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

[Walrus]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Yes...

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

Good answer! I agree with the concept, but literally it should read
"We can be guilty of many sins, and yet be saved"

We cannot be guilty AND saved at the same time...because if you are saved, you have no guilt. That's why Christ would have us ALWAYS pray to the Father...its so very easy to stray if you don't think you need to pray, or attend worship services etc..

Christ "Your sins are forgiven you, go thy way and sin no more."

[Walrus]

Originally Posted by BrianH

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.


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 I said the historical content of the Book of Mormon is absurd and gave you several clear reasons WHY it is absurd.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.



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.




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.


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!



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 Es somewhere in the Western Hemisphere (you don't even know where!) hundreds of years before the incarnation.



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"???



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

.

Haaahahahahha...an emotional response eh? I won't deny I'm human...but you don't think you're approach has ANYthing do to with the responses you get?
Is this what being saved is? Rudeness? Reviling? Really? Where is Christ? Where is the Christ like love?? Where Brian??? Why do you feel so much hate? Think..if what you are teaching others stirs up SOOOO much contention and ill feeling...MAYBE ITS NOT OF GOD!
Ah ha! The Mormon admits it...you havn't read a single word I wrote. What you teach about what i believe...ISNT what i believe. And you WONT listen!

So you wont need to throw this out anymore, I'll enlighten you.

Egyptian-writing Israelites...how long were the Israelites in bondage to the Egyptians? Long enough to be Egyptian Writing Israelites. That was too easy. Logical. Did Egypt and Jerusalem (or Israelites) conduct trade with each other? Yes, throughout Biblical History and its backed up by science. So established was the Jewish culture that Jesus and family lived there for awhile. But it's still absurd to think that there were ever Egyptian-writing Israelites....no...its absurd to think that there weren't. They would trade with them, and live amongst them, but they wouldn't speak each other's language or communicate in any written form? That's ill logic...do you know that when two cultures come together that over a period of time a sub-culture of the two mixed is created? Mexico and the US, for instance? Anyone else disagree beside BH?
Placing a people in the Americas from Jerusalem..impossible for God? Contrary to God's will? God said he would scatter Israel. Scatter them in the streets? Scatter them in the city? We're talking God...if God can take up the City of Enoch unto himself, then God can scatter who He wants, when He wants. If we all came from Noah...how did all the islanders get there? God put them there. How? Tornadoes, by the Spirit (not false), by boat maybe? When you say, "It's impossible" why would it be impossible for God? What ARE all the islanders doing on all those islands anyways??? God had no purpose in doing so?

Genesis 26:4
4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;

Sending Israeli speaking ANYTHING to the four corners of the earth is exactly in accordance with the fundamental promises made to Father Abraham.

Instead of complaining about my argument, i invite you to actually address it.

[BrianH]

Originally Posted by Walrus

Haaahahahahha...an emotional response eh? I won't deny I'm human...but you don't think you're approach has ANYthing do to with the responses you get?

Yes an emotional response and nothing else.

Is this what being saved is? Rudeness? Reviling? Really? Where is Christ? Where is the Christ like love?? Where Brian??? Why do you feel so much hate? Think..if what you are teaching others stirs up SOOOO much contention and ill feeling...MAYBE ITS NOT OF GOD!
Ah ha! The Mormon admits it...you havn't read a single word I wrote. What you teach about what i believe...ISNT what i believe. And you WONT listen!

When simply telling the the truth is called "rudeness" I have to ask, what do you call making accusations and then failing to support them?

The facts are simply against you here Wally. Get used to it. That is what being a Mormon ususally means.

So you wont need to throw this out anymore, I'll enlighten you.

Egyptian-writing Israelites...how long were the Israelites in bondage to the Egyptians? Long enough to be Egyptian Writing Israelites. That was too easy. Logical. Did Egypt and Jerusalem (or Israelites) conduct trade with each other? Yes, throughout Biblical History and its backed up by science. So established was the Jewish culture that Jesus and family lived there for awhile. But it's still absurd to think that there were ever Egyptian-writing Israelites....no...its absurd to think that there weren't. They would trade with them, and live amongst them, but they wouldn't speak each other's language or communicate in any written form? That's ill logic...do you know that when two cultures come together that over a period of time a sub-culture of the two mixed is created? Mexico and the US, for instance? Anyone else disagree beside BH?

You have not only failed to enlighten me, you have failed to do anthing more than speculate based on exactly NOTHING. It may indeed be that some Israelite somewhere learned how to write in Egyptian. But the idea of Jewish American Indians writing Hebrew scripture in "Reformed Egyptian" is just plain fiction. Until you can SHOW US some reason to think that there was ever any such thing as Smith's "Reformed Egyptian" all of your speculations are nothing more than self-serving guesswork with no basis in any fact whatsoever.

Placing a people in the Americas from Jerusalem..impossible for God? Contrary to God's will? God said he would scatter Israel. Scatter them in the streets? Scatter them in the city? We're talking God...if God can take up the City of Enoch unto himself, then God can scatter who He wants, when He wants. If we all came from Noah...how did all the islanders get there? God put them there. How? Tornadoes, by the Spirit (not false), by boat maybe? When you say, "It's impossible" why would it be impossible for God? What ARE all the islanders doing on all those islands anyways??? God had no purpose in doing so?

No one said it was impossible for God - that is just another straw man fallacy on your part. I am telling you that there is no reason to think that such a thing actually HAPPENED and, in fact, to anyone who is even minimally familair with the FACTS of Mesoamerican history (whcih obviously leaves you and virtually all other Mormons out), such a claim is bluntly imbecielic.

Genesis 26:4
4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;

Sending Israeli speaking ANYTHING to the four corners of the earth is exactly in accordance with the fundamental promises made to Father Abraham.

Firstr of all, let me help you out here. No one ever spoke "Israeli". The langauge of the Israelites is called "Hebrew". And yes God promised that the Israelites would inheret the earth ...but you have yet to present any reasons to think that this promise was fulfilled prior to the Jewish diaspora in the 1st century, or even today.

Instead of complaining about my argument, i invite you to actually address it.

LOL!!!! "Actually address" your "argument"?!?! Get control of yourself, Wally. Then try going back to my first reply to you here where I specifically detailed the errors in each of your numbered ***ertions. THAT WAS "addressing" your so-called "arguments" (which are actually nothing of the kind, being just empty ***ertions and regurgitations of the same biolerplate excuses prepared by the LSD church for its "faithful" that we have been refuting here for several years).

I suggest unless you can present some actual FACTS and some valid reasoning from those facts, you -like all other Moromons before you- will be left with nothing to do BUT repeat the same tired old nonsense.

-BH

.

