prayer to be answered, it must be asked...again..a work. None of our works serve us, if not done in the Name of Christ, or after his example, for all wickedness will perish, be destroyed, be cast off forever. All bad fruit (bad actions) burnt, all good fruit (good works) laid up in store.

    The Faith/Works debate is the silliest debate out there. A point Satan uses to divide you and I..when there is nothing worth dividing ourselves over...like our similar beliefs. In the end, I and the other always end up agreeing..(of course Grace is the only thing that qualifies us..but our demeanor, our life should reflect it...and if not, then something needs straightening.

  9. #59
    Walrus
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James Banta View Post
    I have shown you, AGAIN, that mormonism has changed their doctrine as to the nature of God, from that of the God taught in the Bible to that which is clearly his private invention outside the teaching of the Bible and the BofM.. So how have the traditions of Christian Church been changed from the teaching of the Bible.. I say it hasn't been changed that the Gospel of Jesus is for all time and all people. It hasn't changed, it won't change, it is intended for the "whole world" at all times. IHS jim
    I find that my perspective on History and fellow New Age Christians are about the same..but our conclusions are different.

    Christ establishes his Church, 12 apostles (who fill vacancies..keeping it 12) are called, Seventy are called to help the apostles, priests, teachers, evangelists and all sorts appear. Miracles abound. Some can only baptize, others can baptize by water AND by the Spirit..a distinction! Scripture is created..not just any scripture, but personal revelation and instruction to particular groups and peoples who need differing things. Though some thought themselves to be of Paul, or of Peter or of ?? they all meshed into one, if one had the spiritual mind to see it. Many were very confused, you can see it in the epistles..they struggled to apply what the Apostles taught.
    Miracles of the New Testament are recognized to have ceased by 400AD if not earlier. Scripture also ceases. Nowhere do we have such a large gab of time in not hearing God's Word. The Catholic Church is established with a Pope, not a prophet at its head. No more Apostles. No more Seventies. Offices of the priesthood change. The World terms a period of this time as the Dark Ages. Catholic Church divides..Roman vs. Orthidox.
    Luther finds the Catholic church to be without power and authority, the sacraments and doctrines to be in discord with the Word of God. He maintains that authority is important, but has no claim upon it himself, (how can you claim authority from someone who didn't have authority?). He keeps most of the sacraments/ordinances and begins a major reformation movement.(why did God's church need reforming if it wasn't altered by the hand of man?)
    Later, Calvin splits from all 'works' except for the sacrament and concludes that since no organized religion really has it, we can only rely on the Bible itself.
    And here we are.
    Since then, the worlds wisest men and women, with all their worldly training and man-given degrees from their man-made universities have built an incomplete picture of Christ and his gospel that has birthed 1000's of differing sects and faiths.
    Not one time in the written Word of God has Mankind been able to stay on course without a living prophet. Jews didn't recognize Jesus because of their man-made degrees, and man-made ins***utions. They killed the prophets and anyone else who challenged them. The dirtiest, lowest tactics were used, and are now being used. Lies, deceit, mis-representations, mis-qoutes, misguiding questions, catch-22's, and even when such are pointed out, it's not enough...its as though 'its better to lie and save someone from Mormonism' than what...saying the truth?!?
    Where be God in this pursuit?

  10. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    Well said Walrus!
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  11. #61
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    Evidence isn't faith.
    The problem is, faith is not evidence, - just believing something does not make it true. And the alleged "revelations" of Mormonism include truth claims about objective matters that are not only unsupported by the evidence, but these LDS claims are regularly disproven by the facts.


    I'm glad that more and more is coming out to support the events of the Bible. And I really don't care, but am also glad that as time goes, the Book of Mormon is being established by science, not destroyed. Note: lack of evidence means nothing...in the 1840's, the Book of Mormon was criticized because:
    1. No one ever heard of records preserved on metal plates
    2. American Indians didn't work with cement, and they didn't have large stone cities.
    3. Swords couldn't be 'stained'
    4. The area couldn't sustain the populations described in the BoM
    5. Some practices mentioned are too bizarre..like collecting the limbs of falling enemies and taking them to a king, or why would women and children think themselves murderers, why would burying weapons of war keep one from digging them up and using them?
    6. No one, that early on, could build a ship that would sail that distance.
    and more...

