An Example

[Sir]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Your attempt to make this about me has "FAILED"

I do not take the bait.
I dont not get into personal stuff.....for such topics are none of anyone's business and only serve to side-track a topic.

The topic of whether or not he is born-again is irrelevant.

That's hilarious.

Some people are ashamed of the gospel they follow and would much rather hid their candle under a bushel. Plus, it is easier to criticize and attack others while hiding what you believe and who you are.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Sir

The topic of whether or not he is born-again is irrelevant.

That's hilarious.

Some people are ashamed of the gospel they follow and would much rather hid their candle under a bushel. Plus, it is easier to criticize and attack others while hiding what you believe and who you are.

When LDS missionaries walk into a investigator's home do they carry their bushels with them?

[TheSword99]

Originally Posted by Sir

The topic of whether or not he is born-again is irrelevant.

That's hilarious.

Some people are ashamed of the gospel they follow and would much rather hid their candle under a bushel. Plus, it is easier to criticize and attack others while hiding what you believe and who you are.

Its hilarious that Jesus said we MUST be born again or we cannot see the kingdom of God? Really? The Bible teaches that if one is not born again he is still unregenerate.

[TheSword99]

Originally Posted by Sir

Some people are ashamed of the gospel they follow and would much rather hid their candle under a bushel. Plus, it is easier to criticize and attack others while hiding what you believe and who you are.

Seems like its the lds who are ashamed of their version of the gospel since you guys have been repeatedly incapable of discussing what your church teaches.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Sir

The topic of whether or not he is born-again is irrelevant.

That's hilarious.

Some people are ashamed of the gospel they follow and would much rather hid their candle under a bushel. Plus, it is easier to criticize and attack others while hiding what you believe and who you are.

Any Gospel other than teaches anything but Jesus and His actions for our benefit, to save all who would believe in Him and know that He alone is God is another gospel and those that teach it are accursed.. Are Christian ashamed of what Jesus did for us? HARDLY, we shout is as His great gift for us. Instead of suffering the wrath of God, Jesus made it possible for us to rest in God's love.. IHS jim

[glm1978]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Any Gospel other that that of what Jesus did to save all who would believe in Him and know that He alone is God is another gospel and those that teach it are accursed.. Are Christian ashamed of what Jesus did for us? HARDLY, we shout is as His great gift for us. Instead of suffering the wrath of God, Jesus made it possible for us to rest in God's love.. IHS jim

It's interesting where the apostle Paul says that if an angel from heaven should bring a different gospel we are not to believe it for if we do we are eternally condemned. Yet this is exactly how Mormonism got its start..

[theway]

Originally Posted by glm1978

It's interesting where the apostle Paul says that if an angel from heaven should bring a different gospel we are not to believe it for if we do we are eternally condemned. Yet this is exactly how Mormonism got its start..

What's interesting is how little you understand about the Bible, yet you plan on coming here to school us.
Paul's statement was nothing more than rhetorical hyperbole, and was never meant to be taken literally.
Such a statement is an impossibility, even your own Theologians will attest to that.

Therefore, it would be impossible for "Mormonism to get it's start" from such a scenario.
Keep up the good work, Mormonism looks better every day when compaired with people like you.

[glm1978]

Originally Posted by theway

What's interesting is how little you understand about the Bible, yet you plan on coming here to school us.
Paul's statement was nothing more than rhetorical hyperbole, and was never meant to be taken literally.
Such a statement is an impossibility, even your own Theologians will attest to that.

Therefore, it would be impossible for "Mormonism to get it's start" from such a scenario.
Keep up the good work, Mormonism looks better every day when compaired with people like you.

Rhetorical hyperbole??? Is that what your church told you? Just don't take Paul seriously? My goodness, Paul was making a clear warning that there is only one Gospel of Jesus Christ and to beware of those false religious groups that teach a different gospel. It was Moroni who somehow became an angel and directed Smith to the "gold plates". Its interesting that Moroni became an angel and not a god. Can you tell us why?

Galatians 1:6-9: "I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed."


If you could lay off the sarcasm just once, maybe we can all have a real discussion.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by theway

What's interesting is how little you understand about the Bible, yet you plan on coming here to school us.
Paul's statement was nothing more than rhetorical hyperbole, and was never meant to be taken literally.
Such a statement is an impossibility, even your own Theologians will attest to that.

