According to Scripture (Sola Scriptura)

"If a teaching isn’t explicit in the Bible, then we don’t accept it as doctrine!" That belief, commonly known as sola scriptura, was a central component of all I believed as a Protestant. This bedrock Protestant teaching claims that Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith and morals for Christians. Diving deeper into its meaning to defend my Protestant faith against Catholicism about twenty years ago, I found that there was no uniform understanding of this teaching among Protestant pastors and no book I could read to get a better understanding of it.

What role does tradition play? How explicit does something have to be in Scripture before it can be called doctrine? Does Scripture tell us what is absolutely essential for us to believe as Christians? How can we determine the canon using sola scriptura? All these questions and more pointed to the central question: Where is sola scriptura itself taught in the Bible?

So believe what you want CB, but no atonement took place in the Garden of Eden.

That fairly leaped out as being non sequitur, in that CB never claimed there was any "atonement" there. Only blood, in living form(?) within Adam, from the beginning. That is, if I'm understanding this conversation well enough.

As to "atonement" even in regards to blood atonement, is it not true that according to Mormon theology, Christ's own blood, shed in atonement for our sins, is said to be those blood-tears coming from Him, in the Garden of Gethsemane?

I ask, for there is seemingly abundant commentary, from over a span of many years, coming from high-ranking "Mormons", to that effect;

Mormon Apostle Bruce McConkie, stated, "Where and under what circumstances was the atoning sacrifice of the Son of God made? Was it on the Cross of Calvary or in the Garden of Gethsemane? It is to the Cross of Christ that most Christians look when centering their attention upon the infinite and eternal atonement. And certainly the sacrifice of our Lord was completed when he was lifted up by men; also, that part of his life and suffering is more dramatic and, perhaps, more soul stirring. But in reality the pain and suffering, the triumph and grandeur, of the atonement took place primarily in Gethsemane," (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, vol. 1, p. 774)

"We honor His birth. But without His death that birth would have been but one more birth. It was the redemption which He worked out in the Garden of Gethsemane and upon the cross of Calvary which made His gift immortal, universal, and everlasting," (Gordon B. Hinckley, "A Season for Gratitude," Ensign, Dec. 1997, p. 4).

"The Savior's atonement in the garden and on the cross is intimate as well as infinite," (Merrill J. Bateman, "The Power to Heal from Within," Ensign, May 1995, p. 14).

"We don't know exactly how Jesus accomplished the Atonement. We only know that somehow during the course of the excruciating and agonizing hours in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross, he became our Redeemer," (Joseph Walker, "Singing the Song of Redeeming Love," Ensign, Mar. 1993, p. 58).

"Because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, all mankind, even as many as will, shall be redeemed. The Savior began shedding His blood for all mankind, not on the cross but in the Garden of Gethsemane. There He took upon Himself the weight of the sins of all who would ever live. Under that [page 6] heavy load, He bled at every pore," (Russell M. Nelson, "His Mission and Ministry," New Era, Dec. 1999, p. 4, 6).

"The Savior's atonement in the garden and on the cross is intimate as well as infinite. Infinite in that it spans the eternities. Intimate in that the Savior felt each person's pains, sufferings, and sicknesses. Consequently, he knows how to carry our sorrows and relieve our burdens that we might be healed from within, made whole persons, and receive everlasting joy in his kingdom," (Merrill J. Bateman, "Healing Our Hearts," New Era, Apr. 1996, p. 49).

"Our church believes that Christ's crucifixion was an important part of the atonement, but we believe that a more important part was when he suffered for our sins in the Garden of Gethsemane," ("Q&A: Questions and Answers," New Era, Sept. 1996, p. 18).

more at link --->http://carm.org/interesting-quotes-atonement-mormon-writings

>>>6,000,000 is a minimum; use a larger number like 9,000,000 if you prefer. Either is considerably larger than the 250,000 to 1,100,00 estimated Jews killed in the 66-73 war.<<<

How do you feel about the estimated 60 million killed by the Bolsheviks, and even more killed by the communist Mao?