    1. Metal plates, and stone boxes (like the one JS found the plates in) have been found.
    2. they did and they did
    3. 'swords' were made using flint embedded in wood..which can stain, and can easily chop limbs
    4. Tierra Preta...wiki it...a man made, created my man around 480BC and used until 950 AD. Matches the BoM account of Nephites cultivating the ground and becoming very prosperous....oh..Tierra Preta is the most fertile ground on earth and its a mystery...using the vast fields of it could easily sustain the populations in the BoM
    5. Such practices were normal in the time period and culture..to prove your victory. At the same time, in the BoM, where the women and children thought themselves awful murderers, public human sacrifice was practiced and participated by women and children. That entire BoM population of repenting people relocated to another area...why? maybe to get away from the human sacrificing culture they used to belong to.
    6. Some old school Columbus Archeologists are still stubborn but its pretty much becoming mainstream knowlegde that Pre-Columbus sailors hit the shores of America
    1. While this claim is popular among Mormons it is false. Metal-inscriptions were known to exist all over the world before Joseph Smith claimed to unearth the Book of Mormon. That SOME BoM critics did not know this does not mean this fact is evidence that supports the veracity of the BoM.

    2. This is another tactic employed by people forced to make excuses for the Book of Mormon: claim that evidence from one civilization represents and thus supports the claims of the BoM. Yes a few American Indian tribes built stone cities. But none of the stone cities were built and inhabited by "NEPHITES". They were, instead, inhabited by tribes well-known to us today and none of them show any evidence of having any biological, linguistic, religious, economic, technological or any other kind of ties to what the Book of Mormon describes as the "Nephites" or other BoM peoples. In fact their civilizations and cultures are not even remotely similar to the "Nephites" as recorded in the BoM apart from the generalities that could be imagined to link them to just about ANY human civilization of the time.

    3. Far from evidence in support of the BoM, the fact that some Native American tribes used clubs with sharpened stones imbedded in them is irrelevant to your claims since the BoM clearly and explicitly says that the Jewish American Indian tribe you call the "Nephites" wielded STEEL swords. The existence of stone-bladed clubs is not evidence of STEEL swords.

    4. You're kidding right? Here again, we see how the Mormon mind scrambles for ANYTHING it can grasp at. But the evidence does not match the claim. Exactly WHICH p***age in the BoM describes Tierra Preta -the particular dark soil in the Amazon valley- in any way that excludes just plain "dark" or "rich" soil so common all over the western hemisphere even in Joe Smith's day just as it is today? And what on earth makes you think that this applies to the BoM civilization which left its only written work buried in Smith's back yard in Western New York???

    5. Same tactic as #4. I don't see how the fact that Mayans practiced human sacrifice supports the historicity of the BoM. Please show us where the BoM describes the ritual practice of human sacrifice among the "Lamanites" or the "Nephites". Then explain why we should think that the Mayans were REALLY the "Nephites".

    6. This is an overgeneralization that fails to support your claims. For example, Lief Erickson sailed to America in the pre-colombian eara, but he was not a Hebrew. He was a Viking. It is NOT "becoming mainstream knowlegde" that Israelites sailed to America, which is what your so-called "scripture" actually describes. Just pointing to the fact that SOMEONE sailed to America in the pre-Colombian period is a fatally flawed argument because that fact does not support your claim that Israelites sailed to America. In fact, exactly NO ONE in the archaeological world has ever presented any evidence to support this idea and it is certainly NOT anything close to "mainstream knowledge".

    All you have here is empty guesswork, imaginary connections, "borrowed" evidence, and empty rhetoric. But that is all Mormons EVER bring to the table when this topic arises. Maybe that is WHY no qualified historians or archaeologists have ever accepted or advocated the Mormon view that attempts to totally revise Mesoamerican history.

    -BH

    .
    Last edited by BrianH; 06-15-2011 at 05:52 PM.

  12. #62
    Walrus
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    The problem is, faith is not evidence, - just believing something does not make it true. And the alleged "revelations" of Mormonism include truth claims about objective matters that are not only unsupported by the evidence, but these LDS claims are regularly disproven by the facts.




    1. While this claim is popular among Mormons it is false. Metal-inscriptions were known to exist all over the world before Joseph Smith claimed to unearth the Book of Mormon. That SOME BoM critics did not know this does not mean this fact is evidence that supports the veracity of the BoM.

    2. This is another tactic employed by people forced to make excuses for the Book of Mormon: claim that evidence from one civilization represents and thus supports the claims of the BoM. Yes a few American Indian tribes built stone cities. But none of the stone cities were built and inhabited by "NEPHITES". They were, instead, inhabited by tribes well-known to us today and none of them show any evidence of having any biological, linguistic, religious, economic, technological or any other kind of ties to what the Book of Mormon describes as the "Nephites" or other BoM peoples. In fact their civilizations and cultures are not even remotely similar to the "Nephites" as recorded in the BoM apart from the generalities that could be imagined to link them to just about ANY human civilization of the time.

