brotherofJared
Well-known member
Why don't you explain it?Then explain 1 Cor 3:13-15
Why don't you explain it?Then explain 1 Cor 3:13-15
You don't think you're not using new translation? Is the Bible you are using from 1800 years ago? Probably not, since no such Bible exists. Are you using the 1500's KJV of the Bible? Probably not. I'm guessing you use a newer translation. Does yours have in it, "anger, without a cause, is in danger of hell fire"? I bolded the phrase that probably isn't in your version of the Bible. So, why are you guys translating the Word of God so it suits your old-found religion? (which probably isn't 1800 years old).SO ? why are you guys translating the Word of God so it suits " your new found religion "... and you are all 1800 years after the fact ?
That isn't what it says.Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..... Do you all debate this first verse and or decipher a million ways or just simple truly believe it ?
I did. Try, try again.I notice that you still haven't answered any of my questions. I can only assume that you have none. Good luck with your life. I just hope that you strive to follow Christ in whatever course you think is right. If you do, I have no doubt that we shall meet at the pleasing bar on the day of judgment and can rejoice in each other's salvation.
You're the one claiming that: "the second you aren't walking in those good works, you aren't saved anymore.". The passage says you're inaccurate about that. You need to make the passage GO AWAY, or change your theology.Why don't you explain it?
Where? Do you want me to ask the questions again or can you point to where you answered them? You know you didn't. You change the word again, from guard to believe and then signed off. The only reason you're still here, IMO, is because of the bait. You can't resist defending yourself.I did. Try, try again.
You're the one claiming that: "the second you aren't walking in those good works, you aren't saved anymore.". The passage says you're inaccurate about that. You need to make the passage GO AWAY, or change your theology.
Guarding the word of God over and against the likes of Mormons. You asked, I answered.Wait, I'll ask the question again, from whom or what are we guarding the commandments against? Let's see if you'll answer it or post a link where you answered it. and then the next question,
Why do you think the translators used the word "keep" instead of "guard"? Where those scholars inept or something?
No, you didn't. But you were respond to a comment that wasn't directed to you either.Did I pose that question to you? Clearly, the poster ignored/pretended the verse didn't exist - which is what most of our critics do.
This is the line I was getting to: "you're just going to ignore the verse and pretend it doesn't exist?""keeping" the commandments is not subject-centric?![]()
I'm sure it did, and I'm giving another perspective to hopefully help you see past your bias.It appeared to be constructive to me.
It's not about converting people. It's much easier to have clear discussion when the element of pride and contention are gone. I can't have that if you're going to use their answers to my questions as opportunities to get in your one-liner "gotcha"s in.@Aaron32 - you are not going to convert any of these people.
I'd love to, but everything I write is overshadowed by your contentious remarks, and then I have to deal with the fallout. Thats why I'm telling you to stop it. I can defend myself thank you very much. Feel free to start your own thread and then derail it.Here's's an idea. Why don't you stop talking about the effect my responses are having and actually respond in ways that are subject-centric? Isn't that what you want?
Just focus on the thought and not their actions, or their attributes. That's all I'm saying.So, the "you", in this line is implied. Is that okay? I can imply it but not actually say the word, like what just happened? (See how I implied that you implied that I did something without using the word "you"?)![]()
Ok. But here's the thing. You've had your interactions and discussions with them - I haven't. When I ask a question, and they respond, let me give my rebuttal before deciding to get your side jab in.Let me be clear, Bonnie didn't say it, Theo didn't say it. The person I was responding to, which isn't "you" said it and therefore, I addressed it to the person who said it.
It's more of spiritual knowledge.Now, you've stated that all we need to keep is our faith, and my question to you, which you blew off before with a "stop it" post, how does one know they are keeping their faith?
That's very difficult to discern without more information. Bottom line is, it's not for me to judge just because someone sins differently than I do. God looks upon our hearts. I leave it up to Him....there is a difference between those who will be saved and those who won't and the question is, what is that difference?
Focusing on salvation by performing the act of saying "I believe" is still legalism. That's the thing, if salvation of any degree is conditional, there must be a law attached to it stating those conditions. An act is still an act - a confession of faith, baptism, or sacrificing your first born son. If you think the "work" itself "saves" you, you're still thinking in terms of legalism. Thus, I reject your statement on it's premise.If anyone seriously believes that only those who say "I believe" are those who will be saved, then we truly live in a horrible world and God made it that way.
Yet, as members of the Church, that's not something we need to worry about. The lost will be found either in this life or the next...or the next.Therere are so so many good people who will, based on this horrible idea, be lost simply because they believed something else, but were still good people. The idea is ludicrous and is absolutely not just and these are the ones we know about.Therer are billions upon billions of people who never even heard the words, Jesus Christ, who, through no fault of their own will be damned by such an idea.
I liked much of what you said as critique to your fellow Mormon, but loved "start your own thread and then derail it."No, you didn't. But you were respond to a comment that wasn't directed to you either.
This is the line I was getting to: "you're just going to ignore the verse and pretend it doesn't exist?"
This question focuses on the behavior of the poster. It's not talking about "keeping the commandments". This is how conversations go side ways: 1) Drop the subject 2) Focus on the behavior of others 3) Assume any statement from the opposing side has no bearing of truth, it's just spoken because of (negative attribute, thoughts, feelings, motives) of the opposing side.
