Posted on 10/08/2007 7:49:32 AM PDT by colorcountry
PROVING something was TAKEN AWAY to begin with is a HUGE problem!
How?
Because I've SEEN it, myself, in these threads!
It's like these verses:
Romans 10:1-4
1. Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved.
2. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.
3. Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.
4. Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
(The rest of this chapter is good, too.)
That would be good, for in none of these threads have I seen it discussed just WHY the things, written to Believers in ACTS chapter 15, is ignored.
Your statement is a non sequitur.
A revelation from God is true, whether or not it is written down. In fact, most of what God has done is not available for us to read in the scriptures:
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. (John 21:25)
A question I have asked often on these threads.
The replies are typical of the arrogance of the mormon position, "there is no truth but OUR truth", especially evident in Grig's statement, You’ve only demonstrated that different people make contradictory claims. You have not established that those people all had in fact the same kind of experience, that their accounts are honest, and accurate. God is perfectly capable of communicating with us in many different ways, and what God reveals is true even when it appears to conflict with what men think to be true.
Also the closing statement in his post: You can either do it and find out or remain frustrated in the dark. Your choice.
IMO, these statements are excellent examples of the lies told to those who are exhorted by them to "study and pray and the answer will be given".....the lie is in the fact that to mormons, the "answer" MUST be THEIR ANSWER or the study and prayer done are faulty in some way.
Note the phrase, " God is perfectly capable of communicating with us in many different ways, and what God reveals is true even when it appears to conflict with what men think to be true." The unspoken message in that is that "God reveals OUR truth, but the rest of you just THINK He reveals His truth to YOU!
Next time the young, fresh-faced, clean cut young men come knocking at your door, remember that. And the next time your clean-living, kind, "nicest people in the world" mormon neighbors wave at you over the back fence, remember that. THEY believe that spiritually, they are much better "blessed" than you are and that you are "wandering in the dark."
What the nation faces with Romney is the possibility that there could be someone as POTUS who deep down, in his heart, TRULY believes the same way. That HIS truth is the ONLY truth, and in that case, he is justified in whatever he does...a dangerous flaw in a President.
YUP, MY experience is faulty, while YOURS is not! See my post #526.
The dictates of a proven liar, false prophet, fabricator of Bible verses is believed the source for the 'restored gospel' based on the dictation of Joe Smith and an easily produced emotional effect trumping the witness of Old Testament Paul used to evangelize and then the New Testament used for the past 1700 years to evangelize. Yes, considered to trump the OT and NT because there are dictates and doctrines which contradict the Bible, the source of validation for the person and work of Jesus Christ! The Mormon obsession to validate polygamy and the multiple wives of Joe Smith is but one example of this effort to establish a lie as a blessing.
One can know this religion is not from God because to defend the Mormonism contradictions to the Bible teachings, the Mormonism Apologists seek to denigrate and sow doubt that the Bible is God's Word as He wants it for us. You will see that very campaign to claim the Bible is 'what Constantine commanded be in the pages', or the revelations are 'based upon Greek philosophies and or Greek Philosophers'. The apologists will take Bible passages out of context and twist them to suit the untruth Mormonism preaches. The apologists will tell you that unless you too have 'the burning in the bosom' you are being cheated from the Gospel, that God is short-changing you by you not asking right for His revelation.
Bottom line is, this religion of Smith is anti-christ/demonic in nature as attested to by the many contradictions it has to the Truth found in the OT and NT scriptures which are God inspired and which have been the proof source for hundreds of millions of Christians for the past 2000 years. To accept Mormonism one must believe the Smith, et al lie that God could not keep His promises to never leave us or forsake us since He arose and ascended and sent His Holy Spirit into us upon a profession of Belief in Him and that God raised Him from the dead!
When Mormonism apologists demand you show him/her that Mormonism contradicts Christianity, recall for them the Mormon belief that God needed to restore that which He had promised would never leave us once He began the new covenant. THAT is the greatest contradiction to Christ and Salvation He taught to Paul, and the one they will avoid dealing with to continue believing their own religion's lies. Proselytizing for Mormonism is founded upon sowing doubt, causing a person to doubt the promises of God as if something only Mormonism has must be 'restored' in order for God to succeed in saving individual souls. The proof of their heresy being the founding principle of that religion is their doctrine of being baptised for the dead ... as if the only way to complete salvation is by Mormon authorized baptism! That is a gross, obscene contradiction to the teaching of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and in a mature Christ's heart, that is what we find disturbing in Mormonism and electing a man who is sold out to such a cult.
