Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

For a Christian, is the Bible correct and without error? Is the text of the Bible always correct as we know it?

I have had debates with people that claim that the Bible is absolutely correct, and that its words should be taken as accurate due to the Holy Spirit aiding in maintaining accuracy over the numerous writings and translation. I believe that if inaccuracies are found in the Bible the text must be used judiciously and more errors may exist, particularly in sensitive areas of doctrine.

Here are some examples of error found in the Bible. In quotes to separate them.

I have not a clue really, but this guy (click the LINK) has in my opinion done a acceptable job of explaining the different contradictions.

LINK

Originally posted by Jonathan Mark
I have not a clue really, but this guy (click the LINK) has in my opinion done a acceptable job of explaining the different contradictions.

LINK

Thank you for the link. I agree with much of what is said there. My point is that many mainstream Christians claim that the Bible has been translated accurately throughout history, and often use this as a means of justifying the use of scripture, as is, as evidence supporting their beliefs. I believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. The fact that it has been translated incorrectly supports my argument that there are possible errors in the form the Bible currently exists.

Given this, Mormons, of which I am one, believe that God gives revelation today as a means to clarify errors that exist due to translation and other errors. Given this belief and my belief in a Prophet named Joseph Smith, I believe that the Book of Mormon is a companion to the Bible that aids in understanding the text of the Bible through a description of a people, and their religious activity, that were taught by God's inspiration as well.

This thread is an attack at the idea that the Bible should be used exclusively without reference outside of itself. Also, it is a defensive stance to attacks on current prophecy and the Book of Mormon.

I really don't have a problem with book of Mormon same way I don't have problem with the Koran(sp?) or the Catholic Bible. To me it is simply different variations of the same thing.

I'm not saying that any of them is 100% accurate, because quite simply that is impossible at least in my own opinion. Sadly enough many Christians take great offence at this line of reasoning.

Originally posted by Jonathan Mark
I really don't have a problem with book of Mormon same way I don't have problem with the Koran(sp? Qu'ran) or the Catholic Bible. To me it is simply different variations of the same thing.

I'm not saying that any of them is 100% accurate, because quite simply that is impossible at least in my own opinion. Sadly enough many Christians take great offence at this line of reasoning.

Agreed. Many Christians get upset and say because we have used the phrase "the Book of Mormon is the most correct book." And due to this they point out errors that have occurred or minor changes that have been made. We never claimed it to be a perfect book. Just another book of scripture showing an account of Christ visiting the Americas following his resurrection, as well as the events surrounding the people in the book.

Given the attacks on it and my beliefs, I enjoy debating such subjects. As such, I frequent forums like this and debate these things. It allows me to broaden my knowledge base as to the substance of these attacks while forcing me to study my religion and consider my personal opinions in greater detail. Debates such as these should result in myself having a better understanding of my reasons for believing what I do, and the way I do, as well as perhaps gaining some respect for those that hold an opposing view, providing they enter the debate with a similar purpose. The problem is when someone enters a debate as this with no motive than to state that I am wrong. While I may be wrong, the purpose of the debate is to present facts that will possibly lead to an alteration in the opinion of one or both of the participants. Our Doctrine and Covenants states how education should be managed in a perfect school. Here is the description, while it is referring to people of my religious faith, I believe that it is a decent and applicable manner of pursuing education:

Doctrine and Covenants 88:118-125
118 And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.
119 Organize yourselves; prepare every needful thing; and establish a house, even a house of prayer, a house of fasting, a house of faith, a house of learning, a house of glory, a house of order, a house of God;
120 That your incomings may be in the name of the Lord; that your outgoings may be in the name of the Lord; that all your salutations may be in the name of the Lord, with uplifted hands unto the Most High.
121 Therefore, cease from all your light speeches, from all laughter, from all your lustful desires, from all your pride and light-mindedness, and from all your wicked doings.
122 Appoint among yourselves a teacher, and let not all be spokesmen at once; but let one speak at a time and let all listen unto his sayings, that when all have spoken that all may be edified of all, and that every man may have an equal privilege.
123 See that ye love one another; cease to be covetous; learn to impart one to another as the gospel requires.
124 Cease to be idle; cease to be unclean; cease to find fault one with another; cease to sleep longer than is needful; retire to thy bed early, that ye may not be weary; arise early, that your bodies and your minds may be invigorated.
125 And above all things, clothe yourselves with the bond of charity, as with a mantle, which is the bond of perfectness and peace.

Originally posted by Regret
Also, it is a defensive stance to attacks on current prophecy and the Book of Mormon.

So basically you are a Mormon who feels the need to bash the Christian bible to prove your book is correct?

Originally posted by Echuu
So basically you are a Mormon who feels the need to bash the Christian bible to prove your book is correct?
No he's not he is doing what is called educated discussion or debate. He is not trying to "bash" the Christian Bible.

Originally posted by Jonathan Mark
No he's not he is doing what is called educated discussion or debate. He is not trying to "bash" the Christian Bible.

Originally posted by Echuu
So basically you are a Mormon who feels the need to bash the Christian bible to prove your book is correct?

Well, if the Mormons around here (Australia) are telling the truth, the Bible is still important to them - the Book of Mormon just clarifies it and expands upon it by presenting Gospels that weren't originally available. (And Mormons are Christians to, by the way)

But to the original question - if Christians do treat the Bible as infallible then it is an erroneous stance - it is full of contradictions, old testament views that have no place in the civilised world, symbolism open to numerous interpretation, "facts" that clash with actual historical facts and so on.

I don't say it can't be used as a guide for them, or to take it in spirit, but to say it is a perfect book that is infallible just doesn't stand up to logic.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Well, if the Mormons around here (Australia) are telling the truth, the Bible is still important to them - the Book of Mormon just clarifies it and expands upon it by presenting Gospels that weren't originally available. (And Mormons are Christians to, by the way)

But to the original question - if Christians do treat the Bible as infallible then it is an erroneous stance - it is full of contradictions, old testament views that have no place in the civilised world, symbolism open to numerous interpretation, "facts" that clash with actual historical facts and so on.

I don't say it can't be used as a guide for them, or to take it in spirit, but to say it is a perfect book that is infallible just doesn't stand up to logic.

Yes, that is our belief. It is nice to hear someone from outside Utah, let alone the States, that has a grasp as to some of our beliefs.

I have run across a large number of Christians that believe that, due to the intervention of the Holy Spirit, the Bible is the same today as it was at the time of the apostles. This stance is one of their arguments against the use of the Book of Mormon.

I would certainly not say that everything in the Bible is fact. If you believe what the Bible tells you, that is up to you. I don't believe the Bible, and I don't believe in God.

The Bible tells us that homosexuals should be stoned to death. In Leviticus it is said that 'If a man has sex with another man, kill them both'. It may have been another part of the Bible where this is said, so sorry in advance if I am wrong.

If people really believe everything the Bible tells them, wouldn't they feel they were justified in killing homosexuals, because the Bible justifies it to them?

The Bible also tells us killing is wrong, so the people who believe everything the Bible tells them must not advocate killing because it can't be justified to them via the Bible.

I don't think Christians really know what they believe.

Originally posted by autumn dreams
I would certainly not say that everything in the Bible is fact. If you believe what the Bible tells you, that is up to you. I don't believe the Bible, and I don't believe in God.

The Bible tells us that homosexuals should be stoned to death. In Leviticus it is said that 'If a man has sex with another man, kill them both'. It may have been another part of the Bible where this is said, so sorry in advance if I am wrong.