[Walrus]

imbecielic

So God has the entire Earth before Him. He promised it to Abraham's seed. As the sands of the sea. So you would not just concede the one intellectual thought that God may have begun to fulfill his promises after they were made? God delayed a season before Abraham received the promised Isaac..sure...but not 'long after' a nation was formed.
Where are the Lost 10 Tribes, when will they be gathered, who even knows where they are? Do they even know who they are? Unlikely. But God does. God has kept track of them. God said they would be scattered and they were. He said they would be gathered, and they will. He has provided the means by which we may know who they are, and where they went. Ten tribes. Not one...ten. Take a map of the earth and throw a dart. Any of them could have ended up anywhere. When will God 'start' to fulfill that foundational promise? Never stopped, never was not fulfilling that promise.

Can we expect God to throw a tribe way far away? Yes.

Zechariah chpt 10

Verse 1-Ask for rain in the days of the latter rain..(speaking of the future)
Verse 2-5 'They' walk without a shepherd for a while, God visits Judah, makes Judah his 'goodly horse in the battle', and they tread down their enemies.
That can be considered fulfilled or currently being fulfilled, in my opinion.

Verse 6-9
6 And I will strengthen the house of Judah, and I will save the house of Joseph, and I will bring them again to place them; for I have mercy upon them: and they shall be as though I had not cast them off: for I am the Lord their God, and will hear them.

7And they of Ephraim shall be like a mighty man, and their heart shall rejoice as through wine: yea, their children shall see it, and be glad; their heart shall rejoice in the Lord.

8I will hiss for them, and gather them; for I have redeemed them: and they shall increase as they have increased.

9And I will sow them among the people: and they shall remember me in far countries; and they shall live with their children, and turn again.

So Ephraim, or the house of Joseph, will be brought back..as if they were not cast off, and He will hear them. They shall be like a mighty man (as Judah is also) and they and their children shall rejoice in the Lord...the Gospel is what drives one to rejoice! He will gather them..so they had to have been scattered, or apart. They shall be sowed and they shall remember me in far countries.
God promised it..can't deny it. We can expect that the house of Joseph will be sent away, but remembered of the Lord. They will be blessed and will rejoice in the Lord...can't rejoice in the Lord if you don't know the Lord.

Zechariah 9
9¶Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ***, and upon a colt the foal of an ***.
10And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth.

Ephraim is again brought up as a Contemporary force..both have power taken from them after the coming of Christ. Christ speaks to the heathen (gentiles) and his dominion shall be the whole earth...i think it refers to the heathen's dominion for Christ's reign hadn't occured in the text, yet.

9:13 When I have bent Judah for me, filled the bow with Ephraim, and raised up thy sons, O Zion, against thy sons, O Greece, and made thee as the sword of a mighty man.

Again, Judah and Ephraim...Ephraim being the actual 'missile'...against Greece. Why Greece? Greek philosophy, perhaps...ideologies.

Ezekiel 37:
6Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:

What would God have a prophet write that wouldn't be scripture? Nothing. Never. Writing upon a stick is writing scripture on something that can be read by Judah and Ephraim. For Judah, cool, for Ephraim, why? And not only is that stick for Ephraim, but for all the house of Israel his companions. But why? We read above that Christ would remember Ephraim, and they would rejoice in the Lord, and they couldn't do so without KNOWING the Lord...and prophets, and scripture, and worship are necessary to know the Lord enough to rejoice. And if they are rejoicing in the Lord, surely it is because they know the Good News! They know about Christ and his Atoning Sacrifice. Is it possible for a culture to loss its way and completely lose sight of the truth? The House of Israel is proof. They were the House of Israel. Their collapse was predicted as was Judah's and the scattering of the rest.

1 Nephi 5:14
14And it came to p*** that my father, Lehi, also found upon the plates of br*** a genealogy of his fathers; wherefore he knew that he was a descendant of Joseph; yea, even that Joseph who was the son of Jacob, who was sold into Egypt, and who was preserved by the hand of the Lord, that he might preserve his father, Jacob, and all his household from perishing with famine.

What did a prophet to be think about the records they obtained?

21And we had obtained the records which the Lord had commanded us, and searched them and found that they were desirable; yea, even of great worth unto us, insomuch that we could preserve the commandments of the Lord unto our children.

Why would they take scripture, and why would they continue to do so? So they may preserve the commandments of the Lord and rejoice in his Promises!

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by Walrus

We cannot be guilty AND saved ....

Jesus took the place of a man condemned to death.
The man was guilty.
He had been tried and found guilty.

Of this there is no doubt.

However Jesus took the death sentence in the place of the guilty/condemned man...
Jesus did not carry his own cross, he actually carried one made for another.

as he does for me too.....as he does for all of us.

[BrianH]

Originally Posted by Walrus

imbecielic

So God has the entire Earth before Him. He promised it to Abraham's seed. As the sands of the sea. So you would not just concede the one intellectual thought that God may have begun to fulfill his promises after they were made? God delayed a season before Abraham received the promised Isaac..sure...but not 'long after' a nation was formed.

You are not claiming that God may have begun to fulfill his promises after they were made. You are claiming that there REALLY WAS a vast, technologically anachronistic civilization populated by Egyptian-writing, Jewish American Indians who quoted the New Testament and baptized each other in the name of "Jesus Christ" hundreds of years before Christ himself was even born. See the difference?

Where are the Lost 10 Tribes, when will they be gathered, who even knows where they are? Do they even know who they are? Unlikely. But God does. God has kept track of them. God said they would be scattered and they were. He said they would be gathered, and they will. He has provided the means by which we may know who they are, and where they went. Ten tribes. Not one...ten. Take a map of the earth and throw a dart. Any of them could have ended up anywhere. When will God 'start' to fulfill that foundational promise? Never stopped, never was not fulfilling that promise.

Well ...YOU may not know where the OTHER 10 tribes are (and BTW, they were not "lost", they were dispersed). But YOU are obviously not particularly well informed here. The FACT is, they have been and are being identified all over the world. And guess what ...? NONE of them were in the Western Hemisphere prior to the major European migrations following Colombus.

Can we expect God to throw a tribe way far away? Yes.

But you are not claiming that God "threw a tribe far away". You are claiming that there REALLY WAS a vast, technologically anachronistic civilization populated by Egyptian-writing, Jewish American Indians who quoted the New Testament and baptized each other in the name of "Jesus Christ" hundreds of years before Christ himself was even born. See the difference between that and the idea that there were Hebrews who migrated to other places in the world following the universally-recognized and well-documented diaspora.

Zechariah chpt 10

Verse 1-Ask for rain in the days of the latter rain..(speaking of the future)
Verse 2-5 'They' walk without a shepherd for a while, God visits Judah, makes Judah his 'goodly horse in the battle', and they tread down their enemies.
That can be considered fulfilled or currently being fulfilled, in my opinion

.