>>>>This does not fit Mark 13:19-20. The 132-135 war was more significant: it did not include “this generation” as defined by preterists and there were 400,000 to 500,000 killed and the Jews began a long dispersion outside the land of Israel, not to regain sovereignty until this past century.<<<

I am certain you factored in the long, internal civil war of 66-70AD (Jews killing Jews on Jerusalem soil, a defilement in itself,) the long famine, cannibalism, a hail of 100 lb stones raining down at random, and the abominable temple defilements, as factors in determining which is the worst tribulation. Glad to see you have it all figured out.

>>> The critical point was that the Jewish Christians separated from their brethren according to the flesh when Simon Bar Kochba was apparently declared the Messiah by Rabbi Akiva (Mark 13:21-22 warned them).<<<

So did the Jewish Christians in A.D. 70. What is your point? Are you implying “this generation” was in the A.D. 100’s. Were there not a lot of false Christs and false prophets around A.D. 70? I would speculate there were far more at that time since all the Jews were expecting the messiah from the Daniel seventy weeks prophecy. Of course, since the city was leveled, all the trees cut down for miles around, and “Zion” was ploughed like a field, there was little evidence left.

Anyway, I am glad you figured it out. But this is really going to upset the dispensational crowd when they find that all this prophecy has been fulfilled. They are expecting to fly away like Superman shortly before a third of mankind is killed, a third of all the ships in the sea are sunk, a third of all trees are burned up, a third of the waters are contaminated, and all green grass is burnt up. One would think all those Christians would want to stay behind and help. Of course, the word “shortly,” to them, means thousands of years, and there are no prophetic signs, which explains why their most popular pastors are begging for donations and building mega-churches, instead of selling all they have and giving to the poor.

>>>Many Jewish Christians were persecuted and martyred, both by other Jews during the war, and the Romans afterward. No wonder they were not preterists and he Catholic Church has preserved a different doctrine of eschatology than the schismatic reformed churches. <<<

I fail to see your logic. Are you implying the Christians that were killed by the Romans and Jews were killed by preterists? That places the New Testament in an entirely different light. If the early Christians were killed by preterists, then I have to rethink my position on whose blood the blood of the apostles was required.

>>>No wonder they were not preterists and he Catholic Church has preserved a different doctrine of eschatology than the schismatic reformed churches. Msgr Charles Pope, of the Archdiocese of Washington, sums it up: “The glorious Messiah’s coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by all Israel” which he explains has not happened yet. His words are like honey, not poison like preterism.<<<

At least you have made it crystal clear that you are not a Protestant.

My fellow Jews are hopefully going to realize, before it is too late, that the false prophecies of the dual-covenant crowd is the real poison that is leading many away from the glorious realm of the kingdom of Christ and the promise of eternal life. God help them learn the truth.

Philip

You came in in the middle of a debate the question was originally “Was Adam flesh and blood prior to sinning?”

I said no there was no flesh and blood at that time Adam had flesh and bone.

Gen 2:23
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

The Garden of Eden is a different kingdom, or dimension from earth which is temporal where in order to live one needs blood.

it was endless denial that they are two different dimensions.

I know it is a waste of breath but I feel it is important for those who still have logic will know what I am talking about I don’t expect the Traditionalist to get it!

anyway my next request was

When you fine blood in Adam, when Adam was in the Garden of Eden show me?

This is the reply I got which makes sense for one living in a temporal state, but the Garden of Eden there is no need for blood and no atonements are made in that Kingdom.

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

[roamer_1:] John the Revelator saw Jerusalem coming down

Actually, this is what is written:

"… Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God," (Rev 21:9-14 KJV)

Where is that "great and high mountain" located?

Careful now - this is vision - 'mountain' also has a spiritual meaning. Does it mean 'hill of rock and earth' here, or does it mean 'nation'? Which is the 'great and high nation', higher than all the rest, which is declared in the time of Messiah's return to rule and reign? Zion is called 'the high mountain' in the prophetic kingdom language.