If people really believe everything the Bible tells them, wouldn't they feel they were justified in killing homosexuals, because the Bible justifies it to them?

The Bible also tells us killing is wrong, so the people who believe everything the Bible tells them must not advocate killing because it can't be justified to them via the Bible.

I don't think Christians really know what they believe.

And just what do you believe? Without reference to your beliefs, your statements are lacking in credibility. There must be some point of reference for a response to come from.

It was writen by humans, not by god himself - therefore it is subject to Human Imperfections.

We humans have a tremendous capacity for filtering, distorting or spinning any text we read, any event we observe, any truth we learn. The biblical writers and editors were no different in this than any of us.

I just must say..there are many different interpretations, even within people who believe any religious text is infallible.

Originally posted by Alliance
I just must say..there are many different interpretations, even within people who believe any religious text is infallible.

That is what I have observed as well. I would like to see some other people respond to the thread, so I'll just continue discussing it with those that post.

ok

Originally posted by Alliance
ok

Your comments are always welcomed Alliance I just hope I get responses from some other people as well

Anyone who take the bible literally is missing the truth that is within it.

deep....but that could be said for any fiction.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Anyone who take the bible literally is missing the truth that is within it.

I figure this can be said of nearly everything in existence. I'd probably change it slightly though:

Anyone who only takes the bible literally is missing the truth that is within it.

Question for Mormons out there...

Is it true that for a Mormon woman to go to heaven that she must be called out of the grave by her Mormon husband after they both have died?

No.

This line of thought comes from our belief that it takes a man and a woman to procreate. Procreation occurs in the higher levels of heaven, then a man and a woman must be together for it to occur. Procreation only lawfully (for our beliefs) occurs within the bounds of marriage. If a man and woman are procreating in heaven they are married prior to that point. So men and women are married if they are in those levels of heaven. This can occur in heaven as well, by our beliefs. Procreation is a major part of our belief as to the purpose of existence in this life and in the afterlife.

Originally posted by Regret
So men and women are married if they are in those levels of heaven. This can occur in heaven as well, by our beliefs. Procreation is a major part of our belief as to the purpose of existence in this life and in the afterlife.

Yeah but I always thought that the only way a Mormon woman could get to heaven was by her husband......so this isn't true then?

Originally posted by Echuu
Yeah but I always thought that the only way a Mormon woman could get to heaven was by her husband......so this isn't true then?

We believe in three degrees of glory in heaven.

Celestial Glory, Terrestrial Glory, Telestial Glory

Hell is a realm we term Outer Darkness. From our understanding only people that have a perfect knowledge of God or Christ and then deny him are able to make it here. As to our knowledge, there are only a handful of people to qualify for this over the entirety of history.

Celestial is where God is. Terrestrial is better than this mortal existence, but not as good as the worst parts of the Celestial. The Telestial has been described as better that this mortal existence, but not as good as the Terrestrial. We know that marriages are held in the Celestial, but we don't know for sure if marriages will exist outside of it. They are symbolized as such - Celestial = Sun, Terrestrial = Moon, Telestial=Stars

The Celestial is broken into three degrees as well. In the top one is where man can become like God, probably as many people get here as make it to Outer Darkness (but then again that's my opinion.) The top area of the Celestial Kingdom is the only one where marriage is prerequisite to entrance. The other two levels in the Celestial Kingdom haven't been described, at least not that I am aware of.

So the only place in heaven that requires marriage is that upper level of the Celestial. You could also say that a man can't get in there without a woman.

We do believe that men and women will want to be married in heaven. Given this most men and women will marry, either here or there.

Alright. And what about the whole 'unlimited wives' thing?

Originally posted by Echuu
Alright. And what about the whole 'unlimited wives' thing?

I'm not sure where this idea comes from exactly. Solomon was condemned in our beliefs for going overboard with the wives.

We do believe in polygamy. We do not practice polygamy at this time. Polygamy was only practiced by a small number of Mormons when we did practice it, so the requirements surrounding it are somewhat vague. I do know that polygamous marriages were only entered into through a revelation from God allowing the marriage to occur.

It is fairly commonly believed that there will be more women than men that make it to heaven, so there may be some form of polygamy in heaven. But, given the odds of male and female birth being equal it seems to me that it would be unlikely that by virtue of anything other than an inequality in the ratio of righteous men to righteous women polygamy would occur. So even if it occurs I cannot believe that the ratio would be such as to allow a large number of wives. Given the marriage requirement for the highest level of the Celestial each man must have the opportunity as well.

Also, it is commonly believed that polygamy was condoned in an attempt to increase the population of the Church, if this were the case I am unsure if it would hold in heaven.

Originally posted by Regret
I figure this can be said of nearly everything in existence. I'd probably change it slightly though:

Anyone who only takes the bible literally is missing the truth that is within it.

Yes, that is true. I am a Nichiren Buddhist and my main text is the Lotus sutra. If I were to take it literally, I would be a nut case. The stories in the Lotus sutra are superhero like, but they were not written as a history book, but rather as a way of conveying the truth about being human.

I believe the bible was written the same way. No one is supposed to take the stories literally, or they would be a nut case.

Lotus Sutra sounds like a fragrance.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, that is true. I am a Nichiren Buddhist and my main text is the Lotus sutra. If I were to take it literally, I would be a nut case. The stories in the Lotus sutra are superhero like, but they were not written as a history book, but rather as a way of conveying the truth about being human.

I believe the bible was written the same way. No one is supposed to take the stories literally, or they would be a nut case.

I believe that the Bible is a layered book. I feel that the majority of it can be taken literally, the problem is when the literal reading doesn't say everything that is needed to understand it properly. I also believe that there is little if any of the Bible that does not hold some symbolism and or more subtle meaning, perhaps layers of meaning.

Mormons believe that everything eternal has a symbol in the temporal. Examples would include: my symbols shown in one of the previous posts where the visible brightness of the sun, moon and stars (when observed from the earth) are symbolic of the differences in glory held in our heaven; Parents are symbolic of God, Children of man; Everything temporal is a symbol of something eternal, and everything eternal has a temporal symbol.

The Bible is full of metaphors that aren't meant to be taken literally, but force you to think outside the box.

Originally posted by Regret
And just what do you believe? Without reference to your beliefs, your statements are lacking in credibility. There must be some point of reference for a response to come from.

I am sorry if I can not provide reference to the passages in the Bible I speak of. But if you are a Christian, you would know that the Bible condemns homosexuality.

I don't believe in God. My belief is, if you can't see it, it ain't real. I don't know what I believe. There may be a God out there-but can we really know for sure? All we can do is have faith.

ahhh.....agnostic it is then.

Originally posted by Regret
For a Christian, is the Bible correct and without error? Is the text of the Bible always correct as we know it?

I have had debates with people that claim that the Bible is absolutely correct, and that its words should be taken as accurate due to the Holy Spirit aiding in maintaining accuracy over the numerous writings and translation. I believe that if inaccuracies are found in the Bible the text must be used judiciously and more errors may exist, particularly in sensitive areas of doctrine.

Here are some examples of error found in the Bible. In quotes to separate them.

Don't sweat the little stuff friend...God is bigger than this.

ahh...so god doesnt care aobut details?

Or if you gloss over the details...are you missing the point?

Originally posted by Alliance
ahh...so god doesnt care aobut details?

Or if you gloss over the details...are you missing the point?

No, it just doesn't matter if the errors shown are small. There is no way the big stuff got messed up rolleyes1

P.S. the eyes are for Just's response not you Ali

I dont like double standards.

