Posted on 11/28/2010 11:46:07 AM PST by delacoert
Exactly so.
The only way to know a false prophet from a real one is to know the truth. You get the truth by earnest prayer, real scripture study and spiritual confirmation by the Holy Ghost.
Most Christians just listen to whatever somebody says and never read the Bible for themselves. That’s eisegesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisegesis
That’s the method by which we got the Trinity.
Let’s look at Matthew 24:23-25:
23 Then if any one may say to you, Lo, here is the Christ [Messiah, Anointed One]! or here! ye may not believe;
24 for there shall arise false Christs [Messiahs, Anointed Ones], and false prophets [interpreters or forth-tellers of divine will], and they shall give great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, also the chosen.
25 Lo, I did tell you beforehand. 26 ‘If therefore they may say to you, Lo, in the wilderness he is, ye may not go forth; lo, in the inner chambers, ye may not believe;
The warnings are clear. Those who follow the Bible and know and read it for themselves can discern the truth from falsehood.
There must be a church of God, all others are false.
There must be authority from God, all others are false.
The Bible makes plain the basic Christian expectation and the LDS doctrines fit it excellently and better than Trinitarianism by far.
Don’t follow the opinions of men.
No LDS president has ever been a prophet OF GOD. Not Joseph Smith, not MOnson, and not one in between. They blaspheme. They may dabble in a little fortune-telling, poorly so, but they do not speak for God.
That sounded so good until you blew it.
10, this only goes so far. Perhaps you should actually provide the biblical contexts for what God defines as a prophet. For this point Deuteronomy 13 warns that a prophet must teach correctly about God.
Deu 13:1 KJV - If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, Deu 13:2 KJV - And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
Deu 13:3 KJV - Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
2. A prophet needn’t foretell a certain future, but simply speak as God would have him speak.
This is a cowardly definition, once again the bible speaks on this point.
“But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.”—Deuteronomy 18:20-22
The flaw in the prophecy-fulfillment argument is that foreseeing the future doesn’t necessarily prove divine guidance and the Bible recognizes this. So it’s corollary, that prophecy failure (or apparent failure) doesn’t prove anything either.
Now we know why a mormon would post such as cowardly definition - it is because smith alone made 56 FALSE prophecies. bring'em young and later prophets and apostles made many as well. The simple fact that they DID make these prophecies places them under the DIRECT examination by the scripture verses above.
As we have seen from the bible - accurate forseeing of the future DOES prove divine guidance, to say otherwise in the face of these passages is intellectually dishonest. I would challenge 1010 to show me from the bible full non-divine prophecy that is fulfilled. With the epic fail of the first clause, the corollary falls apart as well.
Why yes I am a Christian, but I believe the Bible not what someone’s groomed me to believe.
You’ve got to think for yourself. Too many Christians are all faith with no facts. They believe all the popular nonsense in Christianity.
The choices aren’t just Catholicism or Protestantism. Choose the Bible and choose God.
Sheer opinion.
The following will be 'a way' to understand the notion of the trinitarian nature of the Deity, not a strictly Biblical explanation, but one which is applicable to the teaching of the Bible. Here goes:
God The Father Almighty is greater than His creation, thus greater than dimension time and dimension space, thus we may think of The Father Almighty as beyond time and space but not prevented from touching and indeed penetrating His creation.
The universe of space and time is likened to a bubble: what is inside the bubble is in time and space. But the nature of what is inside the bubble is only partially understood in modern Physics.
The Bible relates scenes which defy the simplistic notions we use for assumptive science. We'll get to that 'assumptive' notion shortly, but let us make the statement that God The Father Almighty is as comfortable outside the bubble as He is inside the bubble.
Modern Physics has discovered that the balance of forces and tensions sustaining the universe necessary for human life to arise within the universe is extremely delicate, on the order of a mathematical improbability, represented as a 'one in less than' fraction so tiny that a one over a one followed by more than one-hundred zeros defines the probability that the whole thing remains in balance! Such a delicate balancing act is but one of the continuing 'works' of the Holy Spirit of God. It is by the Spirit of God, The Word, that the universe came into existence and it is said in the Bible that by His Spirit the whole is maintained.