    3. Far from evidence in support of the BoM, the fact that some Native American tribes used clubs with sharpened stones imbedded in them is irrelevant to your claims since the BoM clearly and explicitly says that the Jewish American Indian tribe you call the "Nephites" wielded STEEL swords. The existence of stone-bladed clubs is not evidence of STEEL swords.

    4. You're kidding right? Here again, we see how the Mormon mind scrambles for ANYTHING it can grasp at. But the evidence does not match the claim. Exactly WHICH p***age in the BoM describes Tierra Preta -the particular dark soil in the Amazon valley- in any way that excludes just plain "dark" or "rich" soil so common all over the western hemisphere even in Joe Smith's day just as it is today? And what on earth makes you think that this applies to the BoM civilization which left its only written work buried in Smith's back yard in Western New York???

    5. Same tactic as #4. I don't see how the fact that Mayans practiced human sacrifice supports the historicity of the BoM. Please show us where the BoM describes the ritual practice of human sacrifice among the "Lamanites" or the "Nephites". Then explain why we should think that the Mayans were REALLY the "Nephites".

    6. This is an overgeneralization that fails to support your claims. For example, Lief Erickson sailed to America in the pre-colombian eara, but he was not a Hebrew. He was a Viking. It is NOT "becoming mainstream knowlegde" that Israelites sailed to America, which is what your so-called "scripture" actually describes. Just pointing to the fact that SOMEONE sailed to America in the pre-Colombian period is a fatally flawed argument because that fact does not support your claim that Israelites sailed to America. In fact, exactly NO ONE in the archaeological world has ever presented any evidence to support this idea and it is certainly NOT anything close to "mainstream knowledge".

    All you have here is empty guesswork, imaginary connections, "borrowed" evidence, and empty rhetoric. But that is all Mormons EVER bring to the table when this topic arises. Maybe that is WHY no qualified historians or archaeologists have ever accepted or advocated the Mormon view that attempts to totally revise Mesoamerican history.

    -BH

    .
    My point is not to avail you evidence to prove that the BoM is true...no such evidence COULD exist other a personal eyewitness account of the entire process...by your standards. It is by the Spirit of God that you may know ALL things, yet if your brow is br*** and your neck stiff, so it cannot look to the rght or to the left...then your understanding will be lacking.
    The point was to show that the 'jump to conclusions' method behind BoM critics have been systematically deminished.
    Convenient that one can stand on one point of fact, (Central america can't sustain large populations as stated in the Book of Mormon) until evidence comes out to cut it short. Then the 'ultimate lack of evidence' switches to some other aspect while the point that the populations noted ARE valid, are snuffed off as an unimportant topic of discussion. OOOhhhh, well of course, it was a big deal before the Tierra Preta discovery, but it isn't anymore because mentioning it only VALIDATES the BoM.
    Think. The Sword of Laban was finely crafted sword crafted in Jeruselem by a master craftsman (by the description of it). That sword becomes a hierloom to the king. It's steel is strong, unmatched in battle. Awesome to have a 1000 of those! You have novice metalsmiths beating metals into the same shape. It would be ludicrous to ***ume that they were able to replicate the process. One would ***ume that time and resources would have been invested in that which they could produce with the resources and knowledge available. Why didn't God help them? He did. Read the Book of Mormon. He inspired leaders and stregthened the minds and hearts of the people. You need not rely on steel to win a battle.
    Battle tactics..another GREAT point. Very specific type of warfare, completely different from 1800 century combat with which Joseph Smith was familiar. Guerilla type stuff. Digging of ditches, building of ramparts, walls, and towers...all very specific and not common to EVERY part of the world and in every country. Such tactics and evidences are found in the time line, and area of central America. Not proof noooo...not proof. I reallly reaalllly interesting correlation of events, time and place, though.