Neither do I. It either was or was not maintained accurately for the past few thousand years. I think errors anywhere in it show inaccuracy.

can innacuracy = fallacy?

Well, I believe the singular entity Trinitarian teaching to be fallacy. I also believe the literal 6 of our days creation to be a fallacy. I do not know if there are more. I do believe that by itself the Bible hasn't been translated accurately and that the contradictions between other religions and my own are due to fallacies based in Biblical interpretation. I don't think that the Bible in and of itself is a fallacy, but that beliefs based solely in interpretations thereof can be.

could the text be a fallacy but the inspiration that created it be correct?

I would say it is possible. I do not necessarily agree with that though, I do believe that the initial form was correct, and I prefer to believe that people did not intentionally alter fundamental aspects of it.

I am unsure of exactly what you mean by your question though.

I'm saying could the Bible be a total man-made load of crock...but the essence behind the bible (NT) (ie Jesus) be correct. Christianity without the text.

I like Jesus................

His parables are full of wisdom..........I think the church changed him into some conglomerate type of monster.

Originally posted by Alliance
I'm saying could the Bible be a total man-made load of crock...but the essence behind the bible (NT) (ie Jesus) be correct. Christianity without the text.

I do not believe that it is a "total man-made load of crock." The Muslims hold the view you are suggesting, although they do not believe that Christ was God, only a very good man. Possible? If my beliefs are in error then yes, if they are not, then no.

ok

I'm Christian, and it isn't.

Isn't what? And its not ver Christian to flick people off.

Im somewhere between agonistic and atheist myself.

I myself appose the catholic church. They say the whole reason for being on this earth is to spread the word of god., to force your religion on others. The catholic church and the bible practically make you hate yourself, you always bear this deep regret and greivance for of sinning here or there.
I myself attended catholic School for a semester, and became brainwashed myself. I was nearly a godamned alter boy. Luckily i broke out of it when i returned to my old home setting, and telling this to any active catholic would only offend them.
There is practically no way you could get a active catholic to beleive otherwise.They look at you as the devils temptation and pity you, and are so deep and brainwashed in how there suppost to live there life that its pathetic.

I myself had gone to group bibl readings, and the way the people there would carry their life is redicoulous. One woman refused to eat mcdonalds because the pope made an offhand comment that they came from foreign companys that young children had to make. Alll the changing rules and requirements the catholic church has are so godamned ridicoulous, i can't see how people still beleive this $hit.

"I tell you the truth, It is easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." Some people think the word "Camel" was misinterpreted and actually means "Rope" but other than that, its totally believable.

You dont even have to be religious, you just have to accept gods gift. You dont have to force your religion on others.

Originally posted by Regret
Agreed. Many Christians get upset and say because we have used the phrase "the Book of Mormon is the most correct book." And due to this they point out errors that have occurred or minor changes that have been made. We never claimed it to be a perfect book. Just another book of scripture showing an account of Christ visiting the Americas following his resurrection, as well as the events surrounding the people in the book.

Given the attacks on it and my beliefs, I enjoy debating such subjects. As such, I frequent forums like this and debate these things. It allows me to broaden my knowledge base as to the substance of these attacks while forcing me to study my religion and consider my personal opinions in greater detail. Debates such as these should result in myself having a better understanding of my reasons for believing what I do, and the way I do, as well as perhaps gaining some respect for those that hold an opposing view, providing they enter the debate with a similar purpose. The problem is when someone enters a debate as this with no motive than to state that I am wrong. While I may be wrong, the purpose of the debate is to present facts that will possibly lead to an alteration in the opinion of one or both of the participants. Our Doctrine and Covenants states how education should be managed in a perfect school. Here is the description, while it is referring to people of my religious faith, I believe that it is a decent and applicable manner of pursuing education:

Doctrine and Covenants 88:118-125
118 And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.
119 Organize yourselves; prepare every needful thing; and establish a house, even a house of prayer, a house of fasting, a house of faith, a house of learning, a house of glory, a house of order, a house of God;
120 That your incomings may be in the name of the Lord; that your outgoings may be in the name of the Lord; that all your salutations may be in the name of the Lord, with uplifted hands unto the Most High.
121 Therefore, cease from all your light speeches, from all laughter, from all your lustful desires, from all your pride and light-mindedness, and from all your wicked doings.
122 Appoint among yourselves a teacher, and let not all be spokesmen at once; but let one speak at a time and let all listen unto his sayings, that when all have spoken that all may be edified of all, and that every man may have an equal privilege.
123 See that ye love one another; cease to be covetous; learn to impart one to another as the gospel requires.
124 Cease to be idle; cease to be unclean; cease to find fault one with another; cease to sleep longer than is needful; retire to thy bed early, that ye may not be weary; arise early, that your bodies and your minds may be invigorated.
125 And above all things, clothe yourselves with the bond of charity, as with a mantle, which is the bond of perfectness and peace.

The book of Mormon is not inspired by God; it is not even the word of God.

In a set of texts, written and collected over several thousand years, errors, mistakes, and contradictions are only to be expected .

The sign above Jesus reads: This is Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews

While there is a difference in what is omitted, the important phrase, "the king of the Jews," is identical in all four Gospels. The differencec can be accounted for in different ways.

First, Jon 19:20 says, "Then many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin." So then, there are at least three different languages in which the sign above Christ's head was written. Some of the differences may come from it being rendered in different languages.

Futher, it is possible that each Gospel only gives part of the complete statement as follows:
Matthew: "This is Jesus the king of the Jews"
Mark: " the king of the Jews"
Luke: "This is the king of the Jews"
John: " Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews"

Thus, the whole statement may have read "This is Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews." In this case, each Gospel is giving the essential part ("the king of the Jews", but no Gospel is giving the whole inscription. But neither is any Gospel contradicting what the other Gospels say. The accounts are divergent and mutually complementary, not contradictory.

Originally posted by Regret
Well, I believe the singular entity Trinitarian teaching to be fallacy. I also believe the literal 6 of our days creation to be a fallacy. I do not know if there are more. I do believe that by itself the Bible hasn't been translated accurately and that the contradictions between other religions and my own are due to fallacies based in Biblical interpretation. I don't think that the Bible in and of itself is a fallacy, but that beliefs based solely in interpretations thereof can be.

The sad thing is in my opinion, the very things you so far said you don't believe, especially stating that God's Word is no longer valid and accurate...is sad to me. Christians are noted as standing apart from those in the world. We do not agree with the accusations made
against God and his Holy Word. We are to be light in this world not a dim reflection of the opinions of the world? How can we say we are for Christ yet say and publish to an unbelieving world that the very things we are to stand for is not accurate? Why would someone seek to follow us if we don't know what we are following?

"A man who doesn't stand for something, may stand for anything."

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
..."A man who doesn't stand for something, may stand for anything."

What?

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
The sad thing is in my opinion, the very things you so far said you don't believe, especially stating that God's Word is no longer valid and accurate...is sad to me. Christians are noted as standing apart from those in the world. We do not agree with the accusations made
against God and his Holy Word. We are to be light in this world not a dim reflection of the opinions of the world? How can we say we are for Christ yet say and publish to an unbelieving world that the very things we are to stand for is not accurate? Why would someone seek to follow us if we don't know what we are following?

"A man who doesn't stand for something, may stand for anything."

Christ is the Word...The Word is God's...Christ is the Word of God.