Sure but that is not the issue here. The idea you are supposed to be defending is the foundational distortions of Mesoamerican history recorded in your "scripture", in which we are told of a vast, technologically anachronistic civilization populated by Egyptian-writing, Jewish American Indians who quoted the New Testament and baptized each other in the name of "Jesus Christ" hundreds of years before Christ himself was even born. Are you getting any of this yet?

Verse 6-9
6 And I will strengthen the house of Judah, and I will save the house of Joseph, and I will bring them again to place them; for I have mercy upon them: and they shall be as though I had not cast them off: for I am the Lord their God, and will hear them.

Should you ever bother to actually read the CONTEXT here, you should be able to quickly discover that what God is talking about here is gathering His chosen people (the Israelites) back in the land he granted them when he made his promises to Abraham. This has nothing to do in any way whatsoever with some alleged vast, technologically anachronistic civilization populated by Egyptian-writing, Jewish American Indians who quoted the New Testament and baptized each other in the name of "Jesus Christ" hundreds of years before Christ himself was even born.

7And they of Ephraim shall be like a mighty man, and their heart shall rejoice as through wine: yea, their children shall see it, and be glad; their heart shall rejoice in the Lord.

8I will hiss for them, and gather them; for I have redeemed them: and they shall increase as they have increased.

9And I will sow them among the people: and they shall remember me in far countries; and they shall live with their children, and turn again.

So Ephraim, or the house of Joseph, will be brought back..as if they were not cast off, and He will hear them. They shall be like a mighty man (as Judah is also) and they and their children shall rejoice in the Lord...the Gospel is what drives one to rejoice! He will gather them..so they had to have been scattered, or apart. They shall be sowed and they shall remember me in far countries.

Again, irrelevant to the issue we are debating.

God promised it..can't deny it. We can expect that the house of Joseph will be sent away, but remembered of the Lord. They will be blessed and will rejoice in the Lord...can't rejoice in the Lord if you don't know the Lord.

Yep. God promised it alright, and it has nothing to do with some alleged vast, technologically anachronistic civilization populated by Egyptian-writing, Jewish American Indians who quoted the New Testament and baptized each other in the name of "Jesus Christ" hundreds of years before Christ himself was even born.

Zechariah 9
9¶Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ***, and upon a colt the foal of an ***.
10And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth.

Ephraim is again brought up as a Contemporary force..both have power taken from them after the coming of Christ. Christ speaks to the heathen (gentiles) and his dominion shall be the whole earth...i think it refers to the heathen's dominion for Christ's reign hadn't occured in the text, yet.

9:13 When I have bent Judah for me, filled the bow with Ephraim, and raised up thy sons, O Zion, against thy sons, O Greece, and made thee as the sword of a mighty man.

Again, Judah and Ephraim...Ephraim being the actual 'missile'...against Greece. Why Greece? Greek philosophy, perhaps...ideologies.

Ezekiel 37:
6Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:

What would God have a prophet write that wouldn't be scripture? Nothing. Never. Writing upon a stick is writing scripture on something that can be read by Judah and Ephraim. For Judah, cool, for Ephraim, why? And not only is that stick for Ephraim, but for all the house of Israel his companions. But why? We read above that Christ would remember Ephraim, and they would rejoice in the Lord, and they couldn't do so without KNOWING the Lord...and prophets, and scripture, and worship are necessary to know the Lord enough to rejoice. And if they are rejoicing in the Lord, surely it is because they know the Good News! They know about Christ and his Atoning Sacrifice. Is it possible for a culture to loss its way and completely lose sight of the truth? The House of Israel is proof. They were the House of Israel. Their collapse was predicted as was Judah's and the scattering of the rest.

I can only guess that you have simply lost touch with this conversation altogether. Nothing here is even remotely relevant nor supportive of the point you are responsible for making if you intend to provide some reasons to grant the BoM at least some tiny bit of credibility.

[quote[ 1 Nephi 5:14
14And it came to p*** that my father, Lehi, also found upon the plates of br*** a genealogy of his fathers; wherefore he knew that he was a descendant of Joseph; yea, even that Joseph who was the son of Jacob, who was sold into Egypt, and who was preserved by the hand of the Lord, that he might preserve his father, Jacob, and all his household from perishing with famine.

What did a prophet to be think about the records they obtained?

21And we had obtained the records which the Lord had commanded us, and searched them and found that they were desirable; yea, even of great worth unto us, insomuch that we could preserve the commandments of the Lord unto our children.

Why would they take scripture, and why would they continue to do so? So they may preserve the commandments of the Lord and rejoice in his Promises![/QUOTE]

Why would anyone think the "Nephites" ever even existed?

-BH

.

[TheSword99]

Originally Posted by Walrus

Good answer! I agree with the concept, but literally it should read
"We can be guilty of many sins, and yet be saved"

We cannot be guilty AND saved at the same time...because if you are saved, you have no guilt. That's why Christ would have us ALWAYS pray to the Father...its so very easy to stray if you don't think you need to pray, or attend worship services etc..

Christ "Your sins are forgiven you, go thy way and sin no more."

Once we are spiritually born again, God declares us not guilty. This is because Jesus Christ paid for that guilt This saved person is no longer a sinner, but is now righteous in God's sight and cleansed from all sin by the blood of the Lamb..

[Walrus]

Originally Posted by BrianH

You are not claiming that God may have begun to fulfill his promises after they were made. You are claiming that there REALLY WAS a vast, technologically anachronistic civilization populated by Egyptian-writing, Jewish American Indians who quoted the New Testament and baptized each other in the name of "Jesus Christ" hundreds of years before Christ himself was even born. See the difference?




Well ...YOU may not know where the OTHER 10 tribes are (and BTW, they were not "lost", they were dispersed). But YOU are obviously not particularly well informed here. The FACT is, they have been and are being identified all over the world. And guess what ...? NONE of them were in the Western Hemisphere prior to the major European migrations following Colombus.



But you are not claiming that God "threw a tribe far away". You are claiming that there REALLY WAS a vast, technologically anachronistic civilization populated by Egyptian-writing, Jewish American Indians who quoted the New Testament and baptized each other in the name of "Jesus Christ" hundreds of years before Christ himself was even born. See the difference between that and the idea that there were Hebrews who migrated to other places in the world following the universally-recognized and well-documented diaspora.

.

Sure but that is not the issue here. The idea you are supposed to be defending is the foundational distortions of Mesoamerican history recorded in your "scripture", in which we are told of a vast, technologically anachronistic civilization populated by Egyptian-writing, Jewish American Indians who quoted the New Testament and baptized each other in the name of "Jesus Christ" hundreds of years before Christ himself was even born. Are you getting any of this yet?