If only the LDS Church actually followed their Book of Mormon. The Mormon missionairies come to your door and ask you to read a free copy of the BoM with the hope that you will read it, think it's true, and thus make the jump that if the BoM is true then the Utah LDS church must be the "1 true church" on the face of the earth. Forget for the moment how flawed that logic is, as there are many, many sects that regard the BoM as true. The real tragedy is that it's nothing more than a "bait-and-switch" game since the Utah LDS Church will replace the "milk" of the BoM with the real "meat" of their doctrine once they've got a convert baptized and in their grasp. Most (but certainly not all) of the problems that Christians have with LDS doctrine would disappear if only Mormons followed the Book of Mormon.
For example, the BoM states that there is only ONE God (Alma 11:27-39, 44, 2 Nephi 31:21, Mormon 7:7, 3 Nephi 11:27, & the Testimony of Three Witnesses); however the LDS Church teaches that there are millions of gods and that men can become gods themselves. WHERE IS THAT IN THE BOOK OF MORMON???
The BoM (Alma 18:26-28, Alma 22:8-11) teaches that God is SPIRIT; however, the LDS church teaches that God has a physical body and is a distinct god from Jesus Christ. Again, WHERE IS THAT IN THE BOOK OF MORMON?
The BoM (Alma 34:36) teaches that God dwells in the heart; however, the LDS Church has rejected such teaching as can be found in D&C 130:3. Another example of Mormon scripture directly contradicting itself.
The BoM (Ether 3:12, 2 Nephi 9:34) teaches that God can NOT lie. LDS doctrine holds that God COMMANDED LYING (Book of Abraham 2:22-25).
The BOM (Alma 41:8) teaches that God's Word is unchangeable; however, LDS doctrine holds that God's Word CAN change (D&C Section 56:4-5).
The BoM teaches that there was NO pre-existence of man (Jacob 4:9, Alma 18:28, 34-36); however, LDS doctrine is that man DID pre-exist.
The BoM teaches that death seals a man's fate (Mosiah 2:36-39, Alma 34:32-35), while the LDS church teaches that man HAS a chance after death.
The BoM teaches that there can be salvation for the heathen WITHOUT baptism, while the LDS Church practices baptism for the dead. What gives?
The BoM teaches that there are 2 places to spend eternity - heaven or hell (2 Nephi 28:22, 1 Nephi 15:35, Mosiah 16:11, Mosiah 27:31, Alma 41:4-8, Alma 42:16), while the LDS Church teaches that there are actually 3 levels of heaven. Again, that is NOWHERE to be found in the BoM. And before you protest with the predictable "Not ALL of the gospel is in the BoM", the LDS Church has taught that the BoM "contains the FULNESS of the gospel". If so, WHY NOT FOLLOW IT?
The BoM teaches that there can be forgiveness of even murder (3 Nephi 30:2), while LDS Doctrine is that murder can NOT be forgiven.
Of course a real biggie is the BoM being absolutely against polygamy. Well, we know that the LDS Church practiced it, and that Joseph Smith produced "revelations" that directly contradicted what the BoM he produced said about it.
Again, if ONLY the LDS Church actually followed their own Book of Mormon.
You do not hear Mormons bashing the Baptists, Catholics, Jews or any other religion. We just don’t believe it is our place to tell someone that their beliefs are wrong.
As others have already pointed out, the LDS Church was founded on the idea ALL CHURCHES ARE WRONG AND AN ABOMINATION TO GOD. How's that for telling someone that their beliefs are wrong?! I talked to many LDS missionaries, and they've had no problem telling me where they thought I was in error.