The Bible is not the Word of God. It is the writings of men that heard the word of God. Nothing man can make will ever be perfect. So the Bible will never be perfect.

We are to be a light in this world. The Bible is not us.

How can we say we are for Christ yet say and publish to an unbelieving world that the very things we are to stand for is not accurate? Why would someone seek to follow us if we don't know what we are following? Yes, that is the question. I believe that is the main issue with mainstream Christianity. If the Bible is 100% accurate then you should all be Catholic. Most of you belong to other Christian sects that do not claim divine intervention for having begun. If God did not say "Leave my Church", and you do not believe in prophecy, then the Catholic Church is the correct one. Now, if there is still prophecy then you do have reason to have another church. But if the Holy Spirit kept the text pure and perfect then the Catholic Church is the Church of the Bible and should be held to. Sorry, but I find it amusing that if any of you mainstream Christians disagrees with something you claim the Holy Spirit has told you to leave and start something new.

..."A man who doesn't stand for something, may stand for anything."

I would say that this describes your churches. Someone decided the current incarnation was wrong and left to start their own. Mainstream Christianity stands for whatever they want to. If this church doesn't teach how or what you like, leave and find another. Mainstream Christianity is a confused and writhing mass of serpents and God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33).

Why would I want to join the Catholic Church when Christianity is Jewish. The Cathlolic Church was not the first church.. the Jews was and has always been the foundation of the Church.

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
Why would I want to join the Catholic Church when Christianity is Jewish. The Cathlolic Church was not the first church.. the Jews was and has always been the foundation of the Church.

The Catholic Church was the first Christian Church. The Jews do not follow Jesus of Nazareth.

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
Why would I want to join the Catholic Church when Christianity is Jewish. The Cathlolic Church was not the first church.. the Jews was and has always been the foundation of the Church.

I thought that Christians hated the Jews for allegedly crucifying Jesus.

Originally posted by Regret
but I find it amusing that if any of you mainstream Christians disagrees with something you claim the Holy Spirit has told you to leave and start something new.

I find it remarkable that you would say such a thing considering that's exactly what Joseph Smith did, he disagreed with the Church because the Church was dying in the 1800's... he tried to revive Christianity (in the early days his beliefs matched Biblical Christianity) until he began to change his own beliefs and his new found religion into what we knew as the Church in late 1800's. Some of the beliefs have been changed (blacks allowed the Priesthood, stopping of Polygamy), but essentially what the LDS Church believes today goes against everything Biblical Christianity teaches.

The Romans cruxified Jesus, the Jews had no power to cruxify.

Sorry, but there are many Jews who follow Yeshua of Nazareth as Ha'Mashiach and he is Yahweh Elohiem.

Messianic Jewish sites:
http://www.breadsite.org/mjewish.htm

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
The Romans cruxified Jesus, the Jews had no power to cruxify.

The Muslims don't believe that Jesus was crucified at all.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Anyone who take the bible literally is missing the truth that is within it.


I thought the mantra was, "What is truth?"

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
I thought the mantra was, "What is truth?"

What do you mean?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What do you mean?

It seems that "truth" is an opinion only to most posters here. My readings of posts so far show me that most people on this forum think "truth" is unattainable. Do you think I am off base on this one?

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
I find it remarkable that you would say such a thing considering that's exactly what Joseph Smith did, he disagreed with the Church because the Church was dying in the 1800's... he tried to revive Christianity (in the early days his beliefs matched Biblical Christianity) until he began to change his own beliefs and his new found religion into what we knew as the Church in late 1800's. Some of the beliefs have been changed (blacks allowed the Priesthood, stopping of Polygamy), but essentially what the LDS Church believes today goes against everything Biblical Christianity teaches.

And God changes things from time to time. If I claim God spoke to Joseph Smith then I am not claiming the same thing.

"essentially what the LDS Church believes today goes against everything Biblical Christianity teaches." You should change Biblical for mainstream. There are many people that do not believe as the LDS do that disagree in similar ways with mainstream Christianity.

What is Truth? I believe there are certain Truth's that pertain to Christianity.

1. The Bible is the inspired word of God and is trustworthy, powerful, and authoritative.

2. God is absolutely sovereign; he is all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-present, always in control. He is the Creator but is distinct from his creation. He loves us unconditionally.

3. Jesus Chris is God who became a man. He died for our sins and rose from the dead.

4. Man is utterly sinful and can do nothing in and of himself about his sinful situation.

5. Salvation is a gift of God and comes by faith alone in Jesus Christ alone.

6. The greatest Command, and thus the highest pursuit of our lives, is to know God and love him with our entire being.

7. The Commission of those who know Jesus is to make disciples of him in all the world.

These are non-negotiables which every denomination of Christianity believes (except for a few exceptions). When someone says that Christians can not agree on what they believe and further proof that Christianity is false, they are mistaken.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
It seems that "truth" is an opinion only to most posters here. My readings of posts so far show me that most people on this forum think "truth" is unattainable. Do you think I am off base on this one?

It all depends on what you are talking about.

Joseph_Kerr I am sorry that you believe what you believe.

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
Sorry, but there are many Jews who follow Yeshua of Nazareth as Ha'Mashiach and he is Yahweh Elohiem.

Messianic Jewish sites:
http://www.breadsite.org/mjewish.htm

It makes no difference though, the Catholic Church's first Pope was Peter. It is the Church that was started then, even if it did mess with the teachings. Jews that follow Christ that are not a part of it are still not in the proper place. Also, I am speaking of Jew using the common religious stance, which does deny Jesus as Messiah.

I distinctly use that term for a reason. Mormons/Jehovah Witnesses say they are Christian because they believe and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. Fair enough. But they are not Christians because their doctrines are Biblically unsound ie they are not Biblical Christians.

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
I distinctly use that term for a reason. Mormons/Jehovah Witnesses say they are Christian because they believe and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. Fair enough. But they are not Christians because their doctrines are Biblically unsound ie they are not Biblical Christians.

You are correct. To be considered a Christian in the "Biblical Sense"... one MUST adhere to the Biblical Foundations & tenents of the faith once given to the saints.

Notice the word ONCE GIVEN to the saints as told in the Bible?

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
You are correct. To be considered a Christian in the "Biblical Sense"... one MUST adhere to the Biblical Foundations & tenents of the faith once given to the saints.

Notice the word ONCE GIVEN to the saints as told in the Bible?

How do you have the right to make that judgment?

Why don't we have the right to judge that way? Because you don't agree with our belief system that you feel sorry that I believe as I do? Are you not judging me now? You quickly judged me and my beliefs, but I can't judge your beliefs against mine? I always find the double standard interesting.

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
I distinctly use that term for a reason. Mormons/Jehovah Witnesses say they are Christian because they believe and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. Fair enough. But they are not Christians because their doctrines are Biblically unsound ie they are not Biblical Christians.

How is Mormon doctrine Biblically unsound? And when you attack make sure the Bible references are not being used because of the interpretation you use. I find that Biblical Christians, as you call them, use their interpretation of scripture as their evidence, even if the scripture used could be interpretted in a differing manner.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How do you have the right to make that judgment?

"Whoever transgresses and does not ABIDE in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. he who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds."

2 John 1:9-11


"But even if we, OR AN ANGEL from heaven. preach any other Gospel (Message) to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed."

Galatians 1:8

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
Why don't we have the right to judge that way? Because you don't agree with our belief system that you feel sorry that I believe as I do? Are you not judging me now? You quickly judged me and my beliefs, but I can't judge your beliefs against mine? I always find the double standard interesting.

