Satan and the Mormon Temple "Secret" Rites! Don't Get Involved!

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Oh my---I ask you a question based on the stated beliefs here by many "Christians" and your only reply is that I (and those like me) are going to hell. Wow, nothing but judgment. Okay.

Everybody who does not believe that Jesus is I AM, God in the Flesh, will go to Hell. Not just Mormons, or Jehovah's Witnesses, but secularists, atheists, occultists - all who never knew Him.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

But unlike you, I am not judging Jim, I am not telling him he is going to go to hell. I am merely trying to understand that he states that he believes one thing, but then explains that in practice, he acts differently than he states.

Excuse me. When did I act differently that I talk? I agree only with what the Bible teaches.. I have shown you that and all you have answered is that we see the Bible differently.. Ok so we do.. Does that give you the right to tell me that when the Bible teaches that if we keep the whole law and only offend in one point that we are guilty of all. That I am wrong for believing that if I lie I am just as guilty of breaking God's law as I would be if I murdered a person? You can invent any other meaning you want but I can't see it meaning anything other than what it teaches, straight up..

I also believe I fell into sin. That I did fail my Lord and myself falling into adultery. I also trust God that He through the blood of Jesus has cleansed me.. He told me that even though my sin was as red as scarlet He would make it white as wool.. Seems as though you have keep this going even behind my back.. So you can't blame me for your constant harping about my sin. You can't compare it to some unconfessed sin like Smith when he lied to the world and the church saying that he had only one wife. You can't compare his adultery to mine since he never confessed his seduction of married women. Look into History for yourself. You will fine he married seven women that had living husbands along with the other unmarried women he took in marriage.. Listen to their testimony as they confessed that they were his wives in time by ever since of the word and not just for eternity (Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness). You can also stick your head in the sand and disbelieve the truth until it's too late.. That would be a lose for all of us not just for you.. IHS jim

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Oh my---I ask you a question based on the stated beliefs here by many "Christians" and your only reply is that I (and those like me) are going to hell. Wow, nothing but judgment. Okay.

Isn't it a fact that those who place their trust in "strange gods" will not end up in heaven?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

So, what about small children? Babies? Those who never had the opportunity to learn of Christ?

The Bible doesn't say one way or the other--with the exception of David's child who died.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

So, what about the rewards and punishments? What warrants this?

This is based on things that are done in this life. But Heaven vs Hell is determined by faith in Christ or the lack thereof--not on works. This runs completely contrary to mormonism which teaches that salvation/exaltation is based on works.

[TrueBlue?]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I did answer your question with another question. Answer the one and you will answer your own.

Here, I will put it to you another one, can someone experience God's grace without works?

I know you have given the thief example----but as we discussed previously, the thief (actually, do you know I learned that the proper translation is "rebel" not thief---it was rebels who were hung on the cross like that---rebels against the state)--basically did DO something.

But interestingly, I keep getting different responses from the "christians' here on this site.

James seems to think that there is not "greater" ****ation, that it is all the same.

You seem to think it has to do with punishment level.

Apologette seems to agree with you, but then acknowledges that even the murderers, etc. will be better off than those who are the sons of perdition.

So, if there is only one ****ation as James thinks and there is different punishment levels as you and Apologette think, and only the sons of perdition won't be forgiven.....

How exactly do you see things IF you don't believe in different degrees of glory because with different degrees of glory, you would have different levels of punishment, but only one outer darkness for the sons of perdition.

Please, do explain.

I find that interesting about the thief. I have often posted that I do not believe mere thieves were on the cross. Rome did not crucify thieves. They crucified "rebels", those that fought against the Peace of Rome, or the authority of Rome. How do we know that this thief was not already a follower of Christ. How do we know that he was not standing out to defend Christ railing against Rome for crucifying him? There is a reason Peter ran away. This fella may not have run away.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by TrueBlue?

I find that interesting about the thief. I have often posted that I do not believe mere thieves were on the cross. Rome did not crucify thieves. They crucified "rebels", those that fought against the Peace of Rome, or the authority of Rome. How do we know that this thief was not already a follower of Christ. How do we know that he was not standing out to defend Christ railing against Rome for crucifying him? There is a reason Peter ran away. This fella may not have run away.