    Nor was my point to say there is evidence of steel swords, but that, unknowingly 0to Joseph Smith, 'stained swords' has applicable context.
    You act as though all cultures and all cities and all there is to be known is known. They havnt lookied at half the ruins in Central America and nor do they have a clear picture of what they HAVE looked at.
    I don't think the "Nephites" were THE Mayan. It's pretty clear when Laman and Nephite split up...and the Nephits are super industrious and prosperous and expanding and growing...while the Lamanites are lazy and primitive and unindustrious and yet are able to come in with 4x the man power, that the lamanites and nephites were not alone. If you had a 'fairer race' of people that kept their commandments, intermarried amonst themselves, keep their faith, didn't mix with others of other faiths, versus a brother race that didn't care, and just mated and mixed and adopted whatever practice or custom they enjoyed, and that other culture was of darker skin...then it would be easy to see how one group would eventually turn darker and the one would remain lighter skinned.
    If the nephites were always outnumbered by lamanites (and lamanites are simply combined with all those who are not followers of God, or as enemies to the nephites) then by doing some basic algebra we come to the conclusion that there was a large population of non-nephi/laman descent. You introduce a race unto a contenent where they are the minority, wait a 1000 years, and wish yourself luck finding them. It's not scientifically plausable that you would find them.
    Did the 'church' as described in the BoM always have full control over the population? No..almost never...at best a government was established that insured religious freedom and/or the leader happened to be a righteous one. So what are we looking for? At best, remnants of the religion as described in the Book of Mormon. If all the believers in Christ were hunted down and killed, I doubt anything left in plain sight would be preserved. Again, with the account given, what can we erally expect to find? A temple with the 10 commandments? Again..the anti-culture would have dismantled or destroyed any traces of it...the only thing that would remain are allusions to doctrines..not whole and tarnished by man's wisdom.

  13. #63
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Walrus View Post
    My point is not to avail you evidence to prove that the BoM is true...no such evidence COULD exist other a personal eyewitness account of the entire process...by your standards. It is by the Spirit of God that you may know ALL things, yet if your brow is br*** and your neck stiff, so it cannot look to the rght or to the left...then your understanding will be lacking.
    The point was to show that the 'jump to conclusions' method behind BoM critics have been systematically deminished.
    Convenient that one can stand on one point of fact, (Central america can't sustain large populations as stated in the Book of Mormon) until evidence comes out to cut it short. Then the 'ultimate lack of evidence' switches to some other aspect while the point that the populations noted ARE valid, are snuffed off as an unimportant topic of discussion. OOOhhhh, well of course, it was a big deal before the Tierra Preta discovery, but it isn't anymore because mentioning it only VALIDATES the BoM.
    Think. The Sword of Laban was finely crafted sword crafted in Jeruselem by a master craftsman (by the description of it). That sword becomes a hierloom to the king. It's steel is strong, unmatched in battle. Awesome to have a 1000 of those! You have novice metalsmiths beating metals into the same shape. It would be ludicrous to ***ume that they were able to replicate the process. One would ***ume that time and resources would have been invested in that which they could produce with the resources and knowledge available. Why didn't God help them? He did. Read the Book of Mormon. He inspired leaders and stregthened the minds and hearts of the people. You need not rely on steel to win a battle.
    Battle tactics..another GREAT point. Very specific type of warfare, completely different from 1800 century combat with which Joseph Smith was familiar. Guerilla type stuff. Digging of ditches, building of ramparts, walls, and towers...all very specific and not common to EVERY part of the world and in every country. Such tactics and evidences are found in the time line, and area of central America. Not proof noooo...not proof. I reallly reaalllly interesting correlation of events, time and place, though.

    Nor was my point to say there is evidence of steel swords, but that, unknowingly 0to Joseph Smith, 'stained swords' has applicable context.
    You act as though all cultures and all cities and all there is to be known is known. They havnt lookied at half the ruins in Central America and nor do they have a clear picture of what they HAVE looked at.
    I don't think the "Nephites" were THE Mayan. It's pretty clear when Laman and Nephite split up...and the Nephits are super industrious and prosperous and expanding and growing...while the Lamanites are lazy and primitive and unindustrious and yet are able to come in with 4x the man power, that the lamanites and nephites were not alone. If you had a 'fairer race' of people that kept their commandments, intermarried amonst themselves, keep their faith, didn't mix with others of other faiths, versus a brother race that didn't care, and just mated and mixed and adopted whatever practice or custom they enjoyed, and that other culture was of darker skin...then it would be easy to see how one group would eventually turn darker and the one would remain lighter skinned.
    If the nephites were always outnumbered by lamanites (and lamanites are simply combined with all those who are not followers of God, or as enemies to the nephites) then by doing some basic algebra we come to the conclusion that there was a large population of non-nephi/laman descent. You introduce a race unto a contenent where they are the minority, wait a 1000 years, and wish yourself luck finding them. It's not scientifically plausable that you would find them.
    Did the 'church' as described in the BoM always have full control over the population? No..almost never...at best a government was established that insured religious freedom and/or the leader happened to be a righteous one. So what are we looking for? At best, remnants of the religion as described in the Book of Mormon. If all the believers in Christ were hunted down and killed, I doubt anything left in plain sight would be preserved. Again, with the account given, what can we erally expect to find? A temple with the 10 commandments? Again..the anti-culture would have dismantled or destroyed any traces of it...the only thing that would remain are allusions to doctrines..not whole and tarnished by man's wisdom.
    This is nothing more than just another example of the kind of rambling mental retreat that you Mormon guys have been conditioned to repeat any time you are stimulated with even a very basic challenge to what you have been told to "think".