I have the right to judge how I feel, and I once felt similar to how you feel. I felt superior to others and that was comforting, but it was hollow and not real. Why do you think you have the right to judge Catholics, and say they are not true Christians? You do not have that right.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
"Whoever transgresses and does not ABIDE in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. he who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds."

2 John 1:9-11


"But even if we, OR AN ANGEL from heaven. preach any other Gospel (Message) to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed."

Galatians 1:8
How do you know that you are not the person in the wrong?

Funny Regret how you call the kettle black. As more evidence that you don't want to hear a single word that contradicts your beliefs no matter how much you "want to debate". You really don't want to debate or have an honest conversation. Mormons do not believe what Christianity teaches.. it is another Gospel all together. It is similar, but it is a wolf teaching in lamb skins.

I don't have the right.. but the Bible does. Plain and simple.

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
I don't have the right.. but the Bible does. Plain and simple.

That is a convent loop hole.

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
What is Truth? I believe there are certain Truth's that pertain to Christianity.

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
1. The Bible is the inspired word of God and is trustworthy, powerful, and authoritative.

Agreed, as far as it is translated correctly. There are translational errors in the Bible. It is only Christians that hold the Holy Spirit preserved text view that claim otherwise.

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
2. God is absolutely sovereign; he is all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-present, always in control. He is the Creator but is distinct from his creation. He loves us unconditionally.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
3. Jesus Chris is God who became a man. He died for our sins and rose from the dead.

Agreed

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
4. Man is utterly sinful and can do nothing in and of himself about his sinful situation.

Agreed

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
5. Salvation is a gift of God and comes by faith alone in Jesus Christ alone.

Agreed

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
6. The greatest Command, and thus the highest pursuit of our lives, is to know God and love him with our entire being.

Agreed

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
7. The Commission of those who know Jesus is to make disciples of him in all the world.

Agreed

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
These are non-negotiables which every denomination of Christianity believes (except for a few exceptions). When someone says that Christians can not agree on what they believe and further proof that Christianity is false, they are mistaken.

It seems that Mormon belief meshes with these claims.

sure, it may be convenient.. but I believe it is sound... no where is the minister of the people called "another christ", no where is the head of a church called "the Holy Father", no where does it say to pray to saints, therefore I do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church is Biblically sound.

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
Funny Regret how you call the kettle black. As more evidence that you don't want to hear a single word that contradicts your beliefs no matter how much you "want to debate". You really don't want to debate or have an honest conversation. Mormons do not believe what Christianity teaches.. it is another Gospel all together. It is similar, but it is a wolf teaching in lamb skins.

I will hear valid evidence, but if it is an interpretational difference then you are only claiming that you know better, not supplying valid evidence.

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
sure, it may be convenient.. but I believe it is sound... no where is the minister of the people called "another christ", no where is the head of a church called "the Holy Father", no where does it say to pray to saints, therefore I do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church is Biblically sound.

What does your opinion matter in this case? Let me explain, you can have an opinion about a court case but it is up to the judge, not you, to decide the case. Therefore, if your god wishes to let Catholics into heaven, are you going to complain to god?

Originally posted by Regret
Agreed, as far as it is translated correctly. There are translational errors in the Bible. It is only Christians that hold the Holy Spirit preserved text view that claim otherwise.

But you had to justify it.. "translated correctly" is your escape if you don't agree with the Bible. It has always been the Mormon's escape pod if they are back into a corner. If it isn't "translated correctly" then I don't have to agree with it.



3. Jesus Chris is God who became a man. He died for our sins and rose from the dead.


Agreed

Do you really? You don't believe that Jesus Christ was a man who learned the Gospel just as his Father did before him and became a God?

"Just as man is, God once was. Just as God is, man may become."
President Lorenzo Snow.

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
sure, it may be convenient.. but I believe it is sound... no where is the minister of the people called "another christ", no where is the head of a church called "the Holy Father", no where does it say to pray to saints, therefore I do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church is Biblically sound.

Neither do I believe it is, but if the Holy Spirit was to keep things accurate it did a poor job. And, if the Holy Spirit did keep things accurate then the Church that is directly linked to Peter as the first Pope must be accurate. You can't pick and choose when the Holy Spirit did his Job and when he didn't. Either there are errors or there are not errors. You are saying that the lay people had right to take a position against the authorities in the Church. When did the Catholic Church make the fatal flaw that made it not Biblically sound? Was it before they ended the teaching of pre-existence (some 200 years after the Bible)? Was it before the Council of Nicaea (where the Trinitarian doctrine was adopted 326 years after the Bible)? If it is not Biblically sound, why do you cling to decisions, like these, it made about interpretation of Bible verses?

Shaky,
I don't think you understand. For a Christian, it isn't opinion, it is taking a belief system, comparing it against a Belief system that they feel is trustworthy and inspired by God, and declaring it doesn't line up.

If that seems too harsh, I'm not going to apologize for it. There has to be an absolute Truth to compare against or else every belief system is right. You would like every belief system to be right... but I can not live in a system where there is no absolute Truth.

There is no where when Peter became Pope. That's reading into the text to justify the Papacy. The Rock.. the foundation is Jesus Christ. The Church never went into Apostacy as the LDS Church claims.. can the Prophet pin point when Jesus let go of his Church and allowed it to leave? Can you give me a date or time period when Jesus stopped being the cornerstone of the Body of Christ... When in history was there not a single Christian? The Body of Christ is the believers ie the Church.
WE never went into Apostacy.

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
Shaky,
I don't think you understand. For a Christian, it isn't opinion, it is taking a belief system, comparing it against a Belief system that they feel is trustworthy and inspired by God, and declaring it doesn't line up.

If that seems too harsh, I'm not going to apologize for it. There has to be an absolute Truth to compare against or else every belief system is right. You would like every belief system to be right... but I can not live in a system where there is no absolute Truth.

You do not know what the absolute truth is, it is unknowable. I see how this belief of yours can be evil to other people. I am not saying that you are evil, but that your blind faith can leave you vulnerable to being controlled by evil people. You believe that all Christians are good; but I tell you, this is not the case, some are evil.

Your beliefs have no bearing on my faith, so it dose not matter to me how you believe, I just want to wake you to the flaw in your belief. Only because it can lead to evil.

I quote the Bible because I am absolutely, positively, unequivocally, convinced and sold out on the fact that it--the Bible--is God's Word. Notice something folks. I have several hundred posts to my credit since becoming a member of this forum and not once have I called anyone any names. I have addressed you all by your forum names, used with all due respect frequently in some of my replies, and just done my best to remain civil. I have been accused of being stupid, cussed out on this forum repeatedly and called everything but by forum name on several occasions. I have been repeatedly criticized, demeaned, and ganged up on. Some of you have remained mature and treated me with respect. Just because I am solid in my faith does not mean that I do not respect anyone. I do respect all of you but I will not change what I believe.

Jesus Christ is the True God and eternal life, was crucified for the world's sins, buried, and raised from the dead. No other Person has been more maligned, hated, and blasphemed more than God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), or God the Holy Spirit. People use God in conjuction with profanity, "God_______." They use the Name of Jesus Christ like it is an interjection (e.g. Jesus Christ!). The say the Holy Spirit's Name in contempt as well (e.g., Holy______ or Holy that or Holy this). No other religious leaders names even come up in those kinds of contexts (i.e., curse words, interjections, and other blasphemous contexts). I have never heard anyone say, "Mohammed this! or Buddah that!" in any profane way. I have never heard anyone say the devil's name in a disrespectful way either. This ought to at least hint to the fact that Jesus must be the one, true, God after all. Just think about it. We say B.C. (i.e. before Christ, not B.S., before satan, or B.M., before Mohammed, or B.J.S., before Joseph Smith, or B.B, before Buddah). Why not? Again just more clues that perhaps Jesus is the true God. Anyhoo just thought that I'd share that with you all.

