The Church of Jesus Christ

Really, I mean really? care to examine the Bible a little more closely... chuckle

1 THESS. 4.14.
— Even so them also which sleep in Jesus, will God bring with him.

1_Corinthians 15:18

Then they also who are fallen asleep in Christ have perished.

1_Corinthians 15:20

But now Christ has been raised from the dead. He became the first fruits of those who are asleep.
All will rise, those asleep in Christ and those dead. We who are asleep in Christ to eternal life and the dead to eternal damnation.
 
Really, I mean really? care to examine the Bible a little more closely... chuckle

1 THESS. 4.14.
— Even so them also which sleep in Jesus, will God bring with him.

1_Corinthians 15:18

Then they also who are fallen asleep in Christ have perished.

1_Corinthians 15:20

But now Christ has been raised from the dead. He became the first fruits of those who are asleep.
 
DB wrote…Neither the Buddhist nor the Hindus claim any affiliation with Jesus Christ.

So--what is there about this testimony which you don't feel patterns the LDS temple?

Revelation 7:13-15---King James Version
13 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?
14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.

I've attended the LDS temple for some time--and that seems like a description of an LDS temple. If you disagree--please let us know what you find there--which isn't found in an LDS temple.

And the NT Jew’s did? what are you talking about…the “Temple” Jews Crucified Christ, they had no affiliation with Christ…and for the most part, except for a small group of Messianic Jews today, reject Christ as the Messiah today. The LDS temple is not even close to The Temple. Buddhist temples are probably closer.

Well in regards to what the difference is, The Temple did not have a statue of a mythical angel blowing a horn on the roof area. The Temple was where God dwelt, and sacrifices/Korban were offered in the way of animal sacrifices. The Temple did not usher in men and women for marriages, have their body parts washed and blessed, whether actually like in the past of symbolically …movies with the depliction of satan playing a key role mocking Christian leaders…and so on and so on. The Temple did not Baptize people for the dead, nor did they baptize anyone…they did ceremonial washings for the priests.

There were also specific court yards, gates, and judicial buildings for the Sanhedrin…I would need to re-study this but believe me there is a difference, a huge one.

If you are trying to compare the LDS temples to The Temple after it is re-built…focus on the re-built you had better re-think what that implies.
 
You ignore the context. Clearly 17-18 is discussing born-again followers of the Way. 29 is not.

Your point was specific to "they":

Lastdaysbeliever said: "They" is not we, or us, or the church.

When I posted "they" in relationship to we, us, and the church--

1 Corinthians 15:17-18--King James Version
17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

1 Corinthians 15:29---King James Version
29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

---you then fabricate an exclusion clause ("29 is not") to cover your tracks, by unceremoniously chunking it out the window of your choosing.

Nope. Won't work. If "they" is pertaining to those outside of the we, us, or the church--then it's an obvious double standard to exclude it when it's convenient to you, or doesn't fit your theology.
 
Markk said: What specifically is hooey?

The LDS church is very clear that one of the blessings of ”eternal life”…which they teach is “Exaltation” is becoming a God which includes, quoting from chapter 47 of the teaching manual “Gospel Principles” …

”They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge…”


dberrie2020 said: You still haven't explained for us how that differs from the Biblical testimony:

Ephesians 3:19--King James Version
19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

While you are at it--did these become gods--or were they gods all along?

John 10:34-35---King James Version
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

What does that have to do with your OP and question?

LOL!!! Markk--please reread and follow your post. My retort was a direct response to your point above---IE--

”They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge"

My retort to you--


"You still haven't explained for us how that differs from the Biblical testimony:

Ephesians 3:19--King James Version
19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God."

So--care to engage that?
 
Your point was specific to "they":



When I posted "they" in relationship to we, us, and the church--

1 Corinthians 15:17-18--King James Version
17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

1 Corinthians 15:29---King James Version
29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

---you then fabricate an exclusion clause ("29 is not") to cover your tracks, by unceremoniously chunking it out the window of your choosing.

Nope. Won't work. If "they" is pertaining to those outside of the we, us, or the church--then it's an obvious double standard to exclude it when it's convenient to you, or doesn't fit your theology.
My point was they was directed at those who were asleep in Christ in verses 17-18 and the they in verse 29 was not. Simple. It is you struggling with this, not me.
 
DB wrote…Neither the Buddhist nor the Hindus claim any affiliation with Jesus Christ.

And the NT Jew’s did?

Markk--since Jesus, the NT apostles and prophets, and most of the early NT church were Jews--then I would say--yes.

what are you talking about…the “Temple” Jews Crucified Christ, they had no affiliation with Christ…

What has that got to do with these servants, or this temple?

Revelation 7:13-15---King James Version
13 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?
14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.

and for the most part, except for a small group of Messianic Jews today, reject Christ as the Messiah today. The LDS temple is not even close to The Temple.

You still haven't revealed to us what differences you see in the LDS temple--and the temple here, as far as the description goes:

Revelation 7:13-15---King James Version
13 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?
14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.

Buddhist temples are probably closer.

Again--the Buddhist have no affiliation with Jesus Christ, nor claim any.

Well in regards to what the difference is, The Temple did not have a statue of a mythical angel blowing a horn on the roof area.

Such as this?

Isaiah 18:3---King James Version
3 All ye inhabitants of the world, and dwellers on the earth, see ye, when he lifteth up an ensign on the mountains; and when he bloweth a trumpet, hear ye.
 