Knowing that there are survivors of Armageddon (around the world), and knowing somewhat about plate tectonics and such, a great earthquake that causes all the physical mountains of the earth to fall flat and the physical hills to 'run away', and the physical islands of the sea (which are almost surely continents) to flee, would almost certainly preclude survivors of any great number... But if one considers this to be talking about countries and nations, it seems to make a lot more sense. Likewise with this 'high mountain' of Jerusalem.

So while I am with you that the boundaries of New Jerusalem seem fantastic, and bearing in mind that things of prophecy that seem to be fantastic have a tendency to somehow wind up actually happening exactly as described - The fanciful notion is something hard to grasp. What is certain though, is that the place where Yeshua has gone, and the place he is preparing for us (new Jerusalem) is coming down here. SO, the place of His Throne, the place where he puts the soles of his feet, the 'place where He will dwell in the midst of His people' is likely the literal 'place', because that fits the entirety of what has always been declared.

If you care to speculate, I would say the 'High Mountain' is New Jerusalem itself - John is at it's 'pinnacle' as it is descending... And if a 'mountain' is a nation... It is no doubt too small a number to 'fill the whole earth' as the Kingdom is declared to do, but the footprint may well fit the Promised Land...

You may monkey with the figures if you like (don't forget to allow for the curvature of the earth and carry pi)... I am not that interested in anything beyond the close time frame (Ps 83 war, War of Magog, which I am convinced are next) , because as I have said many times here, prophecy is a slippery fish - Get a hold on what's close and hold onto that tightly - But don't try to hold the whole of it, as it will very predictably wriggle right out of your grasp. : )

There is no temple in New Jerusalem:

"And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it." (Rev 21:22 KJV)

Yet the prophets say the prince will take his breakfast at the eastern gate... That it is reserved for His coming and going... There is a physical place of the throne... That everyone will come to the Temple in Jerusalem... How can both be true? Note that I do think them both to BE true.

There is a spiritual temple of which we, as Christians, are a small part. The foundations, and the priests to the high priest, are the elect of Israel (Rev 14 & 20), which consists of the remnant of the chosen ones (Israel) and the holy men of old:

But the spiritual need not contradict the physical, and there is MUCH physical language concerning the Millennial Temple. Again, when there is contradiction, one is not necessarily greater than the other - One would do well to consider how BOTH things can be true. That severely limits options.

Jesus is the chief cornerstone (above) and the high priest (below: )

"But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Heb 9:11-14 KJV)

If you look at the "tense", you will see that all present tense, that is, they were already in existence in the days of the apostles.

TRUE. But the tense is a present promise of a future thing (good things to come). The redemption is real and now, but also a promise of much more - this is almost marriage language - the betrothal period continues, the marriage is considered real (betrothal is considered to really BE marriage, but remains only potential not realized), but the consummation and life of wedded bliss is awaiting the real and tangible coming of the Groom.

Not that I disagree with you entirely - I am probably closer to your thinking than you know - I recognize both Paul and John declaring that they lived in the 'end days', and I see that as true. But this, like everything, is unrealized potential, even yet. That the potential will be realized is certain.

I'm sorry, but statements such as;

I said no there was no flesh and blood at that time Adam had flesh and bone.

are not rational.

From the marrow comes the blood, in part, at the least.

Adam and Eve had earthly children, also. There is no mention of them being in some other "state" of being, as to the flesh (other than death having not yet entered) which barring any indication otherwise, would include them being living, air breathing creatures which were being spoken about.

But this is an interesting spiritualizing of Adam's existence, coming from one a Mormon. The lengths one will go to, in trying to make it fit within their own imagination --- that's human nature, and found throughout the world, with all this Mormon-thought stuff engaged in to try to justify Joseph Smith's own fevered imaginings.