Let get myself ready for the backlash.

I need to go to bed.. I work graveyards and have to work tonight. I thought I would throw my 2 cents into the pot.

Regret and Shaky.. you are both alright. I just wanted to stir the pot since I've been avoiding the "religion" debate for 3 years.

Regret, you challenge us to study more pro-LDS documents... but those same LDS documents are what brought me out of the LDS faith and to Christianity. I know you believe with every fiber of your body that they are the same, they might appear that way on the surface, but they are entirely two different beliefs system..

I don't want you to leave the LDS faith.. I want you to understand that there is a whole different side that is no longer discussed and not allowed by the LDS Church... do a google on those scholars/professors and see WHY they were excommunicated/defellowshipped... they all loved the Church and didn't want it to happen... but they couldn't sit back and pretend that alls well in Zion.


Just some food for thought bud.

Goodnight.

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
I need to go to bed.. I work graveyards and have to work tonight. I thought I would throw my 2 cents into the pot.

Regret and Shaky.. you are both alright. I just wanted to stir the pot since I've been avoiding the "religion" debate for 3 years.

Regret, you challenge us to study more pro-LDS documents... but those same LDS documents are what brought me out of the LDS faith and to Christianity. I know you believe with every fiber of your body that they are the same, they might appear that way on the surface, but they are entirely two different beliefs system..

I don't want you to leave the LDS faith.. I want you to understand that there is a whole different side that is no longer discussed and not allowed by the LDS Church... do a google on those scholars/professors and see WHY they were excommunicated/defellowshipped... they all loved the Church and didn't want it to happen... but they couldn't sit back and pretend that alls well in Zion.


Just some food for thought bud.

Goodnight.

Thank you, and good night.

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
But you had to justify it.. "translated correctly" is your escape if you don't agree with the Bible. It has always been the Mormon's escape pod if they are back into a corner. If it isn't "translated correctly" then I don't have to agree with it.



3. Jesus Chris is God who became a man. He died for our sins and rose from the dead.


Agreed

Do you really? You don't believe that Jesus Christ was a man who learned the Gospel just as his Father did before him and became a God?

"Just as man is, God once was. Just as God is, man may become."
President Lorenzo Snow.

John 14:31 But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.

John 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Yes, these verses do state that Jesus did learn the Gospel. There is no doubting that, as to becoming a God:

Mark 10:27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

God can make all things possible.

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
I need to go to bed.. I work graveyards and have to work tonight. I thought I would throw my 2 cents into the pot.

Regret and Shaky.. you are both alright. I just wanted to stir the pot since I've been avoiding the "religion" debate for 3 years.

Regret, you challenge us to study more pro-LDS documents... but those same LDS documents are what brought me out of the LDS faith and to Christianity. I know you believe with every fiber of your body that they are the same, they might appear that way on the surface, but they are entirely two different beliefs system..

I don't want you to leave the LDS faith.. I want you to understand that there is a whole different side that is no longer discussed and not allowed by the LDS Church... do a google on those scholars/professors and see WHY they were excommunicated/defellowshipped... they all loved the Church and didn't want it to happen... but they couldn't sit back and pretend that alls well in Zion.


Just some food for thought bud.

Goodnight.



I never claimed that Mormon doctrine meshed well with mainstream Christianity. They are entirely two different beliefs system. I have read the histories, I have gone so far as to even read the warrants issued for Joseph Smith's arrests. I have read the issues of local non-LDS papers that were printed at the time, the ones that are still available. I never claimed the people of the Church were perfect, there are things that occur, and have occurred, that are not quite right. This does not invalidate the religion in any way. I do believe it to be true. Given this I believe heavily in symbolism. I believe that much of the educated men in my religion, and perhaps all religions, will be similar to the Pharisees and Sadducees of the New Testament, and will deny Christ at the Second Coming due to the fact that he will not be what their interpretations claim he will be. I believe that Christs first coming is symbolic of his second, not the same, but similar in ways.

I have appreciated our discussion, but I do disagree with your views. Do not expect that I haven't done the research, I have studied claims against the LDS church for over fifteen years. I have come to the opinion that history is not evidence, and it is very seldom accurate. For every claim there is a counter claim, on both sides of the argument. I cannot judge which is false and which is not, thus my decision must be based on a study of what is present and scripture. I find mainstream Christianity is hollow and does not as a offer the works to keep its claim of faith alive, for faith without works is dead.

Originally posted by Regret
John 14:31 But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.

John 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Yes, these verses do state that Jesus did learn the Gospel. There is no doubting that, as to becoming a God:

Mark 10:27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

God can make all things possible.

Since according to Mormon theology Jesus is "A God". Which God does a Mormon go too? If you only go to "God the Father" as not "God the Son" then you can't get to "God the Father" because Jesus said, that "...no one comes to the Father except through Me."

If you go to Jesus then you worship two Gods and are trapped because the commandments say, "You shall have no other God's before Me."

If you look closely, this Mormon stuff get's you in a big pinch my friends. Why not trust in God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit as the 3-in-one (trinity) and then you won't get caught in this "which God do I really serve trap?

Jesus can also be interpreted as a God himself. THis has been demonstarted before.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
Since according to Mormon theology Jesus is "A God". Which God does a Mormon go too? If you only go to "God the Father" as not "God the Son" then you can't get to "God the Father" because Jesus said, that "...no one comes to the Father except through Me."

If you go to Jesus then you worship two Gods and are trapped because the commandments say, "You shall have no other God's before Me."

If you look closely, this Mormon stuff get's you in a big pinch my friends. Why not trust in God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit as the 3-in-one (trinity) and then you won't get caught in this "which God do I really serve trap?

Jesus gave the example of prayer:




We worship and pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. He is our advocate to the Father. So we must state "in the name of Jesus Christ" prior to the end of a prayer.

I had thought better of you, but you can be rather rude. These answers are found in the Bible, why did you not read it and find them yourself? Oh wait, you didn't need to, it only works when discussing your opinions, not when considering other peoples, at least if they disagree with you.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
Since according to Mormon theology Jesus is "A God".

* believing that Christ is also a God is NOT ONLY according to Mormon theology; it is also according to the Bible that Christ is also a God...

"While we wait for the blessed hope-the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ ,"
Titus 2:13

"Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:"
II Peter 1:1

* Saint Paul and Saint Peter addresses Christ as a great God and Savior...

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
Which God does a Mormon go too? If you only go to "God the Father" as not "God the Son" then you can't get to "God the Father" because Jesus said, that "...no one comes to the Father except through Me."

* if a person believes that Christ is a God, that person can go to Christ... no problem with that...

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
If you go to Jesus then you worship two Gods and are trapped because the commandments say, "You shall have no other God's before Me."

* worshipping Christ is NOT idolatry...

"And when he again bringeth in the firstborn into the world he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him ."
Hebrews 1:6

* the Father even let all His angels worship Christ... so we should too...

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
If you look closely, this Mormon stuff get's you in a big pinch my friends. Why not trust in God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit as the 3-in-one (trinity) and then you won't get caught in this "which God do I really serve trap?