    Look ... You affirm that the Book of Mormon is a divinely inspired book, like the Bible. And like the Bible you claim that the Book of Mormon records allegations about real people, actual places and true events - in other words HISTORY.

    There lies the problem: the Book of Mormon's alleged "revelations" include normal events that supposedly really happened in this world - in actual history; the kind of events that invariably leave evidence of themselves, such as the building of cities, the use of metal coins, and the recording of human language. The problem is, not only is there no evidence to connect the claims of this supposedly divine revelation to reality, there is a coherent and well-documented and universally recognized history based on undisputed facts that totally displaces the possibility that the Book of Mormon is telling the truth. For example, the Mayans were NOT the "Nephites", they WERE -and actually still are- the MAYANS! The Cherokee did not speak Hebrew or write Egyptian (let alone "Reformed Egyptian" a language that has never existed), they spoke and wrote in CHEOKEE! The Souix never trained elephants, they trained HORSES and developed a strong horse-based culture. All the facts of Mesoamerican history contradict, displace and eliminate the fantasies of the Book of Mormon. The fact that you are personally uninformed about the FACTS of Mesoamerican history, does not mean that those facts do not exist.

    Now, God is not a liar. That means that God does not lie about anything, including Mesoamerican history. The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, is clearly and obviously lying with its absurd fantasies about a vast civilization populated by Egyptian-writing Jewish American Indians who supposedly quoted the New Testament and baptized each other in the name of "Jesus Christ" all hundreds of years before Jesus himself was even born! This is utter nonsense and no rational, coherent person could even begin to fall for such gibberish. Moreover, since God is NOT a liar, and since the Book of Mormon is overflowing with LIES about Mesoamerican history, we can only conclude that the BoM is NOT the "divine revelation" you claim it is.

    Meanwhile I note with interest that you failed to even try to defend the copy-paste boilerplate "evidence" prepared for the "fatihful" doubtlessly by some LDS website in your original response. Instead you have offered the programmed, knee-**** response of trying to hide your inability to support the BoM's HISTORICAL and LINGUISTIC claims behind the usual appeals to "faith" and "the Holy 'Ghost'". Sorry, man ...the facts of history are learned by the evidence of HISTORY. One needs no divine intervention to understand the facts of the Ming Dynasty, the rise of the Roman Empire, the American Civil War, the rise of the nation of Israel or any other historical reality. So your claim that the history of the BoM can only be discerned by means of the supernatural is nothing more than the fallacy of special pleading. Moreover, no one who knows the facts about American history has any reason to even begin to think that Native Americans were REALLY Egyptian-speaking Jews who practiced Christianity before Christ was born. And those who claim that divine intervention has informed them that this total absurdity is TRUE are hideously deceived.

    -BH

    .
    Last edited by BrianH; 06-15-2011 at 08:58 PM.

  14. #64
    TheSword99
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Walrus View Post
    Whoa...the Bible says, once or twice, that you are saved by Grace and not of works. Then in about...lets be reasonable..10 other places it tells us we'll be held acountable for our works, good or bad, we're going to be judged of our works, by their fruits ye shall know them, with out works, faith is dead..etc etc.

    .
    Since the Holy Scriptures do not contradict itself and since God is not the author of confusion, then it cannot be both that faith PLUS works saves a person. The bible does not say "once or twice" that faith alone is what saves us. Paul said over and over throughout his writings and was always consistent that it is faith PLUS NOTHING. All throughout the Bible it has always been faith that saves a person. It was the faith of OT saints and God never changed His plan of Salvation.

    Therefore, we must take all the p***ages that speak about works in its proper context. Yes, there will be rewards for obedience to God and any useless works will be burned but the man himself will be spared if he has been born again.