Therefore, it would be impossible for "Mormonism to get it's start" from such a scenario.
Keep up the good work, Mormonism looks better every day when compaired with people like you.

Yes, yes every time the Bible specifically condemns mormonism it isn't to be taken literally. Paul didn't mean that we shouldn't accept teachings other than those he had given to the Church. Because mormonism teaches a different Gospel (They have added to it, and even admit doing so).. Every one has heard them say "Oh but we have so much more than you do". It is taught by the LDS church that "In its fulness, the gospel includes all the doctrines, principles, laws, ordinances, and covenants necessary for us to be exalted in the celestial kingdom. The Savior has promised that if we endure to the end, faithfully living the gospel, He will hold us guiltless before the Father at the Final Judgment" (http://www.lds.org/topics/gospel?lang=eng) This is a major addition to the simple Gospel that was taught in the Bible

1 Cor 15:1-4
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures

Just where in that are the principles, laws, ordinances, and covenants. Where is the demand to endure to the end, faithfully living the gospel? The Gospel isn't something we do, it isn't something we conform to. The Gospel is all about Jesus and what He is doing for our salvation.. Because when we were lost in tresp*** and sin Jesus died for us.. That is very GOOD NEWS, that is the GOSPEL.. IHS jim

[TheSword99]

I have to agree with glm about the constant sarcasms we get from the lds making it nearly impossible for serious discussions. Funny how they tell us we don't understand the bible when its the lds who do not believe it's even reliable.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Sir

LOL....man, this is a perfect example of why I quit coming here on any regular basis. It doesn't take much to debunk James' posts, especially in this case where he debunks his own post!

Dude, the apologetics of the critics is so bad around here that even Jill hasn't logged-in here since October 4th!!!

Are you blind? I said that what I was taught by my LDS teaches is not what is believed by the LDS church on this point.. You attack before you have read the whole of the thread.. You seem to be very prejudices in your post. But that is common for the LDS.. Read the whole thread stop acting S T U P I D.. IHS jim

[TheSword99]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Yes, yes every time the Bible specifically condemns mormonism it isn't to be taken literally. IHS jim

I agree completely. How is it that others can put words in Paul's mouth and tell us he didn't really mean what he said. Paul lived and died by this Gospel.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by theway

LOL... talk about missing the obvious.

Who is it that is finally left talking to themselves on this forum?

Si with this the way admits that we can teach each other and don't need the LDS to keep the site in operation.. I have said that all along... You have leave way we don't need you.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by TheSword99

At a meeting of the school of the prophet, President Young said Adam was Michael, the Archangel and he was the Father of Jesus Christ and is our God (Wilford Woodruff Journal, Dec. 16, 1867)



So here's my question:

If Adam was a god, why is his offspring fallen men?

BTW, 1 Cor. 15:47-48 tells us the first man Adam was taken from the earth he did not come from heaven.

Notice how quite the LDS got about this now.. But wait, they will still howl about a teaching, that some of the LDS hold, that these beings were angelic. What is taught in the LDS church is nothing moire than shifting sand. They have no real root in their teaching.. As long as you believe that God is a glorified man, that Jesus is his first creation. and Joseph Smith his prophet nothing else really matters.. NOT EVEN IF THE BofM IS THE WORD OF GOD OR NOT.. IHS jim

[TheSword99]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Are you blind? I said that what I was taught by my LDS teaches is not what is believed by the LDS church on this point.. You attack before you have read the whole of the thread.. You seem to be very prejudices in your post. But that is common for the LDS.. Read the whole thread stop acting S T U P I D.. IHS jim

Its interesting how some lds keep tabs on Jill. I think the reason most of the lds posters stop coming here is because they have no defense for their false teachings. They have run out of answers as to why these teachings conflict with the Holy Scriptures. This is why the lds all sound alike with all this LOLing.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by TheSword99

Its interesting how some lds keep tabs on Jill. I think the reason most of the lds posters stop coming here is because they have no defense for their false teachings. They have run out of answers as to why these teachings conflict with the Holy Scriptures. This is why the lds all sound alike with all this LOLing.