You DO make a point though, which actually backs up my earlier point that the LDS Church wants to become part of mainstream Christianity. Is the LDS Church "in your face" about how their beliefs differ from traditional Christianity as much as they once were? Absolutely not! That's because they are more interested in "blending in" now, rather than separating themselves from Christians. It used to be Mormons insisted on NOT being called Christians. Now, they insist that they are indeed Christians.
Despite all this, I'm supposed to be impressed that they are involved with DNA and the Dead Sea Scrolls? Hey, why not apply the use of DNA to the BoM?
Actually, that's been done...
In December, 2002, Thomas Murphy, lifetime Mormon and chairman of the Edmonds Community College Anthropology Department in Washington, was threatened with excommunication over his research on DNA and Book of Mormon issues. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported:
In December, the local stake of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints scheduled a disciplinary council and informed Murphy he faced the possibility of excommunication, or expulsion from the church. But the president of the stake—a district made up of a number of wards—indefinitely postponed the council after the debate hit the press and supporters staged rallies across the country. . . .
"Sin, Skin and Seed: The Mistakes of Man in the Book of Mormon" is the title of Murphy's talk today at the UW, . . .
The "sin" and "skin" in his lecture refer to Scripture linking skin color and behavior. The Book of Mormon states ancient Israelites came to the Americas about 600 B.C. and divided into two groups: the light-skinned, civilized Nephites and the dark-skinned, corrupt, Lamanites, who eventually defeated the Nephites. These Lamanites, according to the modern introduction to the Book of Mormon, are the principal ancestors of Native Americans.
In fact, says Murphy, DNA data, as well as anthropological studies, indicate American Indians are descended from Northeast Asians who migrated across the Bering Sea between 7,000 and 50,000 years ago.
The stir over his findings began when he published them on a Web site run by Mormon intellectuals and in a collection of essays on the Book of Mormon called "American Apocrypha.". . .
Murphy was frankly please with the publicity and subsequent response. He's received . . . missives from Native Americans who say they're happy to finally see someone addressing the issue of racism in Mormon text. (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Jan. 13, 2003, page B3)
As we can see, LDS researchers are free to study whatever they want, but they dare not discover or say anything against current LDS doctrine. Under such circumstances, it's hard for me to have any faith in BYU researchers.
Why don't the BYU researchers take another look at the second part of the Pearl Great Price, also known as the "Book of Abraham"? It was supposed to have been written on Egyptian papyrus by Abraham himself about 4,000 years ago! According to Mormon officials, this same papyrus fell into Joseph Smith's hands and he began translating it in 1835. If the papyrus were really written by Abraham, its discovery was probably one of the most important finds in the history of the world.
For many years Joseph Smith's collection of papyri was lost and there was no way to check the accuracy of his translation. On Nov. 27, 1967, however, the Mormon-owned Deseret News made the startling announcement that the collection had been rediscovered in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The article went on to say: "Included in the papyri is a manuscript identified as the original document from which Joseph Smith had copied the drawing which he called 'Facsimile No. 1' and published with the Book of Abraham." The importance of this find cannot be overemphasized; it, in fact, made it possible to put Joseph Smith's ability as a translator of ancient Egyptian writing to an absolute test.
Although the Mormon Church tried to slow down the dissemination of material with regard to the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri, within six months from the time the Metropolitan Museum gave the papyri to the church, the Book of Abraham had been proven untrue! The fall of the Book of Abraham was brought about by the identification of the actual piece of papyrus from which Joseph Smith claimed to "translate" the book.
Noted Egyptologists Richard A. Parker and Klaus Baer translated this papyrus fragment and found that it is in reality the Egyptian Book of Breathings. Other Egyptologists have confirmed that it is nothing but the Book of Breathings. Even the Mormon apologist Hugh Nibley has admitted this identification. In fact, he has even made his own translation of the text.
It is obvious, therefore, that the papyrus Joseph Smith claimed was the "Book of Abraham" is in reality an Egyptian funerary text known as the "Book of Breathings." It is a pagan document which is filled with magical practices and the names of Egyptian gods and goddesses. It has absolutely nothing to do with either Abraham or his religion.
The LDS Church ignores these facts, hopes they will just go away, and wants us to take their ancient manuscript researchers seriously?