My point was they was directed at those who were asleep in Christ in verses 17-18 and the they in verse 29 was not. Simple. It is you struggling with this, not me.

So--let's count the cost:

I posted 1Cor15:29:

1 Corinthians 15:29---King James Version
29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

You countered and claimed the use of "they" was counter to us, we, or the church:

Lastdaysbeliever said: "They" is not we, or us, or the church.

My retort was this:

1 Corinthians 15:17-18--King James Version
17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

With the question to you--isn't the "they" in that verse a part of "we, us, or the church"?

You then start with your exclusion claims.

I don't need to.
 
Or are you calling it hooey that you believe your coming to a Christian site and attacking Christian Doctrine and then claiming you are being persecuted like the early Christians?
The observation he made is clear. We adhere to the biblical standard, you all don't. It seems odd that you all have no explanation. Instead, what you do is attack the one church that does adhere to the Biblical standard.

We didn't come here to attack anyone else's beliefs. If you all didn't waste your time attacking our, we wouldn't be here.

This is the way I understand it. The OP states, why are you attacking us over the fact that we have temples which match the description found in the New Testament when you all don't have anything that even remotely resembles the testimony found in scriptures you claim to believe are true.

Isn't that the same as crying about us persecuting you because I'm hitting your fist with my face?

You have a knack for twisting the argument. Why can't you just answer the question?
 
"They" is not we, or us, or the church
"They" are the dead who obviously can't do the work for themselves. Paul makes no other reference to others. That's an example of you adding to the scriptures. The original argument, as I recall, was why would Paul be using the activity of pagans to prove a Christian point. Obviously, someone is doing baptisms for the dead and it's not the dead that he is referring to.
 
The observation he made is clear. We adhere to the biblical standard, you all don't. It seems odd that you all have no explanation. Instead, what you do is attack the one church that does adhere to the Biblical standard.

We didn't come here to attack anyone else's beliefs. If you all didn't waste your time attacking our, we wouldn't be here.

This is the way I understand it. The OP states, why are you attacking us over the fact that we have temples which match the description found in the New Testament when you all don't have anything that even remotely resembles the testimony found in scriptures you claim to believe are true.

Isn't that the same as crying about us persecuting you because I'm hitting your fist with my face?

You have a knack for twisting the argument. Why can't you just answer the question?
I have answered his interpretations over and over…I tell you what lets you and I do a study on th e first 3 chapter of eph. And I will walk youthough my interpretation, and then you can explain your interpretation and then we can see if we agree, disagree, or other? Is that fair.

I clearly answered the question, and made clear points and counter points. Look at the threads started by DB, and tell me who is pushing there faith on whom.

I lived the LDS faith and understand it the doctrines well…and I am honest with my exegesis…is DB…you don’t hav e to answer that we know the answer.

I am not twisting anything, i know LDS doctrine and Christian doctrine, and study both, and can be objective, and relate it as such.

But anyways…lets just study the word together and see what it means to each one of us respectively …is that fair? Let’s start with Eph 1.1?

I am curious, do you like DB believe that HF or Christ, can choose to be either good or evil, I find this a interesting paradox that DB asserts?
 
I have answered his interpretations over and over…I tell you what lets you and I do a study on th e first 3 chapter of eph. And I will walk youthough my interpretation, and then you can explain your interpretation and then we can see if we agree, disagree, or other? Is that fair.

I clearly answered the question, and made clear points and counter points. Look at the threads started by DB, and tell me who is pushing there faith on whom.

I lived the LDS faith and understand it the doctrines well…and I am honest with my exegesis…is DB…you don’t hav e to answer that we know the answer.

I am not twisting anything, i know LDS doctrine and Christian doctrine, and study both, and can be objective, and relate it as such.

But anyways…lets just study the word together and see what it means to each one of us respectively …is that fair? Let’s start with Eph 1.1?

I am curious, do you like DB believe that HF or Christ, can choose to be either good or evil, I find this a interesting paradox that DB asserts?

Back the wagon up--there's another load of hooey being dumped. What a crock!
 
DB wrote: Markk--since Jesus, the NT apostles and prophets, and most of the early NT church were Jews--then I would say--yes.

You/me were talking about the Jerusalem Temple…which wasin control of basically Jesus haters. You are now changing your original assertion. NT believers were at odds with those at the Temple, or better put those at the Temple were at odds with Christian’s. Jesus did what to those at the Temple? The Sadducees, Pharisees, Zealots, and maybe even the Essenes controlled the Temple. The few accounts of any apostle visiting the Temple was always more or less “a visit” and seemingly outside looking in.
 
Back the wagon up--there's another load of hooey being dumped. What a crock!
You hav even removed from your talking point, and are struggling…when face with what your faith teaches it does not look so good does it. I dealt with it DB as did Mags, there is life after Mormonism if you ar e honest enough to just do a honest study.
 
You hav even removed from your talking point, and are struggling…when face with what your faith teaches it does not look so good does it. I dealt with it DB as did Mags, there is life after Mormonism if you ar e honest enough to just do a honest study.

Please don't confuse hooey with an honest study.

You haven't dealt with anything but fabricated assertations, IMO.

But you could deal with this:

Markk said:
Well in regards to what the difference is, The Temple did not have a statue of a mythical angel blowing a horn on the roof area.

Such as this?

Isaiah 18:3---King James Version
3 All ye inhabitants of the world, and dwellers on the earth, see ye, when he lifteth up an ensign on the mountains; and when he bloweth a trumpet, hear ye.
 
Back
Top