* the doctrine of "Trinity" is not Biblical, my friend...

Originally posted by peejayd
* believing that Christ is also a God is NOT ONLY according to Mormon theology; it is also according to the Bible that Christ is also a God...

"While we wait for the blessed hope-the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ ,"
Titus 2:13

"Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:"
II Peter 1:1

* Saint Paul and Saint Peter addresses Christ as a great God and Savior...



* if a person believes that Christ is a God, that person can go to Christ... no problem with that...



* worshipping Christ is NOT idolatry...

"And when he again bringeth in the firstborn into the world he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him ."
Hebrews 1:6

* the Father even let all His angels worship Christ... so we should too...



* the doctrine of "Trinity" is not Biblical, my friend...

Both you and Regret skirted around the issue that you can't have two God's and worship both. Please read your bibles not the other books. You can only serve one master. I quoted verses showing thier is only One God but it appears that went over your heads. This is again an effort in futility for me.

The more I look at the answers the more I see this will require more time than I possibly have available.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
The more I look at the answers the more I see this will require more time than I possibly have available.

Sometimes I feel that same way.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
Both you and Regret skirted around the issue that you can't have two God's and worship both. Please read your bibles not the other books. You can only serve one master. I quoted verses showing thier is only One God but it appears that went over your heads. This is again an effort in futility for me.

Mormons worship God the Father. They worship no other. I answered the prayer question with the Bible. Explain how I skirted the question. You are only listening to yourself, and your interpretations of Bible verse.

Originally posted by Regret
Mormons worship God the Father. They worship no other. I answered the prayer question with the Bible. Explain how I skirted the question. You are only listening to yourself, and your interpretations of Bible verse.

You say Jesus is "A God". How can you worship 2 Gods? You can't say that God the Father is a God and God the son is a God because God say's there are no other God's. This is going around and around and around I think.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
You say Jesus is "A God". How can you worship 2 Gods? You can't say that God the Father is a God and God the son is a God because God say's there are no other God's. This is going around and around and around I think.

There is other gods. The ten commandments say have no other gods before me. It didn't say that there is only one god. There are lots of false gods, so there are many gods.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is other gods. The ten commandments say have no other gods before me. It didn't say that there is only one god. There are lots of false gods, so there are many gods.

Sorry Shaky...you walked right into this one.

"You are my witnesses, says the Lord, and my servant whom I have choose, that you may know and beleive Me and understand that I am He. BEFORE ME THERE WAS NO GOD FORMED< NOR SHALL BE AFTER ME."

Isaiah 43:10


Please don't say you need an interpretation of this...please?

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
Sorry Shaky...you walked right into this one.

"You are my witnesses, says the Lord, and my servant whom I have choose, that you may know and beleive Me and understand that I am He. BEFORE ME THERE WAS NO GOD FORMED< NOR SHALL BE AFTER ME."

Isaiah 43:10


Please don't say you need an interpretation of this...please?

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Was that a typo, or is that saying that there are other gods that will not be place before this god?

So the bible contradicts its self. Thanks.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
You say Jesus is "A God". How can you worship 2 Gods? You can't say that God the Father is a God and God the son is a God because God say's there are no other God's. This is going around and around and around I think.

I won't argue with you on the subject. You have your opinion based on some Bible verses and you ignore the verses that disagree with that opinion. You are unwilling do defend your views against the conflicting verses, so I will do the same until you do.

If Christ is God the Father, he is a misleading person and quite probably a liar and/or hypocrite. I wouldn't follow a person of this type of character, let alone a God.

Originally posted by Regret
I won't argue with you on the subject. You have your opinion based on some Bible verses and you ignore the verses that disagree with that opinion. You are unwilling do defend your views against the conflicting verses, so I will do the same until you do.

If Christ is God the Father, he is a misleading person and quite probably a liar and/or hypocrite. I wouldn't follow a person of this type of character, let alone a God.

We cannot reason together because of the major differences in understandings. When you are quick to respond to my posts as you have been I also will be quick to return the favor.

What? The bible is so incredibly clear. How can there be any interpretational differences?

Originally posted by Alliance
What? The bible is so incredibly clear. How can there be any interpretational differences?

Alliance... roflmao j/k

are you j/k ing your roflamo?

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
Both you and Regret skirted around the issue that you can't have two God's and worship both. Please read your bibles not the other books. You can only serve one master. I quoted verses showing thier is only One God but it appears that went over your heads. This is again an effort in futility for me.

* are you kidding me? i just quoted Bible verses that showed Saint Peter and Saint Paul addressed Christ as a great God and Savior... are those verses went over your head?

"No man can serve two masters ; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon ."
Matthew 6:24

* the two "masters" here are God and mammon... you can only serve one of them...

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
You say Jesus is "A God". How can you worship 2 Gods? You can't say that God the Father is a God and God the son is a God because God say's there are no other God's. This is going around and around and around I think.

"So that all will honor the Son in the same way as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him."
John 5:23

* we should honor Christ in the same way as we honor the Father...

"And behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and took hold of his feet, and worshipped him ."
Matthew 28:9

* even the apostles and disciples worshipped Christ... does that mean that they violate the law of idolatry? hello?

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
Sorry Shaky...you walked right into this one.

"You are my witnesses, says the Lord, and my servant whom I have choose, that you may know and beleive Me and understand that I am He. BEFORE ME THERE WAS NO GOD FORMED< NOR SHALL BE AFTER ME."

Isaiah 43:10


Please don't say you need an interpretation of this...please?

* Christ is not a "god formed"... what kind of "gods" that are formed?

"Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image , nor any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:"
Deuteronomy 5:8

* those are examples of "gods formed"...

"But of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God , is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."
Hebrews 1:8

* looky here! even the Father addressed Christ as a God... top that...

Originally posted by Alliance
What? The bible is so incredibly clear. How can there be any interpretational differences? hahahha

One god, one faith..........glory hallelujah...

ha ha?

Originally posted by Alliance
are you j/k ing your roflamo?

No I was j/k my eyes rolling. I was roflmao ing your sarcasm, it was well done

Regret, Christ is not the Father... he is the Son. And both are Yahweh Elohiem.

Thanks for clearing that up Regret and Kerr

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
Regret, Christ is not the Father... he is the Son. And both are Yahweh Elohiem.

That is my belief, yes. Elohiem refers to plurality, Gods not God.

Yet Elohiem in Hebrew when speaking of God uses the singular. Yet more proof of the Trinity. Hear O Yisrael, Yahweh our Elohiem, Yahweh is one.

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
Yet Elohiem in Hebrew when speaking of God uses the singular. Yet more proof of the Trinity. Hear O Yisrael, Yahweh our Elohiem, Yahweh is one.

No, it does not.



It is the plural form of

YES ELOHIEM IS PLURAL....I'm not freakin brain dead.... BUT whenever Elohiem is refered to the God of Israel it is surrounded by context in the singular verb. Since you are an expert on Hebrew you would know that.

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
YES ELOHIEM IS PLURAL....I'm not freakin brain dead.... BUT whenever Elohiem is referred to the God of Israel it is surrounded by context in the singular verb. Since you are an expert on Hebrew you would know that.

I apologize for the delayed response, researching your statement required more time than many posts. I believe I have adequately studied the issue to respond to your statement.

_______________________________________________

I am not an expert on Hebrew. To verify your claim I referred to the Bible reference and commentaries used by the website Heartlight's Search God's Word which is a non-Mormon Bible reference. I am using reference from Genesis 1 to study your claim.