Should you ever bother to actually read the CONTEXT here, you should be able to quickly discover that what God is talking about here is gathering His chosen people (the Israelites) back in the land he granted them when he made his promises to Abraham. This has nothing to do in any way whatsoever with some alleged vast, technologically anachronistic civilization populated by Egyptian-writing, Jewish American Indians who quoted the New Testament and baptized each other in the name of "Jesus Christ" hundreds of years before Christ himself was even born.



Again, irrelevant to the issue we are debating.



Yep. God promised it alright, and it has nothing to do with some alleged vast, technologically anachronistic civilization populated by Egyptian-writing, Jewish American Indians who quoted the New Testament and baptized each other in the name of "Jesus Christ" hundreds of years before Christ himself was even born.



Why would anyone think the "Nephites" ever even existed?

-BH

.

So you admit they are being found! Bravo!

All the facts I laid out are relevant. Through the Bible we can expect to find the ten tribes dispersed. We can expect to find two separate nations who are mighty and rejoice in the Lord. We can expect that second nation to keep a record.
It is all within the realm of reason and expectation. God didn't limit his work to just the Eastern Hemisphere for we see Children of God scattered upon the entire face of the Earth. So you cannot say that God wouldn't place one person there, if others are already there, and more will arrive. It is irrational to say that it is an impossibility.
And you are claiming that science/man is 100% accurate and has 100% of the information, so much so, we ought to scoff haahahahahahaha at the idea that God might know just a wee bit more than us?
How would one track two families who disappear into the night? Who travel alone, keep to themselves, build a ship and set sail without establishing settlements and communities? No surprise in not finding their trail. Although we can trace the directions they took and see how nicely it matches up with the landscape? The burial place of NHM? Must have heard that by now.
If you wish to only see the gathering of Israel and completely disregard the promises of God to the house of Joseph, and their part in it, you are free to do so. It shall be noted that you wanted it from the Bible, i delivered, and you still rejected it. If the Word of God won't at least bring you down to an eye to eye conversation, then nothing will.
My point. You are so adament that the entire idea is IMPOSSIBLE. That is lie. And you know it. Go is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow..why WOULDN'T God teach his children about Christ? Only if they weren't stiffnecked...because that was what God was trying to drill in over and over and over again. Why WOULDN'T God preserve the House of Joseph like God said he would?

2 Nephi 29
Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?

7Know ye not that there are more nations than one? (the House of Judah is just one of the 12) 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?

8Wherefore 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.

9And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.

10Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

11For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.

12For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

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,



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?)

Even those that don't hold water baptism to be an ordinance of the Church believe they are baptized in the Spirit into Jesus.. I stand by what I said.. ALL Christians believe in baptism.. Some literal, some not.. I am one that believes in water baptism as a testimony to the world that I have made a commitment to my Lord Jesus.. I respect others that spirituality that and hold that their Faith in Him baptizes then in Spirit.. What I reject 100% is anyone that tells me that water Baptism cleanses them of their sin.. If water, or anything but the Blood of the Lamb, could do so then Jesus died in vain.. Being baptized is important because Jesus commanded it. But being perfect as the Father is perfect is also important because Jesus commanded it.. Does it mean that if there is any sin in you that you can't be saved? NO! And therefore getting wet can't save you either. Salvation requires intervention by God in the death of Jesus on the cross.. IHS jim

[BrianH]

Originally Posted by Walrus

So you admit they are being found! Bravo!

I admitted nothing of the kind. They were never "lost" to begin with. Please actually READ a post before responding to it. If you will go back and read what you are calling an "admission", you should be able to figure out that it is a refutation of your fundamental premise. The Jewish people were never "lost" to begin with. In fact, they knew who they were for their entire existence. The nonsensical idea that they were "lost" is just more fantasy world nonsense.

All the facts I laid out are relevant.

You did not lay out any "facts".

Through the Bible we can expect to find the ten tribes dispersed. We can expect to find two separate nations who are mighty and rejoice in the Lord. We can expect that second nation to keep a record.
It is all within the realm of reason and expectation. God didn't limit his work to just the Eastern Hemisphere for we see Children of God scattered upon the entire face of the Earth. So you cannot say that God wouldn't place one person there, if others are already there, and more will arrive. It is irrational to say that it is an impossibility.
And you are claiming that science/man is 100% accurate and has 100% of the information, so much so, we ought to scoff haahahahahahaha at the idea that God might know just a wee bit more than us?
How would one track two families who disappear into the night? Who travel alone, keep to themselves, build a ship and set sail without establishing settlements and communities? No surprise in not finding their trail. Although we can trace the directions they took and see how nicely it matches up with the landscape? The burial place of NHM? Must have heard that by now.
If you wish to only see the gathering of Israel and completely disregard the promises of God to the house of Joseph, and their part in it, you are free to do so. It shall be noted that you wanted it from the Bible, i delivered, and you still rejected it. If the Word of God won't at least bring you down to an eye to eye conversation, then nothing will.
My point. You are so adament that the entire idea is IMPOSSIBLE. That is lie. And you know it. Go is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow..why WOULDN'T God teach his children about Christ? Only if they weren't stiffnecked...because that was what God was trying to drill in over and over and over again. Why WOULDN'T God preserve the House of Joseph like God said he would?

None of this is even relevant, let alone supports your claims about some supposed vast civilization populated by Egyptian-writing Jewish American Indians who raised elephants, rode the plains in chariots and baptized each other in the name of "Jesus Christ" before Christ himself was even born. And BTW, the tired old NHM nonsense remains nothing but another Mormon myth. There is not even any evidence that the "NHM" inscription refers to a place. And Smith got more wrong about the geography of the Arabian Peninsula than he got right.

Finally, of course God would teach his "children" about Christ. That is what he DID, AFTER the Son was incarnated, according to the Bible. And what you have so far failed to do is provide us with any reason to think that these "children" included the apparently non-existent "Nephites" and that God taught them all the NT details before he was born.

2 Nephi 29
Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?

7Know ye not that there are more nations than one? (the House of Judah is just one of the 12) 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?

8Wherefore 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.

9And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.

10Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

11For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.

12For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.

Here's a little basic logic for you: citing the Book of Mormon in support of the Book of Mormon is a fallacy known as the "circular argument". Being fallacious it is irrational and being irrational it has no value other than to demonstrate that you are thus far, unable to ***emble a rational argument to support your claims.

-BH

.

[James Banta]

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?