This laughing is something I don't understand about them.. If they had the truth wouldn't it break their hearts, as it does ours, when the truth is rejected as being a lie? It isn't the Christian here that must explain away the teachings of the Bible as not being literal. We accept what the Bible teaches without any excuses.. We hold that the Gospel spoken of in the Bible is the Gospel and tells us what God did for us, and not what the LDS demand the gospel is, that it is what we do for God with his help..

They can stop coming here when ever they want.. We then can talk about how we can reach out to them and show then the Way, the Truth, and the Life JESUS.. And instead of laughing when we hear their lies we shed tears of deep and abiding lose.. Again it will require Jesus to wipe away these tears.. Until them I weep at they God hating teachings.. IHS jim

[glm1978]

Originally Posted by James Banta

This laughing is something I don't understand about them.. If they had the truth wouldn't it break their hearts, as it does ours, when the truth is rejected as being a lie? It isn't the Christian here that must explain away the teachings of the Bible as not being literal. We accept what the Bible teaches without any excuses.. We hold that the Gospel spoken of in the Bible is the Gospel and tells us what God did for us, and not what the LDS demand the gospel is, that it is what we do for God with his help..

They can stop coming here when ever they want.. We then can talk about how we can reach out to them and show then the Way, the Truth, and the Life JESUS.. And instead of laughing when we hear their lies we shed tears of deep and abiding lose.. Again it will require Jesus to wipe away these tears.. Until them I weep at they God hating teachings.. IHS jim

I think the bishops of the local wards that these LDS posters belong to would be appalled by their posts since the church teaches to always be respectful. When I was LDS I was never told to pray for the salvation of others. If they didn't want the "restored gospel" they rejected it at their own peril.

[theway]

Originally Posted by glm1978

Rhetorical hyperbole??? Is that what your church told you? Just don't take Paul seriously? My goodness,....

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible.
Or an angel from heaven - This is a very strong rhetorical mode of expression. It is not to be supposed that an angel from heaven would preach any other than the true gospel.

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
But though we, or an angel from heaven,.... The apostle, in order to ***ert the more strongly the truth, purity, and perfection of the Gospel, as preached by him; and to deter persons from preaching another Gospel, and others from receiving it, supposes a case impossible;…

Calvin’s Commentary
And thus, when he pronounces a curse on angels who should teach any other doctrine though his argument is derived from an impossibility, it is not superfluous.

Wesley’s Notes on the Bible
1:8 But if we - I and all the apostles. Or an angel from heaven - If it were possible. Preach another gospel, let him be accursed - Cut off from Christ and God.

People’s New Testiment.
8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, etc. He supposes an impossibility in order to make his statement emphatic.

[jdjhere]

Galatians 1:8 "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

Here it is in the KJV, TheWay.

Could you please, in your own words, re-work (or re-write) this verse and type it down for us so we can all see how you interpret it. How does the JST have it??

JST- "8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

[TheSword99]

Originally Posted by theway

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible.
Or an angel from heaven - This is a very strong rhetorical mode of expression. It is not to be supposed that an angel from heaven would preach any other than the true gospel.

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
But though we, or an angel from heaven,.... The apostle, in order to ***ert the more strongly the truth, purity, and perfection of the Gospel, as preached by him; and to deter persons from preaching another Gospel, and others from receiving it, supposes a case impossible;…

Calvin’s Commentary
And thus, when he pronounces a curse on angels who should teach any other doctrine though his argument is derived from an impossibility, it is not superfluous.

Wesley’s Notes on the Bible
1:8 But if we - I and all the apostles. Or an angel from heaven - If it were possible. Preach another gospel, let him be accursed - Cut off from Christ and God.

People’s New Testiment.
8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, etc. He supposes an impossibility in order to make his statement emphatic.

it IS impossible that an angel OF GOD would preach a false gospel. Since Mormonism has a different gospel, then one can only conclude that Moroni was NOT an angel of God.

BTW. the question was asked and you avoided it. How is it that Moroni only became an angel and not a god???

[theway]

Originally Posted by TheSword99

it IS impossible that an angel OF GOD would preach a false gospel. Since Mormonism has a different gospel, then one can only conclude that Moroni was NOT an angel of God.

BTW. the question was asked and you avoided it. How is it that Moroni only became an angel and not a god???