But the Bible also states that The Word was with God in the beginning and was God. In John's gospel we find that Jesus is The Word made flesh Who dwelt among us. So, inside the bubble Created by The Father Almighty, sustained by God The Holy Spirit, is the Word, God made flesh Who dwelt among us. The Creator does not stop being greater than His creation bubble, nor does His Spirit cease to sustain it all in balance, when Jesus comes in the flesh to dwell among us.
Here's an address to 'assumptive science limitations': Now, when one reads the Torah/Old Testament, one finds scenes like the fifth chapter of Daniel where a being is in one spacetime 'where/when' reaching into another 'where/when' to write on the palace party central wall of king Belshazzar. Just the forearm/hand is seen in the where/when of Belshazzar and the party folks, the rest of the being remains in 'another' where/when.
God The Father Almighty created this 'other' where/when, His Holy Spirit maintains its balance and separateness from our where/when, and Jesus has moved in and out of this other where/when: as shown when He resurrected from the tomb without rolling away the stone, just passing out of the tomb where/when, into 'another' where/when; then back into our where/when as He spoke to the women come to the sepulchre; and when He appeared in a locked and shuttered room with the disciples present; or appeared suddenly with the disciples walking on a road and broke bread with them then left our where/when to go to the 'other' where/when.
The trinitarian nature of God is shown in the Bible, even in the Tanakh. Triunity IS the nature of God as we have been given to know. Even in the Old Testament/Tanakh, we do have instruction on the Three nature of God as Creator, Sustainer, and Deliverer. God Is manifested as three yet one, seen identified by 'the work He is doing'.
With each manifestation, we are given to realize His presence simultaneously as Creator--because we exist in the realm He created, as Sustainer--because the balance is too delicate to stand alone without His sustaining the separation and interdependence, and as God with us in the person of Jesus our Lord and Savior.
You’re just too desperate to believe in the Trinity. Let it go and see the light. It’s not Biblical in the least bit.
Oh lord here we go...
Whack a mole...
And that's one of the ways they try to skirt around the eternality of hell...'cause one of the earliest things Smith did (March, 1830) in Doctrine & Covenants 19 was to redefine hell.
Smith tried to claim that "eternal damnation" was the same thing as saying "divine damnation" [his words: "Eternal punishment is God's punishment. Endless punishment is God's punishment" (D&C 19:11-12)]
Hence, Smith tried to...
#1 Redefine "endless" and "everlasting" from being an expression of "duration" to it being merely a possessive adjective -- that which is sourced in God. [His "logic": God is eternal. Eternal is His Name. Eternal is His punishment. That just means this punishment is of God.]
#2 He claimed that "damnation" meant "damned up" (for a period of time) -- not knowing the underlying Greek word for "damnation" -- judgment. [Quick, all of you: See if you can pass the Mormon "straight face" test and say 10 times quickly, "eternally damned up = short-term spiritual constipation"..."eternally damned up = short-term spiritual constipation"...]
There ya go: Joseph Smith word-twisting 101 [never mind Scripture-twisting 101...Smith repeatedly attacked the basic Webster's 1828 dictionary of his day!]
Besides not knowing the underlying Greek word for "damnation" in the New Testament, what conniving does this reveal on Smith's part?
Well, Smith couldn't go back and change all those passages in the Book of Mormon -- and didn't change them all in the New Testament, either!
What do I mean?
Well, hell's not the only after-life destiny defined as "everlasting" and "eternal" in both the BoM & NT; heaven is, too!
And if, per Smith, all "everlasting life" or "eternal heaven" means is that heaven and life is of God -- but doesn't equate to duration -- then whose to say how long heaven is?
Smith already undercut the duration of hell and emptied it of its meaning! He robbed Noah Webster at penpoint, redefining eternal, everlasting, damnation, hell, and heaven all in one fell swoop!!!
Therefore hell in Mormondom is actually probably as long as heaven is...or who knows? Because I really don't know of any "duration" words Mormonism has in reserve that they didn't previously toss under the Mormon railroad in Smith's pursuit to redefine the doctrine of hell!
Mormons certainly don't believe in "once saved, always saved"...Therefore, since they empty the words of "eternal" and "everlasting" of its durational promise, they really don't know how long their three degrees of glory are!
As it is, if Mormons try to say that "eternal" and "everlasting" mean one thing when applied to...
...hell...
...but another thing when applied to...
...heaven...
...they are (yet again) utterly devoid of consistent Scriptural integrity and have opted for being two-faced hypocrites!