  15. #65
    Walrus
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSword99 View Post
    Since the Holy Scriptures do not contradict itself and since God is not the author of confusion, then it cannot be both that faith PLUS works saves a person. The bible does not say "once or twice" that faith alone is what saves us. Paul said over and over throughout his writings and was always consistent that it is faith PLUS NOTHING. All throughout the Bible it has always been faith that saves a person. It was the faith of OT saints and God never changed His plan of Salvation.

    Therefore, we must take all the p***ages that speak about works in its proper context. Yes, there will be rewards for obedience to God and any useless works will be burned but the man himself will be spared if he has been born again.
    So I can have faith in Christ but I can kill you and your family and still be saved?

  16. #66
    Walrus
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSword99 View Post
    Since the Holy Scriptures do not contradict itself and since God is not the author of confusion, then it cannot be both that faith PLUS works saves a person. The bible does not say "once or twice" that faith alone is what saves us. Paul said over and over throughout his writings and was always consistent that it is faith PLUS NOTHING. All throughout the Bible it has always been faith that saves a person. It was the faith of OT saints and God never changed His plan of Salvation.

    Therefore, we must take all the p***ages that speak about works in its proper context. Yes, there will be rewards for obedience to God and any useless works will be burned but the man himself will be spared if he has been born again.
    COULD I have faith in Christ and do such a thing? No. We stress our personal responsibility to perform Good works as an expression of faith, and in fulfillment of Gods' commandments to do so. What came first..my faith or my work? Faith. If I had not Faith, NO work would justify me.

    Where do we disagree?...without faith, we are nothing. And yet works are the reflection of our faith....... .... ....... ........ ....... .. again, i don't see the rift that you see.
    Can you have faith and not perform a 'work'? And can faith stand alone? Yes and yes. Can a work stand alone, without faith, and be justified. God accepts not these things.
    We couldn't forever be in limbo, awaiting Christ's Atonement. Christ had to perform the greatest of all works, to fulfill ALL righteousness. Simply saying it wasn't enough. Christ DID it.

  17. #67
    Walrus
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    This is nothing more than just another example of the kind of rambling mental retreat that you Mormon guys have been conditioned to repeat any time you are stimulated with even a very basic challenge to what you have been told to "think".

    Look ... You affirm that the Book of Mormon is a divinely inspired book, like the Bible. And like the Bible you claim that the Book of Mormon records allegations about real people, actual places and true events - in other words HISTORY.

    There lies the problem: the Book of Mormon's alleged "revelations" include normal events that supposedly really happened in this world - in actual history; the kind of events that invariably leave evidence of themselves, such as the building of cities, the use of metal coins, and the recording of human language. The problem is, not only is there no evidence to connect the claims of this supposedly divine revelation to reality, there is a coherent and well-documented and universally recognized history based on undisputed facts that totally displaces the possibility that the Book of Mormon is telling the truth. For example, the Mayans were NOT the "Nephites", they WERE -and actually still are- the MAYANS! The Cherokee did not speak Hebrew or write Egyptian (let alone "Reformed Egyptian" a language that has never existed), they spoke and wrote in CHEOKEE! The Souix never trained elephants, they trained HORSES and developed a strong horse-based culture. All the facts of Mesoamerican history contradict, displace and eliminate the fantasies of the Book of Mormon. The fact that you are personally uninformed about the FACTS of Mesoamerican history, does not mean that those facts do not exist.

    Now, God is not a liar. That means that God does not lie about anything, including Mesoamerican history. The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, is clearly and obviously lying with its absurd fantasies about a vast civilization populated by Egyptian-writing Jewish American Indians who supposedly quoted the New Testament and baptized each other in the name of "Jesus Christ" all hundreds of years before Jesus himself was even born! This is utter nonsense and no rational, coherent person could even begin to fall for such gibberish. Moreover, since God is NOT a liar, and since the Book of Mormon is overflowing with LIES about Mesoamerican history, we can only conclude that the BoM is NOT the "divine revelation" you claim it is.

    Meanwhile I note with interest that you failed to even try to defend the copy-paste boilerplate "evidence" prepared for the "fatihful" doubtlessly by some LDS website in your original response. Instead you have offered the programmed, knee-**** response of trying to hide your inability to support the BoM's HISTORICAL and LINGUISTIC claims behind the usual appeals to "faith" and "the Holy 'Ghost'". Sorry, man ...the facts of history are learned by the evidence of HISTORY. One needs no divine intervention to understand the facts of the Ming Dynasty, the rise of the Roman Empire, the American Civil War, the rise of the nation of Israel or any other historical reality. So your claim that the history of the BoM can only be discerned by means of the supernatural is nothing more than the fallacy of special pleading. Moreover, no one who knows the facts about American history has any reason to even begin to think that Native Americans were REALLY Egyptian-speaking Jews who practiced Christianity before Christ was born. And those who claim that divine intervention has informed them that this total absurdity is TRUE are hideously deceived.