As a prelude, you may want to check your information sources carefully. The support for horses and iron you cite is incredibly vague and is based on only a single citation each. The citation for horses is furthermore an ‘anonymous’ article in a Mormon magazine... not exactly strong evidential support.
You mention that you believe Christians interpret the Bible incorrectly. Could you give examples please?
In an earlier post, you defend the position that God was a man, and then go on to say that it is not doctrinal LDS belief. Yet the statement was made by your prophet Joseph Smith. He states that, “We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil”, which makes it quite clear that he is presenting this as something from above. If he is a prophet, why do you not accept his teachings on this? If he is not a prophet, then why do you follow him?
The premise that Smith puts forth has huge theological implications, as does the your assertion that men become gods in LDS theology. As a starting premise, this in itself flies against scripture, and contradicts who the God of the Bible declares himself to be.
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” (Rev 1:8)
Hear oh Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. (Dt 6:4)
For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the Lord made the heavens. (1 Ch16:26)
God is the great I AM. The Jews attempted to stone Jesus when he even used those words. We are called to be ‘imitators of God, as dearly loved children’, but we do not become God.
There is only One who is good. (Mt 19:17)
No one is good- except God alone. (Mk 10:18b)
A man who becomes a ‘god’ is neither the creator of all things, nor good/sinless. He is in essence not god.
Thank you for your kind invitation to read the Book of Mormon. I am content and entirely satisfied with the full truth I read in the Bible, but should I have time I will certainly not hesitate to look through more of the Book of Mormon. Time is always short however, and I try to fill my time with that which is most beneficial and glorifying to God... though I fall short with frequency.
Ping ... I used your chart.
Available in English.
Joseph's newly organized church started to publish its history as events took place. This publication was called the "Messenger and Advocate." Oliver Cowdery was the main writer and its accuracy was checked by Joseph Smith himself. In this publication Joseph tells how, after his brother Alvin's death, and after his mother, sister and two brothers had joined the Presbyterian Church, he started to seek religion and pray "if some Supreme Being existed" (vol. 1 p. 79). IF HE HAD HAD A VISION OF GOD THE FATHER AND HIS SON, JESUS CHRIST IN 1820, HE MOST CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE KNOWN BY 1823 OR 1824 THAT A SUPREME BEING EXISTED. By reading diaries, records, newspapers, etc., one seeks in vain to find any mention of this so-called "First Vision" story until 1842, when it was published in "Times and Seasons," 22 years after this vision supposedly took place.
It becomes quite obvious that this report was an after-thought, since the Vision story talks about two separate gods and the Book of Mormon says that there is only one God; and that Jesus, God the Father and Holy Ghost are this one God. Examples: Alma 11:26-33; 18:26-28; Mosiah 15:1, 2, 5, etc. "The Book of Commandments" (now called "Doctrine and Covenants") was published in 1835 and it included lectures given in the School of the Prophets. Lecture 5 says God is a Spirit, and the Son only has the body of flesh and bones. (The lectures have later been removed from the"D&C" but they are available as a separate small book.) There is now an added footnote to this lecture 5, which says that Joseph received further light and knowledge in 1843 and THEN knew that God the Father also had a body of flesh and bones.
That statement alone tells that there was no vision of the Father and the Son in 1820. Had there been a vision, he wouldn't have needed this "further light and knowledge" about the Father having a body of flesh and bones. It was not until 1844, that Joseph started to preach about a god who was once a man and progressed into godhood, and how men can also become gods. (See "Teachings by Prophet Joseph Smith" pp. 345-347).
Thus, there is absolutely no evidence for the first vision as it appears in the Pearl of Great Price, or that the vision was known to Mormons or non-Mormons prior to 1842 or thereabouts. It was not until the 1880's that this story was accepted by the Church. Prior to that time, we were able only to read denials about it. For example, in "Journal of Discourses," vol. 2, p. 171, in 1855, Brigham Young preached a sermon in which he said:
"LORD DID NOT COME TO JOSEPH SMITH, BUT SENT HIS ANGEL TO INFORM HIM THAT HE SHOULD NOT JOIN ANY RELIGIOUS SECT OF THE DAY, FOR THEY WERE ALL WRONG..."