By that I mean, there is otherwise, Mormon talk of God the Father having once been a flesh & blood man, but having attained some plateau of exaltation by living sinlessly, rather than Him being immortal God -- the One true God, Himself the Creator of the Heavens and earth, from even before the beginnings of "all that there is" which we can grasp with our senses.

Those sort of ideas introduced by Joseph Smith as "a big secret" are quite jarring. The rest of Smith's claims to have "recovered" or restored some secret knowledge --- are a bunch of hooey. Why continue attempt to justify it?

The book of Abraham? That's the last coffin-nail, babe. Nothing on that scroll translates as Joey claimed, which makes Joseph Smith proved no prophet --- but a liar and a religious fraud.

You may speak to me as if I am unable to grasp what you are speaking of, for myself being "traditionalist" if you like, but I must tell you that would be a vain conceit on your own part.

There is a difference between understanding how gauzy descriptions of existence (in Mormonism -- it's "pre-existence" right?) can be turned on and off to fit the theology --- and accepting the same stuff.

This argument you bring --- what is it based upon? That there is no "blood" of Adam, explicitly mentioned in Genesis?

Do you not know what Adam's very name means? According to Strongs, it can mean "ruddy". Expanding upon that we should consider ruddy as in blushing red, flush with blood of life.

Now going back to the Genesis account, how again is it there related that man was created?

Gen 2:7

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Continuing on from there, where do we see evidence for there being these "two different dimensions" when Adam was formed from the dust itself, followed by the Lord Himself planting a garden, where "there He put the man whom He had formed", etc.?

A couple of chapters later we have the first recorded murder, with the blood crying out from the ground, unto God. Would that not be evidence of "two dimensions" you speak of?

There is some overlap of these two dimensions --- but those sort of things can be grasped through what you referred to as traditionalist thought, without needing rely upon an early 19th century religious huckster named Joseph Smith, to lead us all to "the way".

[roamer_1:]
No. It would do you well to understand what a prophet is. Fruit of the lips, stands in the breach.
No. It would do you well to understand what apostles are too. The ones sent forth.

Is that an opinion, or do you have any scripture that we can reference?

It is the literal meaning of each in the Hebrew sense, with the exception of 'stands in the breach' wrt prophet. But that prophets stand in the breach as their singular difference from other offices is throughout the Tanakh, Ez 13:5 exhorts prophets who did not do their job, as one instance. There is little doubt that the prophet is used when the teachers, scribes and leaders stray from the truth. Their direct instruction from YHWH, and the proof in power they present trumps the lower offices and require direct obedience to their correction. PART of that office is prophecy (as the greeks see prophecy), and as such their writings are preserved, as they are a physical, legal addendum to the contract (covenant), but there are some 700 prophets noted in the Bible... How many have their words preserved? Even 'prophesy' as a term means much more in Hebrew than it does in Greek.

It is a great idea to seek out the definition of terms in the Hebrew sense - It will radically change your interpretation of the Word. For instance, are you aware that every_single_office of the church is Hebrew in origin and each has it's place in Judaism? Apostle, Prophet, Bishop/Elder, Deacon, Disciple, etc... Shall you take the Greek context, or the Hebrew?

[roamer_1:] I think there were saints Lonnnng before the cross. I think there was 'the congregation' long before the cross

Certainly, in the days of Moses there were 10,000 mentioned; and some on the day of Christ's resurrection. But I didn't make myself clear: Were there any Saints around, with the power of the Holy Spirit, after the destruction of Jerusalem? I haven't found a single one in my research.

My answer is subjective - I have met two in my life whose very countenance shown with the power of YHWH - Both were mighty in the Word, both offered profound correction. Both were also gruff old codgers, independent, almost hermits, cast out from society, and would be considered unorthodox by today's Christianity. But the first thing to go when people don't listen to YHWH are the prophets - It isn't that YHWH actually removes them, but that the congregation casts them out (or slays them)... So in that light, it is natural that prophets seem unorthodox to the assembly with a breach in the wall.