I'm sure it did, and I'm giving another perspective to hopefully help you see past your bias.
It's not about converting people. It's much easier to have clear discussion when the element of pride and contention are gone. I can't have that if you're going to use their answers to my questions as opportunities to get in your one-liner "gotcha"s in.
I'd love to, but everything I write is overshadowed by your contentious remarks, and then I have to deal with the fallout. Thats why I'm telling you to stop it. I can defend myself thank you very much. Feel free to start your own thread and then derail it.
Just focus on the thought and not their actions, or their attributes. That's all I'm saying.
Ok. But here's the thing. You've had your interactions and discussions with them - I haven't. When I ask a question, and they respond, let me give my rebuttal before deciding to get your side jab in.
It's more of spiritual knowledge.
Is hope still present? Do they have charity? Can they sing the song of redeeming love? Read Alma 5.
That's very difficult to discern without more information. Bottom line is, it's not for me to judge just because someone sins differently than I do. God looks upon our hearts. I leave it up to Him.
Focusing on salvation by performing the act of saying "I believe" is still legalism. That's the thing, if salvation of any degree is conditional, there must be a law attached to it stating those conditions. An act is still an act - a confession of faith, baptism, or sacrificing your first born son. If you think the "work" itself "saves" you, you're still thinking in terms of legalism. Thus, I reject your statement on it's premise.
We know we are saved when we turn to Christ in humility and ask him to take away our sins. Again, it's more than the act, it's the intent of our hearts. Thus when Nephi saying "without hypocrisy and without guile" are major components of all our actions. As we sincerely repent, our hearts are changed by the influence of the Holy Ghost, and obedience to God's commandments naturally follow.
Yet, as members of the Church, that's not something we need to worry about. The lost will be found either in this life or the next...or the next.
It says more than that (which you ignored), and substituted your phony logic stuff. Joe was a HERETIC, and you've apparently swallowed his foolishness hook, line, and sinker. Give 1 Cor 3:13-15 another try with your eyes open.![]()
![]()
the passage says "[we] are created in Christ for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."
Logic demand that if B = A then A = B. A = Created in Christ. B = for good works that we should walk in them". Therefore, if we do not walk in these good works we cannot be created in Christ. It's pretty simple logic. The passage says I am 100% accurate about that. You need to make the passage GO AWAY or change your theology. Fat chance of that happening. You all have a death grip on your religion such that you will refuse to see anything else that disagrees with your ideas in spite of what the Bible says.
Still trying to understand how this relates to what I'm saying.1 Cor 14:
As in all the congregations of God’s people, 34 let the wives remain silent when the congregation meets; they are certainly not permitted to speak out. Rather, let them remain subordinate, as also the Torah says; 35 and if there is something they want to know, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for a woman to speak out in a congregational meeting.
36 Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or is endowed with the Spirit, let him acknowledge that what I am writing you is a command of the Lord. 38 But if someone doesn’t recognize this, then let him remain unrecognized.
39 So, my brothers, eagerly seek to prophesy; and do not forbid speaking in tongues; 40 but let all things be done in a proper and orderly way.
Ok. Mormons believe anything given by the Holy Ghost is scripture. (D&C 68:4)well,, manmade decrees are everything that is NOT in the Scriptures..
That Jesus is our Lord and SaviorAre we commanded to keep " faith " ? Which/what Faith is that ?
Not much to work with here. If you'd like to substantiate this, I'd be happy to discuss.D&C illuminates nothing since it's nothing but the religious ravings of an ignorant heretic.
Still a little lost here. I'll look at Theo's response.You said we wouldn't need the atonement in such a circumstance, so the conclusion I made was you did, even if you didn't realize it. Look at Theo's response to you he too drew a similar conclusion to your answer as I did.
And we both know that trying to "Substantiate" ANYTHING to a Mormon victim would be a waste of time and effort.Not much to work with here. If you'd like to substantiate this, I'd be happy to discuss.
Ummm..ok. So the point of being on this board is...what???And we both know that trying to "Substantiate" ANYTHING to a Mormon victim would be a waste of time and effort.
You don't think you're not using new translation? Is the Bible you are using from 1800 years ago?
Are you using the 1500's KJV of the Bible?
Probably not. I'm guessing you use a newer translation. Does yours have in it, "anger, without a cause, is in danger of hell fire"?
Elohim is a word that indicates a plurality of gods. So, do you believe the Bible as it was written or do you accept the words that happen to suit your theology?
But no matter how many ways you slice it, no person interprets anything but from the perspective of their understanding.
Will, if you're going to do that, it is difficult for the translator not to insert his own ideas or intent especially when the creator of the source is dead.
There are hundreds of translations of the Bible. Why aren't they all the same?
People are saved by grace through faith. We strive to obey, with an eye single to God.So you're saying that people are saved merely because they can "possibly" obey the commandments, and they don't actually have to do so?
I'm a little confused on this question. Are you implying that it's possible to keep all of God's commandments?Maybe you need Christ, then?
People are saved by grace through faith. We strive to obey, with an eye single to God.
It's not about our actions, but rather about the sincere desires of our hearts.
I'm a little confused on this question. Are you implying that it's possible to keep all of God's commandments?
Yes. We all need Christ.