Here is what God has to say about your demand that the Indians be saved by Jesus coming to them teaching them as he had in the Old World:

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

Did God make anything in the Americas? If He did then His Godhead and eternal power are clearly seen.. They like the Aborigines, like the natives in the core of Africa, the far reaches of Asia, the Arctic, the peoples scattered across every corner of the earth, can see that power and Godhead, none have any excuse.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Let us take these false teaching one at a time..
1. Christ establishes his Church, 12 apostles (who fill vacancies..keeping it 12) are called..
Ok you say he called 12 but one of them was a devil and gave up his bisho***** (Acts 1:20). That place was to be given to another. Then comes the requirements for the position in Verses 21-22. See what it says they must have been with Jesus from the time of His baptism to the day of His ***ertion.. Know anyone that qualifies? I don't! Ok Now where can we look to find the total number of apostles that are real Apostles of the Lamb.. Let look at Revelations 21:14 "And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." Which twelve do you think the Holy Spirit was speaking of when He showed this vision to the Apostle John? Seem that mormonism with modern apostles that were not there walking with Jesus during His mortal ministry have no right to be called Apostles of the Lamb.. Neither do they have the right to fine their names inscribed on the foundations of the New City.. Your ***ertions are UNBIBLICAL.

2. Miracles of the New Testament are recognized to have ceased by 400AD if not earlier.
My God is a God of miracles.. These have not ceased and will not until the perfect returns for His Church.. Daily miracles continue. A person would have to be blind not to see them..

3. The book of Scripture is closed.. Ok I think it is.. God has given us the greatest of all miracles the greatest of all teachers. The full account of all He has done from the first sparkle of light to the final defeat of death and Sin.. What did he forget? Oh maybe saddling us with Laws and ordinances that the Holy Spirit has shown us through the apostle Paul can't save us.. Oh but wait that would be against what the Holy Spirit has taught.. Only a scripture avoiding cultist would add more works than what Jesus completed on the cross would do such an evil thing..

4. Nowhere do we have such a large gab of time in not hearing God's Word. (the creation of man made churches)..
God's word has been available since the days Moses recorded the works God preformed for the children of Israel.. Now we have the full record of all God has done to make eternal life with Him again available. I see that you have never heard God's message to you.. You couldn't have and believe that the heavens are closed.. God is working in the hearts and mind of His children and adding those who will come to Him to His Church daily. His Church lives though She has been attacked again and again. He has always had a people he could call him own in every time.. She has always stood against Her attackers and through His strength she has survived.. There is no argument between the churches of Christianity.. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by Him.. Not a pope, not an Apostle, not a Seventy, not by any priesthood held by a man. Only in and through Jesus is there salvation and ALL Christian organizations there the CHURCH, His children gather are one.. There are many such as mormonism that put priesthoods, prophets, bishops and presidents, in His place saying that mere men have the authority to add to the Church.. Yet that again is unbiblical for The Bible tells us that HE and HE alone add people to the Church (Acts 2:47)..

5. Not one time in the written Word of God has Mankind been able to stay on course without a living prophet.
The Church today has better then a living prophet.. God lives in the members of His Church (1Cor 6:19).. The writer to the Hebrew makes it clear: Hebrews 1:1-2 "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds". If we have Jesus speaking to us what need is there for prophets to stand between us and Him with His word? Maybe you haven't realized this but in the Gospel, the nature of God, how salvation comes to mankind, the Christians here on Walter Martin and other places where the church gathers are one in these basic Christian doctrines.. Doctrines that mormonism does not share with us.. IHS jim

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Even those that don't hold water baptism to be an ordinance of the Church believe they are baptized in the Spirit into Jesus.. I stand by what I said.. ALL Christians believe in baptism.. Some literal, some not.. I am one that believes in water baptism as a testimony to the world that I have made a commitment to my Lord Jesus.. I respect others that spirituality that and hold that their Faith in Him baptizes then in Spirit.. What I reject 100% is anyone that tells me that water Baptism cleanses them of their sin.. If water, or anything but the Blood of the Lamb, could do so then Jesus died in vain.. Being baptized is important because Jesus commanded it. But being perfect as the Father is perfect is also important because Jesus commanded it.. Does it mean that if there is any sin in you that you can't be saved? NO! And therefore getting wet can't save you either. Salvation requires intervention by God in the death of Jesus on the cross.. IHS jim

I don't know who ever said that it is the water at baptism that cleanses from sin rather than Christ who cleanses, but I don't know where one would come up with the idea that they can intrepret baptism to be something done spiritually only when we can clearly see exactly what baptism is based on the example of Christ Himself. So, I will stick with my position, the person who thinks they can rewrite the definition of "baptism" is like the person who thinks they can get married by just being committed to each other.

I believe that the whole discussion began based on you saying you believe in what the Bible teaches. Clearly, your views that someone can be spiritually baptized and ignore the very example of what baptism is as taught by Jesus Christ shows that your beliefs around baptism are not in line with Biblical teaching of just what the word "baptism" means.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I don't know who ever said that it is the water at baptism that cleanses from sin rather than Christ who cleanses, but I don't know where one would come up with the idea that they can intrepret baptism to be something done spiritually only when we can clearly see exactly what baptism is based on the example of Christ Himself. So, I will stick with my position, the person who thinks they can rewrite the definition of "baptism" is like the person who thinks they can get married by just being committed to each other.

I believe that the whole discussion began based on you saying you believe in what the Bible teaches. Clearly, your views that someone can be spiritually baptized and ignore the very example of what baptism is as taught by Jesus Christ shows that your beliefs around baptism are not in line with Biblical teaching of just what the word "baptism" means.

So baptism can't cleanse you of sin but you must be baptized? What is it's purpose to you then? I have shown you that John's baptism is not effectual before.. Here is that proof again:

Acts 19:1-6
And it came to p***, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having p***ed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Jesus had John's Baptism not Christian Baptism.. Paul rebaptized these men that had the same exact baptism as Jesus.. Was the Baptism Jesus then really an example of what we should do? It doesn't look like it.. Jesus had His own purposes in submitting to John's Baptism..

So please tell me again what doesn't baptism do for you that is so essentially to your salvation? It doesn't cleanse from sin. You must be confirmed to become a member of the church.. Why can't a baptism be spiritual if the Baptism of Jesus isn't the baptism that the the Holy Spirit required in this text? Seems to me that such a baptism is actually more effectual than the baptism of John, the same Baptism that mormonism insists is the the same as their baptism.. So why baptize? Seems to me that LDS baptism being the same thing as John's baptism serves the purposes of Joseph Smith and not God.. IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

Jesus had to be baptized as a way to fulfill the role he had as being the holy guide to our own lives.
Just as he was baptized, so to must we all who wish to carry the name of "Christian"

"Christians" are they who walk in the steps of Christ...
Christ was baptized, so to are we.

The act of baptism,,,,is the outward sign of what has happened inside the heart of the person.
That is why we say that just being underwater, (something that we do every day anyway) is not what saves us.
Water washes away the filth of the flesh, but it is the blood of Christ that washes away the stain of sin in our hearts.

we are in this way, "buried" with Christ in our baptism, and when we come up out of the water we are in a very real way, 'rising" with Christ in new life.....

in "His" life.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Jesus had to be baptized as a way to fulfill the role he had as being the holy guide to our own lives.
Just as he was baptized, so to must we all who wish to carry the name of "Christian"

"Christians" are they who walk in the steps of Christ...
Christ was baptized, so to are we.