In that, your statement that you cannot find power in the churches takes on a new light, if you see where I am going here... Perhaps you should be looking for Ezekiel lying naked in the streets playing with poop and sand castles... That is where prophets are when the people are far from the path... Street preachers with cardboard signs with 'The End is Near' scribbled in crayon and such... Folks shake their heads and jeer, and have them in derision...

Likewise with saints. Likewise with everything which is supposed to be imbued with power. IMHO, the absence of such is indicative of the condition of the churches, not that the promises of YHWH have gone away.

[roamer_1:] The same way I do every prophecy. Immediate fullfilment validates the prophet... intermediate fulfillment(s)... Final fulfillment. Unless you can prove to me that the whole of the prophecy is completely and perfectly fulfilled, I will still await it's end. No doubt I see the prophecy fitting in a much wider scope than you do.

I understand. You do not believe that Jesus meant "this" generation to necessarily be the generation of the disciples he was replying to. That is a common belief, but not mine.

That is not true - I recognize the immediate fulfillment. What He said was *FOR* that very generation. But the scope of the fulfillment is too narrow - Has 'the Gospel been preached in all the world'? That has not reached a literal fulfillment, even to this day. And that is a very, very important aspect, as messengers must witness to the ends of the earth. To ALL the sons of Adam.... How else can those IN the ends of the earth know what is going on when the end comes upon us? And the prophets speak of remote places understanding the time that is upon them. Hence, while the immediate fulfillment is easy to see, the whole fulfillment awaits, even now.

I really apologized and realized the chasm is greater than I thought now that I am aware I will no longer be frustrated of why many can not see this.

Things that I believe about the fall was more than a transgression. It was about living in a pre mortal state(flesh and bone) before the fall and after man was mortal(flesh and blood) hoping someday to return to that state of immortal and able to return home which Jesus Christ did pay the ransom which allow us to have an opportunity to
return home.

Because so many eyes of understanding are closed I fear that as a stumbling block.

Joseph Smith has restored so much which many of you will never appreciate

Jesus Christ, Foreordained See also Foreordination

not sent but unto the lost sheep of … Israel: Matt. 15:24 .
I go unto him that sent me: John 7:33 . ( John 16:5 . )
Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest: Heb. 5:5 .
foreordained before the foundation of the world: 1 Pet. 1:20 . ( Rev. 13:8 . )
he who was prepared from the foundation of the world: Ether 3:14 .
my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning: Moses 4:2 .
Lord said: I will send the first: Abr. 3:27 .
See also Gen. 3:15 ; Job 19:25 ; Isa. 25:8–9 ; Isa. 26:19 ; Hosea 13:14 ; John 1:1 ; John 17:5, 24 ; Mosiah 3:5 ; 3 Ne. 9:15 ; D&C 76:13 ; D&C 93:21

Foreordination http://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/jesus-christ-foreordained?lang=eng
See also Called of God ; Council in Heaven ; Election ; Jesus Christ, Authority of ; Jesus Christ, Foreordained ; Man, Antemortal Existence of

Premortal Existence http://www.lds.org/scriptures/triple-index/premortal-existence?lang=eng&letter=p
See also Council ; Election ; Estate ; Foundation ; God, Foreknowledge of ; Intelligence ; TG Foreordination ; Jesus Christ, Foreordained ; Man, Antemortal Existence of

Man, Antemortal Existence of http://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/man-antemortal-existence-of?lang=eng

See also Council in Heaven ; Foreordination ; Man, a Spirit Child of Heavenly Father ; Spirit Creation
God of the spirits of all flesh: Num. 16:22 . ( Num. 27:16 . )
all the sons of God shouted for joy: Job 38:7 .
the spirit shall return unto God who gave it: Eccl. 12:7 .
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee: Jer. 1:5 .
Lord … formeth the spirit of man within him: Zech. 12:1 .
who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind: John 9:2 .
poets have said, For we are also his offspring: Acts 17:28 .
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate: Rom. 8:29 .
chosen us in him before the foundation of the world: Eph. 1:4 .
subjection unto the Father of spirits: Heb. 12:9 .
angels which kept not their first estate: Jude 1:6 .
Michael and his angels fought against the dragon: Rev. 12:7 .