I studied Genesis 1:1 in particular. I believe that if your claim holds true then it should hold true on the first verse.

I found reference that would support your statement, as well as refute it somewhat.







After reading the verse, comparing definitions of terms in the verse, and studying the commentaries I came to the conclusion that the singular context is probably correct. The Bible often states that God and Christ are one. Mormons interpret this as one in purpose and direction. The use of the singular could be in reference to the group as one in purpose and direction. Also, I believe that the statements I quoted from the commentaries can be used to support the Mormon view on the subject. These commentaries did go on to support Trinitarian belief, following these statements, but did not offer support for that interpretation.

The verse does not provide strong enough evidence to deny the Godhead as Mormons believe. It also does not deny the Trinitarian belief either. I doubt that study into other instances will provide evidence that is any different than what I discovered with this verse.

If Elohiem was plural, wouldn't it be spelled Elohiems? firefirefireph

Originally posted by Alliance
If Elohiem was plural, wouldn't it be spelled Elohiems? firefirefireph

This converstaion needed a little boost

Yes, it did

So now everyone has something to laugh about

* in the Bible, there is a Godhead: the Father, the Christ and the Holy Spirit... Matthew 28:19...

* in the beginning, before all creation, there exists only the Father and Christ... Proverbs 8:22-31...

* when the Father and Christ plans to create man, then starts the creation of all things... Genesis 1:26, 1:1...

* the Father created all things... Acts 17:24, I Corinthians 8:6...

* all things are created through Christ... John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17...

* upon creation, the Father sent the Holy Spirit to renew the face of the earth and waters... Psalms 104:30, Genesis 1:2...

Peejayd,

What is your opinion on the idea of Preexistence? I am curious as to this, there is Biblical support for the idea that can be found in Job. I assume that you know the verses, so I won't bother looking them up and quoting them. Also, it was taught through around 250 C.E. I believe.

* can you please expound or qualify the question... i didn't get it... the pre-existence of Christ? is it? i'm sorry...

The idea that the spiritual was created prior to the physical. In reference to everything, including man.

Originally posted by Regret
For a Christian, is the Bible correct and without error? Is the text of the Bible always correct as we know it?

I have had debates with people that claim that the Bible is absolutely correct, and that its words should be taken as accurate due to the Holy Spirit aiding in maintaining accuracy over the numerous writings and translation. I believe that if inaccuracies are found in the Bible the text must be used judiciously and more errors may exist, particularly in sensitive areas of doctrine.

Here are some examples of error found in the Bible. In quotes to separate them.

It really depends on what Christian religion you are looking at. Some take it as everything in there is true and anything that's not in there is false, and some think the Bible (mainly the Old Testament) is not to be taken literally, but you should look at the "moral of the story".

Originally posted by Regret
The idea that the spiritual was created prior to the physical. In reference to everything, including man.

* oh, that?

"God is a Spirit : and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth."
John 4:24

* according to the Bible, God is a spirit...

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit ."
John 3:6

"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, This day have I begotten thee ? and again, I will be to him a Father, And he shall be to me a Son?"
Hebrews 1:5


* and since the Father (who is a spirit) gave birth to Christ... Christ is also a spirit...

"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 soul."
Genesis 2:7

* after the Father formed man from the dust, the Father breathed His spirit into the man...

"(For my life is yet whole in me, And the spirit of God is in my nostrils);"
Job 27:3

* the breath of life is the spirit...

* and the wholeness of that being - body, spirit and soul - is the wholeness of a human being...

* yes, spirits exists before physical, according to the Bible... the Father and Christ exists first...

"But of which of the angels hath he said at any time, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet?
Are they not all ministering spirits , sent forth to do service for the sake of them that shall inherit salvation?"
Hebrews 1:13-14

* all angels are spirits, and they are created first before man...

Thanks, thought I'd see where you stood on that.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
"Whoever transgresses and does not ABIDE in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. he who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds."

2 John 1:9-11

I thought you were supposed to "turn the other cheek". And "Love thy neighbor" as well as "love they enemy"

And what about "He without sin cast the first stone" and "we are all sinners" and all that BS?

Jesus has said all these things. Are you going to call Jesus Christ a LIAR?



Originally posted by Justbyfaith
"But even if we, OR AN ANGEL from heaven. preach any other Gospel (Message) to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed."

Galatians 1:8


Then what was the Gospel of Tomas? What about the other dozens of Gospels that were out there? Why have an organized selection and discrimination of one text and another?


The Bible also contradicts itself numerously, and you fail to prove otherwise. You fail to even address this fact. By your presented quotes, the Bible curses itself due to its contradiction of message.

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
YES ELOHIEM IS PLURAL....I'm not freakin brain dead.... BUT whenever Elohiem is refered to the God of Israel it is surrounded by context in the singular verb. Since you are an expert on Hebrew you would know that. The real name for god is just El. While the words El, Elohim, and eloah are clearly related, with the word El being the stem, it is uncertain whether the word Elohim is derived from El through eloah. Moreover, the word eloah is arguably feminine. If this is true, some have suggested that the word Elohim is the masculine plural of a feminine noun, used as a singular. This would imply indeterminacy in both number and gender. However, this is speculative and confusing, although consistent with many Christian views of the Godhead. Also El goes back to tarot cards being one of the names and meaning that god speaks. Tarot cards all have hebrew letters with meanings..

The Bible itself is infallible, but mankind's interpretations of it can be flawed. For that matter translations that are loose or tampered with could also have problems

Originally posted by Julie
The Bible itself is infallible, but mankind's interpretations of it can be flawed. For that matter translations that are loose or tampered with could also have problems

so how are we suposed to know whose interpretation is correct?

Originally posted by Julie
The Bible itself is infallible, but mankind's interpretations of it can be flawed. For that matter translations that are loose or tampered with could also have problems

Yet so much of it is outdated and unsuitable to the modern world. It is, as a book, incapable of evolving, and thus you have people trying to impose archaic rules on modern society.

* the Bible is NOT infallible... why? because there are contradictions... don't get me wrong, folks... what are the contradictions? example: the word of Satan contradicts the word of God...

* word of God:

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
Genesis 2:17

* word of Satan:

"And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:"
Genesis 3:4

* you see, there are contradictions because the wholeness of the Bible contains words of God, Christ, prophets, apostles, Satan, Pharisees, angels of God, demons, etc.

* but what is infallible?

"All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them."
Proverbs 8:8

* the word/s from God...

People put too much value in infallibility.

The bible is just a book; what matters in life is not books, but people.

not people, but ideas....like stoning.

Originally posted by Alliance
not people, but ideas....like stoning.

What do you got against stoning? As long as you don't drive, what is wrong with it.

Originally posted by peejayd
* the Bible is NOT infallible... why? because there are contradictions... don't get me wrong, folks... what are the contradictions? example: the word of Satan contradicts the word of God...

* word of God:

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
Genesis 2:17

* word of Satan:

"And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:"
Genesis 3:4

* you see, there are contradictions because the wholeness of the Bible contains words of God, Christ, prophets, apostles, Satan, Pharisees, angels of God, demons, etc.

* but what is infallible?

"All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them."
Proverbs 8:8

* the word/s from God...

Can you explain:


"Thou shalt not kill"

And

"No man shall layeth with another man like he would layeth with a woman. For that is detestable and punishable by death"

And

"For if a woman sells her flesh for riches, she shall be cast to death by stoning"

?

* Old Testament most of the time is the literal sense of the spiritual sense being introduced by the New Testament...