John Taylor later said the same thing, see J. of D. vol. 20, page 167, on March 2, 1879. Heber C. Kimball in vol. 6, page 29, said:
"DO YOU SUPPOSE THAT GOD IN PERSON CALLED UPON JOSEPH SMITH, OUR PROPHET? GOD CALLED UPON HIM, BUT DID NOT COME HIMSELF..."
George A. Smith told the same story in the Journal of Discourses, vol. 12, pp. 333-334. One wouldn't really even have to dig deeper than that to find out that the claims of the Church today regarding Joseph Smith's so-called First Vision are not true, according to documentary evidence of the time, and Joseph Smith should - and these facts should - be exposed, just as Joseph Fielding Smith said they should.
Now let's look at the Book of Mormon. Early Mormon apostle Orson Pratt made a statement concerning the Book of Mormon:
" 'The Book of Mormon' must be either true or false. If true, it is one of the most important messages ever sent from God... If False, it is one of the most cunning, wicked, bold, deep-laid impositions ever palmed upon the world, calculated to deceive and ruin millions... The nature of the "Book of Mormon" is such, that if true, no one can possibly be saved and reject it; If false, no one can possibly be saved and receive it... If, after a rigid examination, it be found imposition, it should be extensively published to the world as such; the evidences and arguments on which the imposture was detected, should be clearly and logically stated, that those who have been sincerely yet unfortunately deceived, may perceive the nature of deception, and to be reclaimed, and that those who continue to publish the delusion may be exposed and silenced... by strong and powerful arguments - by evidences adduced from scripture and reason..." (Orson Pratt's Works, "Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon": Liverpool, 1851, pp. 1, 2.)
We hope to show clearly and logically, even though very briefly in this letter, that the Book of Mormon is not a divinely inspired record, but a 19th century product. Joseph Smith claimed that after he translated the gold plates, he returned them to an angel - so there is no way to inspect them or check the accuracy of the translation. Mormons often refer to the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. Most of these men left the Church, but claims are also made that even though they did, they never denied that they had seen an angel who showed them "the plates of the Book of Mormon." However, in the Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, page 164, Brigham Young stated:
"...witnesses of the Book of Mormon who handled the plates and conversed with the angels of God were afterwards left to doubt and to disbelieve that they had ever seen an angel."
Joseph Smith himself called these men wicked and liars and by many other demeaning names. In the Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, pages 114-115, George A. Smith lists those who have left the Church and mentions specifically, among others, "the witnesses of the Book of Mormon." Martin Harris later claimed that he had a better testimony of "the Shakers Book" than he ever had of the Book of Mormon. Reading about these witnesses, one is drawn to the conclusion that they were unstable men and easily convinced; for example, Martin Harris changed his religion at least eight times. Some of the others started their own religions later.
So thorough and insightful a response I have no need to add
a word to it. Very good gf.
If subjective experience is the basis of truth, then there
is no truth because everyone’s subjective experience differs.
Truth with a capital T doesn’t conflict with itself. Hence,
subjective experience can never be the basis of truth.
On this first principle, mormonism fails. This faulty foundation
of sand becomes the downfall of mormonism time after time.
It distorts the Bible in an attempt to validate personal
subjective experience. It distorts the Gospel of Christ. It
distorts the nature of God and man. It validates both
polygamy and polytheism.
Those who see the fallacy of this approach leave the grip
of the mormon cult - often at great sacrifice and oppression.
You can read their stories at...
These are the people who have left and tell why and what it
meant to their lives when they realized the foundation of
shifting sand mormonism is built upon. It isn’t the only
website of ex-mormons either. There are many. For anyone
who wants to know the truth about this cult, there is no
better place to start than here - except, of course, the
Bible.
best,
ampu
Those are your words, not mine.
I did read your post #526. Frankly, I do not see why you are so worked up. You insist Mormonism is false, that Mormons are arrogant for believing what God has revealed to us, and that we promulgate a lie. Your language is much harsher than anything I have written to or about you.
Yet when invited to tell me which church is true, you passed. You have told me what not to believe; you have not said what I should believe instead. In fact, you have provided no reason to believe much of anything. For all I know, your only faith is anti-Mormonism.