Partial Preterist? That is like being partly pregnant. It is a nonsenical term.

No, it is a definitive term and a subset of Preterism, as distinct from Full-Preterism:

Partial preterism

Partial preterism holds that most eschatological prophecies, such as the destruction of Jerusalem, the Antichrists, the Great Tribulation, and the advent of the Day of the Lord as a "judgment-coming" of Christ, were fulfilled either in AD 70[30] or during the persecution of Christians under the Emperor Nero.[31][32] Some partial preterists identify " Babylon the Great" (Revelation 17–18) with the pagan Roman Empire, though some, such as N.T. Wright and David Chilton, identify it with the city of Jerusalem.[30][33] Most interpretations identify Nero as the Beast,[34][35][36][37][38][39][40][a] while his mark is often interpreted as the stamped image of the emperor's head on every coin of the Roman Empire: the stamp on the hand or in the mind of all, without which no one could buy or sell.[41] However, others believe the Book of Revelation was written after Nero committed suicide in AD 68, and identify the Beast with another emperor. The Catholic Encyclopedia has noted that Revelation was "written during the latter part of the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian, probably in AD 95 or 96".[42] Many Protestant scholars agree.[43][44] The Second coming and the resurrection of the dead, however, have not yet occurred in the partial preterist system.[45]

Wikipedia:Preterism #Partial-Preterism

[roamer_1:] That your literature is within the Preterist camp isn’t to be doubted.

It is very much to be doubted. A serious researcher will not be blinded by the headlines, but will find out the actual positions of the individual(s) in question. One with the intent to smear, will ignore even hard evidence to the contrary. Which are you?

That's hardly fair - I have already explained my familiarity with it, especially from a hard-core Calvinist position... I hardly need to inquire again to understand the premise.

Now, if you insist on claiming that preterism, which by definition means “all prophecy was fulfilled upon the destruction of Jerusalem,” [...]

Not as a sphere of eschatology, as demonstrated above... It CAN mean that, in the Full-Preterist sense - but not all Preterists ARE Full-Preterist.

[...] is the same as postmillennialism, which by definition means, “Christ will resurrect us in the future,” then please add a tagline that reads “partially-deceptive.”

No... Perhaps you are misunderstanding the full context of Post-Millenialism. That may be where we are getting cross-threaded.

[roamer_1:] Yahoo: Dwight Wilson Preterist At the very least, simple searches show the Preterists using the literature you recommend as proofs in themselves.”

At least you are not batting “0”. One thing you may not realize is that many postmillennialists wear the “preterist” label as a badge of honor. They assume that anything a futurist disapproves of can only be a good thing. LOL!

Yes, I know. But the very precepts of post millenialism (and amillenialism) require at least partial-preterism by their very nature. Pre-mil claims the Kingdom has not come, and hence most futurists and historists are pre-mil. Post-mil and a-mil both consider the last two thousand years to BE the Kingdom, and merely quibble over the time stack.,, But for the Kingdom to be here and now, that necessarily requires at least the partial-preterist viewpoint, as one must declare the OT mostly fulfilled and most of the prophets too, in order to be in the Kingdom currently.

But I am not one of them, because many Dispensationalist have been indoctrinated into “poisoning the well” with smears like “heresy” and other slanderous words, against anyone who opposes their non-biblical, “dual covenant” theology. And that is a fact that cannot be ignored.

Well, your comments on this board certainly lean strongly toward it. And I say that from a position that is certainly not dispy, nor dual-covenant.

Even Cynical Bear, the person you are defending, has already smeared me [...]