The act of baptism,,,,is the outward sign of what has happened inside the heart of the person.
That is why we say that just being underwater, (something that we do every day anyway) is not what saves us.
Water washes away the filth of the flesh, but it is the blood of Christ that washes away the stain of sin in our hearts.

we are in this way, "buried" with Christ in our baptism, and when we come up out of the water we are in a very real way, 'rising" with Christ in new life.....

in "His" life.

I agree with you all but for that little word "MUST" That would indicate that baptism is an ordinance required for our salvation. That just can't be. It can't be any more than never telling a lie, or never feel lust in your heart. It isn't anymore the way to God than never feeling anger over small unimportant events of our lives.. No we should not lie, but we do.. No we shouldn't lust, but yet we do. And we should never be angry over nothing, yet we do.. Paul made it clear that the thing he really wants to do (the good) he doesn't do. But the things he would not do, (sin) that is what he does. Our flesh is where sin lives, those of us that are trusting Jesus have been reborn of Him. We have a new spirit that is in constant conflict with the flesh. I pray that we will see that new spirit, the heart created within us as we believed, conquer and put the flesh down. I have a long path ahead of me on the path of sanctification. I praise Jesus that he has already given me justification thru His Blood..

Yes I have obeyed and followed my Lord into the waters of baptism. It was my honor to do so. To be though of Him worth to identify with His death is a blessing in it's self but to come forth and be identified with His resurrection is beyond anything I could have ever imagined.. I praise Him for this grace and opportunity to live for Him as well.. That sanctification is hard for a rebellious nature like mine.. IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by James Banta

I agree with you all but for that little word "MUST"

When John stood looking at Jesus, John also thought to himself that the word "must" just didn't really seem to apply to the baptism of Jesus.

But Jesus knew it did.

The Baptism of Jesus is a "must' in as such because it was a means that Jesus fully bonded his sin-less self with the sin-full humanity.

Baptism is a "must" for us in as such for via it we being sin-full men are bound to the death and resurrection of Jesus the sin-less.


The water is not what saves the believer.
But the grace that comes to us via faith is what saves us.
and one of the means that grace uses is baptism.

Is it magic?...no
But it is sacred...

I think of the whole issue with another Bible story as a window into it's nature.
The story of Moses and the burning bush.
as Moses walked over to the bush, God told him to take off his shoes because the ground he was standing on was holy.

Now the ground is just the ground....the day before it was not holy, the day arfter it was not holy...but right there and then because of the presence of the Lord, the ground became holy.....

Moses was told he must take off his shoes...
(it wasn't a suggestion)

we are told to be baptized
(also not a suggestion)

The water is just the water, it is the Lord's presence that makes it holy water.

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by James Banta

So baptism can't cleanse you of sin but you must be baptized? What is it's purpose to you then? I have shown you that John's baptism is not effectual before.. Here is that proof again:

Acts 19:1-6
And it came to p***, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having p***ed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Jesus had John's Baptism not Christian Baptism.. Paul rebaptized these men that had the same exact baptism as Jesus.. Was the Baptism Jesus then really an example of what we should do? It doesn't look like it.. Jesus had His own purposes in submitting to John's Baptism..

Jesus Christ didn't have a Christian baptism? You can't be serious. He is Christ--by definition, His baptism is CHRISTian baptism.

The point you are missing is that they were baptized LIKE Christ, but were not baptized with those in authority to give the Holy Ghost---which meant that they believed, but didn't know of the gospel of Jesus Christ through those in authority who could and should give the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.

You have got to be kidding me if you are trying to disclaim Christ's baptism as different than the baptism we are to have. If you want to know the purpose of baptism--you can refer to the words of Christ. What is the purpose with baptism? To fulfill all righteousness. That means, that if we believe, we are obedient to the words of Christ and to his apostles and diciples. In other words, we don't define what baptism is. Christ defines it. And he defines it as baptism by water and laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

[QUOTE]

So please tell me again what doesn't baptism do for you that is so essentially to your salvation? It doesn't cleanse from sin.

As I said before--you are making the same argument that those make who want to be "married" in spirit only. I've heard the argument--why do we need a piece of paper? We love each other and are committed, that is enough. Well, that is a farce. Likewise, those who think they can, in their heart, say they follow Christ and be "cleansed" by him, but then deny doing the very thing he asks is a lie. I love God, but I don't need to do as He asks or follow His ways of doing things?

I like what Maria Van Trapp said about it. (Think Sound of Music). To paraphrase, she said that people like to pretend that we are spiritual only and not physical--but the world does not work that way--we are both physical beings as well as spiritual beings. She said that is why God gives us physical things to remind of us spiritual things such as baptism and the sacrament. She said, we understand that we would never say to someone, I love you, bu then refuse to give them a hug or a kiss. She said that we pretend we don't need physical expression and so give up religious physical expression just to take up our expression to things such as sports or beauty pagents.

So, please tell me the person who says they have been spiritually baptized and does not need to follow the example of Christ?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Jesus had to be baptized as a way to fulfill the role he had as being the holy guide to our own lives.
Just as he was baptized, so to must we all who wish to carry the name of "Christian"

"Christians" are they who walk in the steps of Christ...
Christ was baptized, so to are we.

The act of baptism,,,,is the outward sign of what has happened inside the heart of the person.
That is why we say that just being underwater, (something that we do every day anyway) is not what saves us.
Water washes away the filth of the flesh, but it is the blood of Christ that washes away the stain of sin in our hearts.

we are in this way, "buried" with Christ in our baptism, and when we come up out of the water we are in a very real way, 'rising" with Christ in new life.....

in "His" life.

Exactly, it is a physical way we express the changes in our hearts--or show God we are following Him and the way He does things. To say we follow Christ in our hearts, but deny Him in our actions is hypocritical.

[James Banta]

[BigJulie;90903] Jesus Christ didn't have a Christian baptism? You can't be serious. He is Christ--by definition, His baptism is CHRISTian baptism.

I know that mormonism teaches that the Church has existed from the days of Adam but that is not what the Bible teaches. The Bible says that the disciples were even to leave the city until they are indued with power. That happened as the Holy Spirit was given to those that believed and the Church was born.. Christian baptism didn't exist until that date.. Yes Jesus is the Christ, the cornerstone on which the Church is built but it is the Church is Christian not Her Lord.. No more that the Church is the Lord.. Again built on Him, but not Him.

The point you are missing is that they were baptized LIKE Christ, but were not baptized with those in authority to give the Holy Ghost---which meant that they believed, but didn't know of the gospel of Jesus Christ through those in authority who could and should give the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.