The Apostle Peter said, "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear" (1 Peter 3:15). Can you provide such an answer?
DNA disproves the BOM only if you believe in DNA!
The hope that is within is a person of the trinity, The Holy Spirit. Didn’t you know?... It is not an organization founded by a proven liar, fabricator, false prophet who tried to rewrite the Bible to include prophecy of his ‘coming in these latter days.’ The reason that Hope is within is that with the mouth confession is made that Jesus is The Savior and in the heart belief sustained by confidence that God has raised Him from the dead.
“The replies are typical of the arrogance of the mormon position, “there is no truth but OUR truth”, especially evident in Grig’s statement, ‘You’ve only demonstrated that different people make contradictory claims. You have not established that those people all had in fact the same kind of experience, that their accounts are honest, and accurate. God is perfectly capable of communicating with us in many different ways, and what God reveals is true even when it appears to conflict with what men think to be true.’ “
What I said there was nothing more than a statement of fact.
“Also the closing statement in his post: You can either do it and find out or remain frustrated in the dark. Your choice.’ “
Also a statement of fact. Some things you can only know by doing, even Christ said so. will you accuse Christ of arrogance as well?
“Note the phrase, “ God is perfectly capable of communicating with us in many different ways, and what God reveals is true even when it appears to conflict with what men think to be true.” The unspoken message in that is that “God reveals OUR truth, but the rest of you just THINK He reveals His truth to YOU!”
‘unspoken message’ = mind reading
I specifically said more than once in this tread that a person should not take my word or anyone else’s word for it. They should find out for themselves. What I expect has nothing to do with what God will or will not do.
“Next time the young, fresh-faced, clean cut young men come knocking at your door, remember that. And the next time your clean-living, kind, “nicest people in the world” mormon neighbors wave at you over the back fence, remember that. THEY believe that spiritually, they are much better “blessed” than you are and that you are “wandering in the dark.””
If you think Mormons are walking in the light of the true gospel, why does the idea of someone being or becoming a Mormon bother you? If you think there is nothing for a Mormon to gain by joining you, why try and convince us to leave our church?
God is not a respecter of persons and he loves us all. We do believe we are blessed with the fullness of the gospel but we don’t look down on others who haven’t accepted it. Having the gospel doesn’t make us better than anyone, it puts on us a greater obligation to spread the knowledge of it through the world. That ‘clean-living, kind, “nicest people in the world” mormon neighbor’ considers you a brother and would be happy to see your life be blessed by the fullness of the gospel as much as his has been.
“What the nation faces with Romney is the possibility that there could be someone as POTUS who deep down, in his heart, TRULY believes the same way. That HIS truth is the ONLY truth, and in that case, he is justified in whatever he does”
So you want someone who belongs to a church but doesn’t ‘really’ belive in it? I guess Rudy is your man then.
Again, how does the POTUS having a conviction that Mormonism is true impact on government policy or the performance of his duties? None. Your fearmongering is silly and paranoid. If you want an example of someone who does think anything they do is justified, just look at the Clintons. If Romney would be so dangerous in a position of responsibility, how come he did so well at Bain? How did he pull off that miracle turning the Olympics around?
No matter who is elected POTUS, they are going to have to make critical decisions often without having all the facts. Wouldn’t having a POTUS who (in addition to all he can do) prays to God in times like this be better than having one who won’t pray?
As I said before, a subjective experience is one that is personal or private, and not shared by others. Such experiences can be true. If it were not so, then you have to reject the following "subjective" experiences:
55 But he [Stephen], being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,Those are examples taken from just one book of the Bible, the book of Acts. The rest of the Bible is full of accounts of "subjective" experiences: dreams, visions, angelic visitations, and so on. Indeed, take away everything but what would be considered "objective" by today's standards and there would not be much left of the Bible.
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, (Acts 7:55-57).
9 ¶ On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:
10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven. (Acts 10:9-16)
9 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us.
10 And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them. (Acts 16:9–10)
11 And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome. (Acts 23:11)
I trust that in the meantime, readers will see the validity in my statements.
BTW, RM, isn't this statement "So you want someone who belongs to a church but doesn’t ‘really’ belive in it?" mind-reading?
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.