    -BH

    .
    Your bias has blinded you my friend.

    One cannot have an discussion when the starting point is, I'm absurd. Nothing I say would suffice. Really....NO evidence exists? No one knew they built with cement. They do! That's 'an evidence'. Verified by science. So now, you can change your tone and say...there's not enough evidence..because unless you would be guilty of the same accusation, you must 'face the facts'.
    Was Christ unknown to the prophets and the people they taught before Christ came? Huh??? The plan of salvation...Jesus Christ as our Saviour...God is no respector of persons, yet he wouldnt teach ANYone about Christ before his comig? Wasn't that the WHOLE POINT of the OT?
    John the baptist was baptizing before Christ was teaching it...Where did John get it from?
    If the Atonement is eternal, wouldn't the ordinances be eternal? Must be baptized...even Christ did it. MUST be important.

  18. #68
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    Your bias has blinded you my friend.
    No, the FACTS have enlightened me. YOU are the one offering nothing but bias here, amigo. And you have offered no facts to refute the truths I posted for you.

    One cannot have an discussion when the starting point is, I'm absurd.
    Please pay attention. I never said YOU are absurd. I said the historical content of the Book of Mormon is absurd and gave you several clear reasons WHY it is absurd. You have not refuted those reasons. In fact, at this point all you have done is experience and then give voice to a predictable emotional reaction to the facts with which I am confronting your claims. Your emotional reaction is not a refutation.

    Nothing I say would suffice. Really....NO evidence exists?
    Correct. You have been misled by a collection of uninformed and deceptive fakers grasping at imaginary straws and "borrowing" the well-documented evidence of OTHER civilizations and then presenting it as "evidence" to support the fantasies they are telling you are true.


    No one knew they built with cement. They do! That's 'an evidence'. Verified by science. So now, you can change your tone and say...there's not enough evidence..because unless you would be guilty of the same accusation, you must 'face the facts'
    You are simply repeating the mistake prepared for you by your masters. It is true that "they" built with something similar to what we could call "cement". But the problem is "THEY" were not "Nephties". "They" were indigenous Native American peoples with an actual history that has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon.

    Was Christ unknown to the prophets and the people they taught before Christ came? Huh???
    If you will put aside all the nonsense published by the LDS church and actually R E A D the Bible by itself, it will become clear to you that the biblical prophets foretold the coming of the Messiah. This fact in no way supports the ridiculous ***ertions in the BoM that Egyptian-writing Jewish American Indians knew him as "Jesus Christ" (which is NOT his name) and quoted the New Testament and practiced baptizing in his name hundreds of years before Jesus ben Joseph was born!

    The plan of salvation...Jesus Christ as our Saviour...God is no respector of persons, yet he wouldnt teach ANYone about Christ before his comig? Wasn't that the WHOLE POINT of the OT?
    This is nothing but the weak insinuation of a desperate straw man fallacy. I never said that God wouldn't teach anyone anything about the Messiah. Again, if you simply R E A D the Bible you will quickly discover that God revealed that there would be a Messiah, that he would be of the lineage of David, born of a virgin and several other details of his life, ministry, death and resurrection. We have no reason to think that he named the Messiah and introduced the distinguishing tenets of the Christian faith to a vast civilization of Egyptian-writing Israelites somewhere in the Western Hemisphere (you don't even know where!) hundreds of years before the incarnation.

    John the baptist was baptizing before Christ was teaching it...Where did John get it from?
    From the normative ritual ablution practice of Second Temple Judasim, of course. What is it about John baptizing people in the Jordan for the repentance of sins that makes you think it somehow supports claims pertaining to the existence of the "Nephites"???

    If the Atonement is eternal, wouldn't the ordinances be eternal? Must be baptized...even Christ did it. MUST be important.
    Sure baptism is important. But there is nothing about the rite of baptism as practiced in the first century Israel that in any way suggests it was practiced by any native American culture, let alone the non-existent "Nephites".

    -BH

    .

  19. #69
    James Banta
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Walrus View Post
    Your bias has blinded you my friend.