What follows is a bit personal, and I do not mean it in any sense other than helping you to get the hang of how things are here:

Look. we play hard-ball here. No sense walking around all buttsore over everything. I am not defending smears. Folks have done as much to me and more, and no doubt I have done the same. But I would suggest moderation on your part (the mod would appreciate it no doubt), and refrain from returning fire, or you won't last long here, guaranteed. It is FINE to criticize groups, as hardcore as you like (within proper decorum), but it is not fine to criticize individual FReepers. That is making it personal. When in rebuttal, and the word 'you' enters your reply, whenever at all possible, figger out a way to make it 'y'all'... or even better, 'all y'all'. You can hack on beliefs, denominations, theories, etc. all you like, but hacking on persons (freepers) is a quick ticket to ride the lightning. So get a thick skin, and let insults fall off like water off a duck's back. Then the other guy gets the spankin'. it takes two to feud, so often the retort is the one that is noticed. Hope this helps.

[roamer_1] No need to explain - I too spent years intentionally focused upon the Book. I know that seclusion well. That is where I came to question the supercessionist, partial-preterist, ultra orthodox Calvinist religion of my yoot. If I see where you are, it is because I used to be there.

Show me from the scriptures what you used to believe. I am very curious.

I can't cuz it ain't there. That's why I am not Calvinist so much anymore. Besides, that would take a huge post, and I am already prone to be overly loquacious. Never use one word when three will do. :)

But if you like that sort of thing, I would suggest hanging out with Presbyterian (OPC or PCA), Conservative Christian Reformed or Dutch Reformed, or some Reformed/Calvinist Baptists. They all tend to be a-mil or post-mil, and no doubt you will find much to agree with.

Undoubtedly? You mean like when Ezekiel referred to the house of Israel at the destruction of Jerusalem.

The House of Israel is in the end time battles in Jerusalem. Ephraim/Joseph is mentioned by name. He has equity, weapons. He is separate and distinct from Judah - And if it is all fulfilled, How can that be, as Ephraim is yet to be found, even to this day.

Ezekiel begins with the 'two sticks' prophecy... When was it that The House of Judah and the House of Israel were made one in the hand of Messiah? When was it that they elected over themselves one king? What is the significance of the valley of dry bones? If the passages of Ezekiel are chronological we have to start there.

[roamer_1:] And it is certainly not conditional - that is the declaration from the fall of Adam all the way through to Revelation.

So, when the Lord said this he didn’t mean it?

There is the problem with verse slinging. I can show you many verses that are explicit in saying that YHWH will make it all come to pass in spite of Israel's backsliding - not even for their sakes, but for the sake of His own Word. So in order for both to be true, ultimately, the blessings and the inheritance will come to pass. He certainly HAS destroyed Israel over and again, and He drove them from the land, just as He said...

But guess what? They're BAAAACK. Just as the prophets foretold, The House of Judah first, in apostasy. Then the Wars with the Muslims... Where somehow, Judah will return to YHWH and see Him who they have pierced... Then Ephraim finally figures out who he is, and comes back to the land. Then the final war.

There will be no return to the Mosaic age. It is finished, and has been for nearly 2000 years. The law of ordinances was abolished by the cross.

Riiiight. And with the wipe of a hand, the eternal Torah, the eternal Sabbaths, the very definition of sin, iniquity, and wickedness are all taken off the board. How then can Yeshua accuse 'workers of iniquity' if iniquity is no longer defined? This is what I mean about picking up 3/4ths of the way through the program. The Torah is the explicit variables. Take that away and the program breaks. So what is 'iniquity' (lawlessness) now? Mean people? It is absurd.

The law of the Lord can now be explained in a single sentence:

OHHH. So it IS mean people! Gimme a break!

Look:

The BIG TWO [Love YHWH with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself] are not 'New Testament'. They are Torah. The BIG 10 are divided by the BIG TWO, and the 600+ are also divided by the BIG TWO. The BIG TWO are a summary of the 10, and the 10 are a summary of the whole law. HOW one 'loves YHWH with all one's heart, mind, soul, and strength' is defined by the Torah! and HOW one 'loves one's neighbor as oneself' is also defined by the Torah!