I am NOT missing that point.. These men in Acts 19 were also baptized like Jesus was baptized, but Paul rebaptized then as it tells us clearly in verse 5 "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Paul didn't just confirm them he baptized them all over again.. I guess you missed that.. Now you are saying that they weren't baptized by those in authority? How do you know that.. Paul asked them about receiving the Holy Spirit not "Who baptized you?" There was not question about authority here. The question was "did you receive the Holy Spirit?". Mormonism teaches that there are those with the authority to baptize who do not have the authority to give a person the gift of the Holy Spirit.. Again it wasn't the baptism Paul was concerned most about it was the Holy Spirit.. No authority? They were baptized with John's baptism. Are you saying that He or the men who followed him didn't have that much authority? You are making any sense..

You have got to be kidding me if you are trying to disclaim Christ's baptism as different than the baptism we are to have. If you want to know the purpose of baptism--you can refer to the words of Christ. What is the purpose with baptism? To fulfill all righteousness. That means, that if we believe, we are obedient to the words of Christ and to his apostles and diciples. In other words, we don't define what baptism is. Christ defines it. And he defines it as baptism by water and laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

That is what I am saying.. You have a baptism of repentance.. That is John's baptism.. That is not the believers Baptism.. We identify with the death burial and resurrection of Jesus.. It has nothing to do with the washing away of sin.. By the time a person receives Christian baptism their sins have long been forgiven.. It is identification with Jesus we are doing in baptism (Romans 6:3-4), not washing away our sins.. Only Jesus through His commitment to His death burial and resurrection was fulfilling all righteousness. You can't be made righteous by completing a commanded ordinance.. I want you to look at the baptism of Jesus (John 1:29-33).. Where did anyone lay hands on Him to give Him the Gift of the Holy Spirit? Am I missing something or are you making stuff up that isn't part of the scripture? If you can site any Christian source that tells you that Jesus ever had someone lay hands on Him to give Him the Holy Spirit I will back off and see baptism your way.. But you can't call the Baptism of Jesus the Baptism of believers and then change the pattern of the ordinance to suite yourself..

As I said before--you are making the same argument that those make who want to be "married" in spirit only. I've heard the argument--why do we need a piece of paper? We love each other and are committed, that is enough. Well, that is a farce. Likewise, those who think they can, in their heart, say they follow Christ and be "cleansed" by him, but then deny doing the very thing he asks is a lie. I love God, but I don't need to do as He asks or follow His ways of doing things?

And you deny that a man an a woman who make promises to each other and to God to live under His holy ordinance of marriage are married even if they didn't get the State's permission? I think it would be correct to state that intent with the Church, but if a couple doesn't want to involve the State, even if they don't want the Church to stand as witness it is God that joins them not Caesar! Why is that a farce? These believe they are married as much as those that claim a spiritual baptism say they are baptized in Jesus.. You are making your self out to be God in denying other peoples faith in these matters.. The question should be "Who is Jesus?" If they come back and say the first born spirit child of God the Father and one of His wives, you aren't talking the YHWH that created all things and therefore have a false Jesus..

I like what Maria Van Trapp said about it. (Think Sound of Music). To paraphrase, she said that people like to pretend that we are spiritual only and not physical--but the world does not work that way--we are both physical beings as well as spiritual beings. She said that is why God gives us physical things to remind of us spiritual things such as baptism and the sacrament. She said, we understand that we would never say to someone, I love you, bu then refuse to give them a hug or a kiss. She said that we pretend we don't need physical expression and so give up religious physical expression just to take up our expression to things such as sports or beauty pagents.

Oh I think quoting a young Austrian girl to prove your point is great!.. What is the matter you couldn't find a scriptural reference to make your point? I would think Not.. All that God has commanded us is Spiritual. There is not one ordinance that is not spiritual. Our births, baptism, marriages, and our deaths, all are spiritual before God.. Paul tells us to do all things as to the Lord.. that would tell you even our life's work is spiritual. Maybe you can provide a bit more authority of scripture before making foolish statements again..

So, please tell me the person who says they have been spiritually baptized and does not need to follow the example of Christ?

Nope can't do it because all such believers, believe that they are following the example of Jesus and Julie one group that does so you shouldn't draw spiritual swords with Society of Friends. The salvation Army is another that church that sees no reason to include the physical rite as a practice of the church.. Personally I don't agree but nether do I condemn them for this tenet of their faith.. they are 100% reliant on the Blood of Jesus. Unlike momronism that is mostly reliant of their works and only count on Jesus after all they can do.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

[QUOTE=BigJulie;90667][QUOTE]

Originally Posted by James Banta

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

Instead of your one sentence denials how about showing me that what you say is the truth? here are two statements that seem to conflict Please explain how both statements are true:

Eph 2:8-9
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.

2 Nephi 25:23
For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

One says it is NOT BY WORK so that no one can boast of their righteousness, and the other says we must do it all and God through His grace fills in where we miss.. Completely different in the meaning and yet mormonism calls both these books scripture and God's word.. Don't you wish you could have scripture that didn't conflict with each other.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Walrus

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.

This is a very foolish statement because :

1. God doesn't give us conflicting statements in His word..

2. There are many statements in the Scripture that says we are saved by grace through faith:

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.
—John 1:14-18

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
—Romans 5:1-2

So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surp***ing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to har*** me, to keep me from becoming conceited. Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
—2 Corinthians 12:7-10

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our tresp***es, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
—Ephesians 1:3-10

And you were dead in the tresp***es and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the p***ions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our tresp***es, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
—Ephesians 2:1-10

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly p***ions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
—***us 2:11-13

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
—Hebrews 4:15-16

There are p***ages Jesus spoke about being saved by keeping the commandments. As He did so did He know that those He was teaching this that all these had already failed and were hell bound.. YES! So why even say it? Paul explains:

Gal 3:24-25
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

There is no disagreement of this anywhere in all TRUE scripture.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Walrus

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

Where is the story of the BofM confirmed as I have just shown you that the Exodus is confirmed in ancient writings in stone? There is nothing that confirms that Lehi was real, or that anyone escaped from Jerusalem, as Babylon came down on the city and destroyed it.

There have been metal scrolls found one as part of Dead Sea Scrolls.. From the The Jerusalem Post we read:

Though part of the official Dead Sea Scrolls Collection, the Copper Scroll differs from the others in that it is written entirely on thin sheets of alloyed copper rather than papyrus or leather. Furthermore, the Copper Scroll is neither scriptural nor literary, but rather a detailed list of approximately sixty locations where vast amounts of gold, silver, coins, vessels, and other religious artifacts are hidden. Such Temple treasures might also include the Ark of the Covenant. THE SCROLL was found rolled in two parts and badly oxidized. Fearing it would crumble like thin gl***, experts debated for four years over the best way to open it. Finally the Scroll was sent to a lab in Manchester, England where they cut it into twenty-three strips with a high-speed saw. Photographs of the strips were taken, and then, since the scroll had been found during an expedition sponsored by the Jordan Department of Antiquities, the pieces were sent back to the country.