I also recommend to All this excerpt (for those who want to study "eternal" and "everlasting" in context Biblically):
In Matthew 25:41 we read of "everlasting fire." In Matthew 25:46 of "everlasting punishment." In Mark 6:29 of "eternal damnation." And in 2 Thessalonians 1:9 of "everlasting destruction." We are aware that the enemies of God’s truth have sought to tamper with this word rendered everlasting and eternal. But their efforts have been entirely futile. The impossibility of rendering the Greek word by any other English equivalent appears from the following evidence:
The Greek word is "aionios" and its meaning and scope has been definitely defined for us by the Holy Spirit in at least two passages. "While we look not at the things which are seen: but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal" (2 Cor. 4:18). Here a contrast is drawn between things "seen" and things "not seen," between things "temporal" and things "eternal." Now it is obvious that if the things "temporal" should last forever, there would be no antithesis between them and the things "eternal." It is equally obvious that if the things "eternal" are merely "age-long," then they cannot be properly contrasted with things that are temporal. The difference between things temporal and things eternal in this verse is as great as the difference between the things "seen" and the things "not seen."
The second example, which is of the same character as the one furnished in 2 Corinthians 4:18, is equally conclusive. In Philemon 15 we read, "For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him forever." Here the Greek for "forever" is aionios. The apostle is beseeching Philemon to receive Onesimus, who had left his master, and whom Paul had sent back to him. When the apostle says "receive him forever," his evident meaning is, never banish him, never sell him, never again send him away. "Aionios" is here contrasted with "for a season," showing that it means just the opposite of what that expression signifies.
Eternal or everlasting is the one and unvaried meaning of aionios in the New Testament. The same word translated "everlasting destruction," "everlasting punishment," "everlasting fire," is rendered "everlasting life" in John 3:16; "the everlasting God" in Romans 16:26; "eternal salvation" in Hebrews 5:9; "His eternal glory" in 1 Peter 5:10. No argument needs to be made to prove that in these passages it is impossible to fairly substitute any other alternative for everlasting and eternal, And it is thus with the other class of passages. The "everlasting fire" will synchronize with the existence of "the everlasting God." The "everlasting punishment" of the lost will continue as long as the "everlasting life" of believers. The "eternal damnation" of the wicked will no more have an end than will the "eternal salvation" of the redeemed. The "everlasting destruction" of unbelievers will prove as interminable as the "everlasting glory" of God. To deny the former is to deny the latter. To affirm the everlastingness of God is to prove the endlessness of the misery of His enemies.
Source: The Destiny of the Wicked
That is their methodology - redefining terms. A short list of such redefinitions include atonement, salvation, grace, and faith.
Identifying component of a cult.
Behold the wild claims of mormonism placemarker
... no facts
... no evidence
... no logical argument
But a whole lotta feelings and burning bosoms!
The entire posse, eh? LOL.
You’re late, Gojira. I’ve already quoted Deut. 13, but I am excited whenever a Christian gives credence to the OT. So many pretend that the NT subsumes it, but we still need the OT to know God. Which one is right then Deut. 13 or 18?
I mean really, Benny Hinn still lives. What’s going on?
You’re just talking out of school again. You’re just taking Deut. 18 out of context. You need to put Deut. 13 & 18 together (17 & 19 as well to get the context).
I’d recommend you study Barnes’ Notes on the Bible. He’s got some great clarifications that will benefit you.
Are you lds?
What does Deuteronomy 18 really say?
Yahweh is trying to steer his people clear of idolatry and false worship.
Here’s Barnes on Deuteronomy 18:21:
Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
“And if thou say in thine heart, How ... - The passage evidently assumes such an occasion for consulting the prophet as was usual among the pagan, e. g., an impending battle or other such crisis (compare 1 Kings 22:11), in which his veracity would soon be put to the test. Failure of a prediction is set forth as a sure note of its being “presumptuous.”
But from Deuteronomy 13:2 ff we see that the fulfillment of a prediction would not decisively accredit him who uttered it: for the prophet or dreamer of dreams who endeavoured on the strength of miracles to seduce to idolatry was to be rejected and punished. Nothing therefore contrary to the revealed truth of God was to be accepted under any circumstances.”
Keep in mind here that “presumptuous” means assuming authority one doesn’t have to speak for God.
Jeremiah 18:7-8 clarifies that not all prophecies must come true, they depend on the choices and circumstances of the persons or people involved.
Are you lds?
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.