'Torah' == '' is the very definition of lawlessness. How can your position be true?? Every time there is a reference to sin, wickedness, or iniquity, loving YHWH, or loving others in the NT is a direct explicit reference to Torah.

What you have interpreted as physical Jerusalem, is in fact the Holy City, New Jerusalem: a spiritual city that all nations walk in the spiritual light of. It is also called the Church, and is eternal. The kingdom of God (or Heaven) is the way the Church has grown: like a grain of mustard seed, planted as the Holy Spirit by Jesus Christ, to spread throughout the nations:

Right. And it is coming down here. Doesn't 'Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven' mean anything? Look around you! The Church is not without wrinkle or spot! It is not conquering the world. The end days have been going on for 2000 years, and are noted as a time when people would thirst for the truth and not be able to find it. Doesn't that sound more like the Great Falling Away?

Here is an idea:

1Jn_5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
1Jn_5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

And so, the obedience that the Creator of ALL requires is just 'Don't be a meanie'? That can't be right - How we know that we love one another is that we love one another? What does that even mean? There must be more to it - and in fact since there are commandments, that requires at least TWO. So maybe it is the BIG TWO... But How do we know HOW to do the BIG TWO? Hmmm...?

2Jn_1:6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.

What was it that was heard from the beginning? The Torah? If not the Torah, then the words of Yeshua. eh? But Yeshua explicitly said to do and keep the Torah... so....

Wait! More Clues!

Rev_12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Rev_14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

Rev_22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Keep the Commandments, Keep the Commandments, Keep the Commandments.

Rev_15:3 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.

All Quoted (e-Sword:KJV)

LOLWhut? What are they doing singing about ol' Moses?

I am retired software designer from an engineering background. I see the same thing. I believe if everyone could see the complexity: how everything fits together wonderfully like a giant puzzle (your DNA analogy;) all would come to Christ.

Indeed.

I don't believe my understanding would have been as complete if I had began with the Old Testament, as you suggest. In fact, I think I understand why the house of Israel did not recognize Christ, especially after they killed the prophets and had no one left to explain the prophecies to them. Recall Christ's was not at all happy that they killed the prophets.

I used to think just like you - But the foundational error in that approach is that it allows the Greek to define the terms. Believe me, the Hebrew approach makes the whole book blossom... For instance, 'when the fullness of the Gentiles come in'... What is this 'fullness of the Gentiles'? Since it is undefined by the Greek, Christians assume it is a counted number of Gentiles and read on... But it is specifically defined in the OT, and it will blow your mind.

The Torah is the beginning of the app. The definition of terms must come from there. The NT was not formed When Yeshua walked the earth. what He speaks of is ALL Torah and writings and prophets... Yet terms are taken from Greek, and residue of Rome by most folks.

I’m going to suggest you not work at apologetics for the Mormon religion.

Where can we find an 'OFFICIAL MORMON' teaching website??

Official sites are sites supported by LDS officials unless said official sites are considered unofficial by said officials.

At that point such sites are unofficial unless officially referenced for official purposes by officials who can do so officially.

This should not be misconstrued as an indication that official sites can be unofficially recognized as official nor should it be implied that unofficial sites cannot contain official information, but are not officially allowed to be offical despite their official contents due the their unofficialness.

Official sites will be official and recognized as official by officials of the LDS unless there is an official reason to mark them as unofficial either temporally or permanently, which would make the official content officially unofficial.

This is also not to imply that recognized sites, often used on FR by haters and bigots cannot contain official information, it just means that content, despite its official status, is no longer official and should be consider unofficial despite the same information being official on an official site elsewhere.

Even then the officialness my be amended due to the use of the unofficial information which may determine the officialness of anything be it official or unofficial depending on how and where it is used officially or unofficially.

I hope this clear things up for the lurkers out there.

The haters tend to make things complicated and confusing when it is all really quite crystal clear.

--Ejonesie22

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.