I think we need to stop awhile and reflect on the fact that you guys were proven so utterly wrong in your interpretation of Gal. 1:6-9.

This way we will always remember and never forget, just how little we should care about your understanding of the Bible, or anything to do with Mormonism.

[jdjhere]

So, TheWay??

Galatians 1:8 "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

The above is the KJV, TheWay.

Could you please, in your own words, re-work (or re-write) this verse and type it down for us so we can all see how you interpret it?

How does the JST have it??
JST- " But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

What exactly IS this verse saying to you if it does NOT say that an angel could deliver a different or "other" Gospel to people?

[jdjhere]

By the way... Happy Thanksgiving (tomorrow) to ALL the posters here. We should all be thankful for what God has given us and how He takes care of us... and that we live in a free country. Amen!

[theway]

Originally Posted by jdjhere

So, TheWay??

Galatians 1:8 "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

The above is the KJV, TheWay.

Could you please, in your own words, re-work (or re-write) this verse and type it down for us so we can all see how you interpret it?

How does the JST have it??
JST- " But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

What exactly IS this verse saying to you if it does NOT say that an angel could deliver a different or "other" Gospel to people?

I would interpret it exactly the same. What you fail to realize, and what I've already pointed out, is that it can not be taken literally; it is nothing more than exaggerated rhetoric or hyperbole.

Here's why....
Angel simply means "messenger" however in this case it says that this is a messenger from "Heaven" or in other words a messenger from God.
So we are left with two scenarios, both of which would contradict scripture if taken literally.
In the first scenario Paul would be saying "If a messenger from God was to come and preach another gospel than the one I (a messenger from God who just brought you another gospel than the gospel of the Old Testament which was also delivered to you by other messengers from God) that person is to be accursed."

Do you see how Paul would be contradicting himself?

In the second scenario where Angel means Divine messenger, Paul would be saying; "If a devine messenger was to give you a message straight from God, ignore him because my message brought to you by a mortal man is the right one. In this case, I don't know about you, but I would go with the messenger who came straight from God, and not Paul. It would be impossible for a divine messenger from God to lie a be a divine messenger from God.

Either way, it sets up an impossible or contradictory scenario if taken literally.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by theway

I would interpret it exactly the same. What you fail to realize, and what I've already pointed out, is that it can not be taken literally; it is nothing more than exaggerated rhetoric or hyperbole.

Here's why....
Angel simply means "messenger" however in this case it says that this is a messenger from "Heaven" or in other words a messenger from God.
So we are left with two scenarios, both of which would contradict scripture if taken literally.
In the first scenario Paul would be saying "If a messenger from God was to come and preach another gospel than the one I (a messenger from God who just brought you another gospel than the gospel of the Old Testament which was also delivered to you by other messengers from God) that person is to be accursed."

Do you see how Paul would be contradicting himself?

In the second scenario where Angel means Divine messenger, Paul would be saying; "If a devine messenger was to give you a message straight from God, ignore him because my message brought to you by a mortal man is the right one. In this case, I don't know about you, but I would go with the messenger who came straight from God, and not Paul. It would be impossible for a divine messenger from God to lie a be a divine messenger from God.

Either way, it sets up an impossible or contradictory scenario if taken literally.

I disagree with your explanation of the contradictory nature of the p***age.. here is why..
1. Paul never preached a different Gospel from the Gospel first explained in the Person of Jesus
2. It is taught that Satan can transform Himself into what appears to a man would see as an angel of light.. Since God would never send a contradictory message in the form of another Gospel, it is clear that Paul was specking of a messenger of evil doing what they do best, LIE..
3. The Gospel was never preached in the Old Testament. The Gospel is from Jesus. Though His work the Gospel tells us how that work is made available to mankind. There was no teaching of the Gospel in the OT, just prophecies about the work Jesus would do. It was never explained there how we could access His works.

I agree that this p***age the angel could be any messenger. Yes and it could be a being that appeared in every way to be an angel or being that LIED saying that one is his beloved son and we should hear him.. If the message turns out different to the Gospel of the Jesus then the one who brings is is accursed..

Since you don't seem to like the obvious meaning of the p***age it is up to you to tell us what you see it teaching.. So way, what is the non literal meaning.. IHS jim