Good question how do we know. We know because that is the teaching we find in the Bible.

Matthew 27:38
Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.

I guess since mormonism mistrusts Jesus as He promised that His word would never p*** away you can add anything you want to the text.. While I respect God's right to add other books of scripture to those that have always been known as long as they agree with what is already included and change to it that would change the meaning of what is reason must be rejected. If these men had been followers of Jesus to ask what they asked they would have had to be walking around with their fingers in their ears for 3 years.. IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by TrueBlue?

I find that interesting about the thief. I have often posted that I do not believe mere thieves were on the cross. Rome did not crucify thieves. ......

While it's a interesting idea to make a wild guess at,,,,Unless there is a bit more to go on one guess is as good as another.

And in the end you do have a very clear wording in the text.

But saying the two thieves could not be just thieves because Rome did not put to death a thief is kinda like saying that they could be spacemen from mars based on the idea that Rome would not kill thieves.

in order to say the two other guys killed with Jesus were "Spacemen from mars" you would need to have some clear wording in the text to support that idea.

Just as to say the two guys had to be rebels you got to have some more clear wording in the text to support that idea.
You cant use a "lack" of support for your guess as the support for your guess.

BUT...(and there is a big **** to this topic) there is some support for the idea that there is a bigger back-story to the one guy who was not killed on the cross but was replaced by Jesus.

Barabbas is said to have been a "bandit" but Mark and Luke refer to Barabbas as one involved in a riot.
Josephus employs a word talking about Revolutionaries when dealing with him.

Now I was not there to see what Barabbas was guilty of, but clearly he was not a simple thief.

There is only one other hint about this topic in the text.
On the cross one of the thieves turns to the other and says that they were just getting what they deserved.
Had the thief been some type of freedom fighter he should have had a different point of view about his death...he should have considered it a type of martyrdom.

But the thief did not consider his death on the cross, or the death of the other thief on the cross to be martyrdom at all.....rather he considered it justice.


That is all I know from the text on the topic.

To review, the text supports the idea that the two thieves on the cross were real bad guys who were just thieves, however the text also supports the idea that there was more to the story of Barabbas the "notorious prisoner" than we know about.

[TrueBlue?]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

While it's a interesting idea to make a wild guess at,,,,Unless there is a bit more to go on one guess is as good as another.

And in the end you do have a very clear wording in the text.

But saying the two thieves could not be just thieves because Rome did not put to death a thief is kinda like saying that they could be spacemen from mars based on the idea that Rome would not kill thieves.

in order to say the two other guys killed with Jesus were "Spacemen from mars" you would need to have some clear wording in the text to support that idea.

Just as to say the two guys had to be rebels you got to have some more clear wording in the text to support that idea.
You cant use a "lack" of support for your guess as the support for your guess.

BUT...(and there is a big **** to this topic) there is some support for the idea that there is a bigger back-story to the one guy who was not killed on the cross but was replaced by Jesus.

Barabbas is said to have been a "bandit" but Mark and Luke refer to Barabbas as one involved in a riot.
Josephus employs a word talking about Revolutionaries when dealing with him.

Now I was not there to see what Barabbas was guilty of, but clearly he was not a simple thief.

There is only one other hint about this topic in the text.
On the cross one of the thieves turns to the other and says that they were just getting what they deserved.
Had the thief been some type of freedom fighter he should have had a different point of view about his death...he should have considered it a type of martyrdom.

But the thief did not consider his death on the cross, or the death of the other thief on the cross to be martyrdom at all.....rather he considered it justice.


That is all I know from the text on the topic.

To review, the text supports the idea that the two thieves on the cross were real bad guys who were just thieves, however the text also supports the idea that there was more to the story of Barabbas the "notorious prisoner" than we know about.

All good points. Like I said with almost nothing to go on about who the "thief" was, we do know that Rome did not crucify mere thieves. This is why the Jews trumped charges about Christ trying to bring a Jewish Kingdom about against Ceaser, this would cons***ute a break of the Peace of Rome and warrant a crucifixion.

[TrueBlue?]

BigJulie, I am kinda curious about those sections of Isaiah about the temple. You sparked my interest and have mainly stuck with reading this thread waiting for them. Are you still willing to elaberate on them.