It is my contention that never was scripture ever written and preserved on metal plates or scrolls.. It is always papyrus or vellum, never metal.. That is still a strike against the idea of the BofM..

Men through the world had used lime cement for 1,000s of years.. Even in the Far East where science tells us that almost the full population of the Americas originated, a lime cement was used often. This is a very weak "proof" of the BofM..

Swords that are in the BofM would be patterned after the sword of Laban would they not? And according to the BofM steel was available to produce them but none like that have been found.. Yes the clubs with sharp stone of Meteoric steel embedded on them were used.. Steel was unknown to these people.. Through the BofM says it was..

Did agriculture exist in the Americas.. You have no argument there..

Now to prove the BofM you must show that the rise of the great nation of Mesoamerica existed when the BofM says they existed.. You must show the great calamities at the meridian of time destroyed much of these cities.. the time line of the settlement of the great cities nor of their destruction fits with the timeline of the BofM..

Between 100,000 and 200,000 people lived there at its peak around 600 A.D., making it one of the ancient world's largest cities with an urban core covering some twenty square kilometers. Settlement began about 200 B.C. and the basic layout of the city was complete by the mid-second century A.D.

Source: Teotihuacan | Thematic Essay | Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History | The Metropolitan Museum of Art

Does the BofM teach that the children of Lehi fell into full apostasy by the 2nd century BC? Enough that all the people had fallen into idolatry at that time.. I never read that.. God always had a prophet to lead the people toward the coming of Jesus.. The records of Lehi and Nephi seem to survive, Could that have happened if nonbelievers held them.. After all they were gold, right? Don't you find it strange that during the life and death of Jesus the city grew and idolatry flourished as He was said to be there teaching the people? I do! IHS jim

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by James Banta

I know that mormonism teaches that the Church has existed from the days of Adam but that is not what the Bible teaches.

Gen 4:3-4 And in process of time it came to p***, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

It appears that the Lord was involved from the beginning teaching of His ways of what is acceptable to Him and what is not.

The Bible says that the disciples were even to leave the city until they are indued with power. That happened as the Holy Spirit was given to those that believed and the Church was born.. Christian baptism didn't exist until that date.. Yes Jesus is the Christ, the cornerstone on which the Church is built but it is the Church is Christian not Her Lord.. No more that the Church is the Lord.. Again built on Him, but not Him.

Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

I am NOT missing that point.. These men in Acts 19 were also baptized like Jesus was baptized, but Paul rebaptized then as it tells us clearly in verse 5 "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Paul didn't just confirm them he baptized them all over again.. I guess you missed that..

But, baptism, either time, meant the same thing. When and how are you changing the meaning of the word baptism? Regardless of what it symbolizes, baptism is baptism.

That is what I am saying.. You have a baptism of repentance.. That is John's baptism.. That is not the believers Baptism.. We identify with the death burial and resurrection of Jesus.. It has nothing to do with the washing away of sin..

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

By the time a person receives Christian baptism their sins have long been forgiven.. It is identification with Jesus we are doing in baptism (Romans 6:3-4), not washing away our sins.. Only Jesus through His commitment to His death burial and resurrection was fulfilling all righteousness. You can't be made righteous by completing a commanded ordinance..

You can't be righteous and ignore what Christ asks us to do.

I want you to look at the baptism of Jesus (John 1:29-33).. Where did anyone lay hands on Him to give Him the Gift of the Holy Spirit?

And yet, the Spirit descended on him like a dove and His Father spoke, behold my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.

Act 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

Am I missing something or are you making stuff up that isn't part of the scripture? If you can site any Christian source that tells you that Jesus ever had someone lay hands on Him to give Him the Holy Spirit I will back off and see baptism your way..

How about Christ taught us what baptism is and we see it through His example. We also see that it is through the laying on of hands that the gift of the Holy Ghost is given to those who are not Christ rather than just as a dove descending. It is interesting for me to meet the Christian who claims that they don't need to be baptized as Christ was in water and then somehow, as if they were Christ, the Holy Ghost just descends on them.

And you deny that a man an a woman who make promises to each other and to God to live under His holy ordinance of marriage are married even if they didn't get the State's permission?

I was thinking more like a pastor or preacher or someone who God has ordained in that position rather than just living together and calling it good--which is what we see quite a bit of.

I think it would be correct to state that intent with the Church, but if a couple doesn't want to involve the State, even if they don't want the Church to stand as witness it is God that joins them not Caesar! Why is that a farce?

You are going on on some sort of tangent here to justify your position on baptism. So, are you saying that two people can just committ to each other and that a "spiritual" marriage is good enough--no ceremony, etc?

Oh I think quoting a young Austrian girl to prove your point is great!.. What is the matter you couldn't find a scriptural reference to make your point?

No, I used the baptism of Christ--that seemed like quite enough to teach us how we should be baptized. I used Maria Van Trapp because what she noticed is true .

would think Not.. All that God has commanded us is Spiritual. There is not one ordinance that is not spiritual. Our births, baptism, marriages, and our deaths, all are spiritual before God..

And if you notice all of these also involve our physcial bodies (except you want to exclude baptism)---birth, marriage and death all involve a physical manifestation. Even the Sacrament is a physical manifestation of our spiritual state. As Maria Van Trapp said, we wouldn't think to say we love someone and then deny them a hug. Why would we think we can tell God we love Him and then deny what He asks us to do?

Nope can't do it because all such believers, believe that they are following the example of Jesus and Julie one group that does so you shouldn't draw spiritual swords with Society of Friends. The salvation Army is another that church that sees no reason to include the physical rite as a practice of the church.. Personally I don't agree but nether do I condemn them for this tenet of their faith.. they are 100% reliant on the Blood of Jesus. Unlike momronism that is mostly reliant of their works and only count on Jesus after all they can do.. IHS jim

And your point was that you follow the teachings found within the Bible. When one group can say they see baptism by water and by the spirit and another by the spirit alone...and you are okay either way, I say, this is not following the Bible.

One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE=James Banta;90909][QUOTE=BigJulie;90667]

Instead of your one sentence denials how about showing me that what you say is the truth? here are two statements that seem to conflict Please explain how both statements are true:

Eph 2:8-9
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.

2 Nephi 25:23
For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

One says it is NOT BY WORK so that no one can boast of their righteousness, and the other says we must do it all and God through His grace fills in where we miss.. Completely different in the meaning and yet mormonism calls both these books scripture and God's word.. Don't you wish you could have scripture that didn't conflict with each other.. IHS jim

As I said James--tell me exactly how you are faithful without works and then you can criticize me believing that faith without works is dead and that we need to do somthing other than just say it.