    One cannot have an discussion when the starting point is, I'm absurd. Nothing I say would suffice. Really....NO evidence exists? No one knew they built with cement. They do! That's 'an evidence'. Verified by science. So now, you can change your tone and say...there's not enough evidence..because unless you would be guilty of the same accusation, you must 'face the facts'.
    Was Christ unknown to the prophets and the people they taught before Christ came? Huh??? The plan of salvation...Jesus Christ as our Saviour...God is no respector of persons, yet he wouldnt teach ANYone about Christ before his comig? Wasn't that the WHOLE POINT of the OT?
    John the baptist was baptizing before Christ was teaching it...Where did John get it from?
    If the Atonement is eternal, wouldn't the ordinances be eternal? Must be baptized...even Christ did it. MUST be important.
    Off subject still again.. how does proofs of the BofM extend to the Gospel only being for one place or one time.. It's nit that this wouldn't make an interesting thread it just doesn't fit here.. IHS jim

  20. #70
    TheSword99
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Walrus View Post
    So I can have faith in Christ but I can kill you and your family and still be saved?
    Surely you're joking. I never said that. I said useless works will be burned. That is not the same as committing a grave sin.

    Once a man is spiritually born again, he is indwelt with the Holy Spirit and nothing and no one can snatch that man from Jesus' hand.

  21. #71
    TheSword99
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Walrus View Post
    COULD I have faith in Christ and do such a thing? No. We stress our personal responsibility to perform Good works as an expression of faith, and in fulfillment of Gods' commandments to do so. What came first..my faith or my work? Faith. If I had not Faith, NO work would justify me.

    Where do we disagree?...without faith, we are nothing. And yet works are the reflection of our faith....... .... ....... ........ ....... .. again, i don't see the rift that you see.
    Can you have faith and not perform a 'work'? And can faith stand alone? Yes and yes. Can a work stand alone, without faith, and be justified. God accepts not these things.
    We couldn't forever be in limbo, awaiting Christ's Atonement. Christ had to perform the greatest of all works, to fulfill ALL righteousness. Simply saying it wasn't enough. Christ DID it.
    Can you tell us what faith you adhere to?

    A Christian does good works because he is saved, not in order to get saved. there's the difference. When one is born again he receives a new heart. God begins transforming that person from the inside. However, works do nothing to aid salvation. It was Abraham's faith that God declared as righteousness. This was before Abraham had even offered up Isaac. Faith is what pleases God. The Bible says our righteous acts are like filthy rags to God. There is usually a motive behind everything we do.

  22. #72
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Walrus View Post
    So I can have faith in Christ but I can kill you and your family and still be saved?
    Yes...

    Yes we can be saved yet also guilty of many sins.

  23. #73
    TheSword99
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    Yes...

    Yes we can be saved yet also guilty of many sins.
    So you don't believe in repenting of those sins?

  24. #74
    Walrus
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James Banta View Post
    Off subject still again.. how does proofs of the BofM extend to the Gospel only being for one place or one time.. It's nit that this wouldn't make an interesting thread it just doesn't fit here.. IHS jim
    Off subject responding to BH...?? okay

  25. #75
    Walrus
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSword99 View Post
    Can you tell us what faith you adhere to?

    A Christian does good works because he is saved, not in order to get saved. there's the difference. When one is born again he receives a new heart. God begins transforming that person from the inside. However, works do nothing to aid salvation. It was Abraham's faith that God declared as righteousness. This was before Abraham had even offered up Isaac. Faith is what pleases God. The Bible says our righteous acts are like filthy rags to God. There is usually a motive behind everything we do.
    I don't reference timing the same way as you. Work's don't justify salvation, faith does. We accept that...we're moving on...now what do I do while i wait for my life to end? For am I not perfect? No need to do learn or do or act or experience? No! How bout I pray for the Lord to keep me from temptation? He commanded it. How bout keeping his commandments...if I am saved, if I truly have faith in that promise, I'll keep his commandments....which were not "Don't worry about works or about them because i just said them..just so..." you make Christ a fool if you ignore HIS WORK and HIS example...otherwise you're not his disciple! You can make mistakes...thats what repentance is for. I heard on the Christian radio yesterday, Pastor Bob say "There is an immediate change when one accepts Christ in their heart, Night to Day! But the process of repentance continues, a slow process where, step by step, you are perfected in your Walk with Jesus!" I agree!!! There is an immediate washing away of sins, a release of a great burden...a refreshing! And then onward! Endure to the end!
    I've gave a sufficient answer already..you must be burdened with a false idea that we value works more than faith. It's not true! May God bless your heart and may you be free of that falsehood, in Jesus's name!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •