| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 01/05/2006 8:53:23 PM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:
Troll magnet. |
Posted on 01/02/2006 7:39:23 PM PST by gregwest
And you are making personal attacks. Unlike me, babe.
Ah, where to start...
You correctly paraphrased Revelation. The key is that Revelation talks about adding to "THIS book." To what book would John be referring? You seem to think it's the Bible, but of course that can't be so, because the Bible didn't even exist at the time, nor was it really even in the works. Second, even if he was talking about the Bible (which he obviously was not), it has undergone countless changes throughout the years, adding and subtracting to and from what is considered canon. The Bible you use today has undergone numerous additions and subtractions, so I guess by using it you're in the same camp as those who use the Book of Mormon.
Of course, however, you're not, because logically the book to which John is referring can only be the Book of Revelation itself. It's a warning about changing or editing the revelation that he received. Of course, Mormons have not done this, because they believe the Bible is the word of God and believe in Revelation, having not changed it.
Your next point quotes Galations, regarding the preching of other gospels. Mormons do not preach other gospels, they (claim to) preach the true gospel of Christ. Unfortunately, many aspects of the gospel had been or were unclear - this really can't be refuted, how else can one explain all the various sects? Mormonism teaches what they believe to be the true gospel of Christ, unchanged (as Paul requires). Of course, this is what all the other Christian faiths do as well - they teach what they believe to be the true gospel, but due to the uncertainties in the Bible, the best they can do is teach their personal interpretation. Mormonism, on the other hand, at least claims to have input from God in clearing up these uncertainties. All other faiths, by their own admission, can only hope to be preaching the true gospel that Paul speaks of. Nothing was added.
As for visiting the Americas, in John 10:16 Jesus says that he has other sheep who will hear his voice. This can easily be seen as Him saying that he is going to the Americas. Oh, and your "recollection" of the Book of Mormon is (shockingly) incorrect - Christ does appear to the people in the Americas in the flesh. This is because he has been ressurected.
Next, you say the Bible doesn't address Baptisms for the Dead? Check out 1 Corinthians 15:29 (Or else what will they do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead aren't raised at all, why then are they baptized for the dead?). Sounds like the saints were performing baptisms for the dead, and from the context of 1 Corinthins 15, it sounds like the the leaders of the church approved of this practice.
Finally, you are correct that we should test the spirit to see if something is from God. However, it seems as though you have failed to actually apply this admonition. Your convictions seem to be based upon your interpretations of text and on what you have been fed by anti-mormon sources. Have you ever actually read the Book of Mormon to test it by the spirit, by actually praying and asking the spirit to let you know whether or not it is true? It seems to me that you are using the tests of man and not the spirit to reach your conclusions.
"One of the missionaries in our area here in Utah"
Mormon missionaries in Utah?
Isn't that kind of like sending Catholic missionaries to the Vatican?
"Your soliloquy on comparing Micah and Alma (! scary!) falls apart immediately because those old Testament prophets were stoned, honey, for speaking the word of God."
FYI - so were many Book of Mormon prophets. Another surprising example of you making assumptions that you know nothing about.
Gutenberg Bible 1455. In Latin. IN 1150, it would have been in Latin, too, but handwritten. King James 1611. Geneva Bible: 1560. First book printed in English is generally believed to be Recuyell of the Historyes of Troye, 1475.
University of Cambridge, for instance, was founding in this general time period (about 1135), and a bit later in the century, Henry II would forbid students to go abroad to study at the University of Paris (1167).
This WAS the height of the 12th Century renaissance, but printing was a bit down the road.
Please enjoy our forum, but also please remember to use common courtesy when posting and refrain from posting personal attacks, profanity, vulgarity, threats, racial or religious bigotry, or any other materials offensive or otherwise inappropriate for a conservative family audience.
Free Republic is a noncommerical site. Please do not post advertising, solicitations, spam or any other commercial messages. Do not spam us with links to your own site. No one likes spam.
Posting hatred opinions or any other materials offensive or otherwise inappropriate for a griving family audience.
Free Republic does not advocate violence, rebellion, secession, or an overthrow of the government.
Is it too much to ask you Wolfgang_Blitzkrieg to stay on topic this is not about which religion is right, it is about young men who in their hearts believed they were doing the work of the Lord that were shot and one killed and some here feeling concert for family members and those who hearts are sadden by this tragedy...
Your enmity Wolfgang_Blitzkrieg on this grief thread is not the time or place to vent your road rage!
The Book of Revelation, while it appears as the last book in The New Testament there was no New Testament in place when John wronte the Book of Revelations. The canon was not established until the late 300's. In 397 AD, at the Council of Carthage, the books of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2nd and 3rd John and Jude were added to the canon for the first time. In addition, the Shepehered of Hermas, the Leter of Barnabas, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Reveation of Peter, the Acts of Peter, the Didache, the Teaching of Twelve, and the Apostles were all removed from the Canon. To interpret that verse to mean that one can't add to the Bible would mean that one would have to throw out the books all of the books added in 397. In fact, at the time that John wrote the Book of Revelations, the only books that were part of the Canon were Luke, Romans, 1st and 2nd Corintians, Galations, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, and Philemon. So, if you stick to your interpretation of that scripture in Revelations, then you would have to throw out Matthew, Mark, John, Acts, 1st and 2nd Timothy, Titus, Hebres, James, 1st and 2nd Peter, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John, and Jude. You would have to toss out well over half of the books in the New Testament. I don't think that you want to go there.
Even Moses in the Song of Moses from Deuteronomy warns direly that anyone who adds to the Word of God is in huge trouble.
Wow! So, now we'll have to throw out almost all of the books in the Old and New Testaments since they came after Deuteronomy.
Please, you really need to stop. You've callously taken the opportunity of a thread about the tragic shooting of a servant of God to attack the faith of the murdered young man and that of his family. I think that if you examine such behavior you will not find it to be consistant with what is commonly believed to be Christian behavior. I hope that you can refrain from such further behavior and go find other more interesting threads in which to post your opinions.
There are differences between Christian and Mormon belief.
Christians do not believe that Satan and Jesus were brothers.
Christians do not believe that men can become Gods.
It's dishonest to pretend that there's no difference.
That's all that's really being said here.
And insensitive as it may seem, ... it would be most unloving if noone on this thread pointed that out (particularly as it relates to one's rightness with God).
If God had said that it didn't matter what we believed ... it would be a different matter.
I grieve for the young men who were the victims of this senseless crime.
But there will be more reason for grief if God's truth is not heard.
ROFLOL!!!
Right, so doing what God tells you to do is a "work" but our salvation does not rest upon it.
It's sort of like "proof" of it.
"There are differences between Christian and Mormon belief."
Frankly, I don't care (too much) if you don't think I'm a Christian. At that level it's all a game of definitions anyway, so I don't take what one feels is required to call themself Christian too seriously. However, that's not all that was being said here. People were gravely misrepresenting my beliefs. I merely answered questions and addressed inaccuracies.
Glad you know the history of the printed Bible, but it still doesn't explain why God would speak in outmoded English to Joseph Smith. Or to the Egyptians. Or japanese. Or whoever.
Quester
one can disagree with out the asp and your opinion was cordial and to the point of your take on the LDS
thank you
It's dishonest to pretend that there's no difference.
Quester you feel it is dishonset to pretend, I say misunderstood in our differences.
Someday on at another time and thead we might continue this!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.