What degree of obedience qualifies for salvation?

[brotherofJared]

Then explain 1 Cor 3:13-15

Why don't you explain it?

 

[brotherofJared]

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 ?

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).

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 ?

That isn't what it says.
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?

If you paid attention to what I said, if the word has a root meaning that might infer a different idea, I would entertain it. And I did, The word in 1 John 2:3 also means "guard". I asked, guard against what or whom? At that point, it was crickets. The person ran away but before doing so, he magically made the word mean "believe" which it doesn't mean in any sense of the word.

The other things I posed was, why did the translators pick the word they used? Why did they use "keep" and not "guard"? This is typical of our critics, they think they found a loophole and will translate it to mean something they like but the scholars who translated to Greek into English, they discard and throw under the bus. If their translation is better, shouldn't they inform the people who actually produce these books so they can fix the obvious problem?

But no matter how many ways you slice it, no person interprets anything but from the perspective of their understanding. There is no perfect translation and most of the time, the best you can hope for is that the translator can capture the meaning or the intent of the original source since many words or ideas have no direct equivalent word for word. 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? You need to think about that before you go accusing us of making our own version of it.

 

[brotherofJared]

duplicate

 

[Nic]

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.

I did. Try, try again.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Why don't you explain it?

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.

 

[brotherofJared]

I did. Try, try again.

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.

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?

 

[brotherofJared]

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.

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.

 

[Nic]

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?

Guarding the word of God over and against the likes of Mormons. You asked, I answered.
Guard is inclusive of keeping but you still haven't heard that despite telling you twice already.
I've already provided the Greek in the above in a previous post.

Think of it like this. Am I my brother's keeper? Keep in this sense is also like guard or watching over.

​

keeper ?”​

הֲשֹׁמֵ֥ר (hă·šō·mêr)​

Verb - Qal - Participle - masculine singular​

Strong's Hebrew 8104: 1) to keep, guard, observe, give heed​

~Strongs Concordance~​

I believe your method of questioning leaves little to be desired, that's where I find ineptitude.

 

[Aaron32]

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.

No, you didn't. But you were respond to a comment that wasn't directed to you either.

"keeping" the commandments is not subject-centric?

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.

It appeared to be constructive to me.

I'm sure it did, and I'm giving another perspective to hopefully help you see past your bias.

@Aaron32 - you are not going to convert any of these people.

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.

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?

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.

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"?)

Just focus on the thought and not their actions, or their attributes. That's all I'm saying.

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.

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.

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?

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.

...there is a difference between those who will be saved and those who won't and the question is, what is that difference?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Nic]

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.

I liked much of what you said as critique to your fellow Mormon, but loved "start your own thread and then derail it."

 

[Bob Carabbio]

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.

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.

 

[Aaron32]

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.

Still trying to understand how this relates to what I'm saying.

 

[Aaron32]

well,, manmade decrees are everything that is NOT in the Scriptures..

Ok. Mormons believe anything given by the Holy Ghost is scripture. (D&C 68:4)
In relation to your previous comment, "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." (1 Tim 1:7)

Are we commanded to keep " faith " ? Which/what Faith is that ?

That Jesus is our Lord and Savior

 

[Aaron32]

D&C illuminates nothing since it's nothing but the religious ravings of an ignorant heretic.

Not much to work with here. If you'd like to substantiate this, I'd be happy to discuss.

 

[Aaron32]

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.

Still a little lost here. I'll look at Theo's response.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Not much to work with here. If you'd like to substantiate this, I'd be happy to discuss.

And we both know that trying to "Substantiate" ANYTHING to a Mormon victim would be a waste of time and effort.

 

[Aaron32]

And we both know that trying to "Substantiate" ANYTHING to a Mormon victim would be a waste of time and effort.

Ummm..ok. So the point of being on this board is...what???

 

[Theo1689]

You don't think you're not using new translation? Is the Bible you are using from 1800 years ago?

English didn't exist 1800 years ago.
But I'm not surprised you didn't know that.

1800 years ago, the Bible was written in Greek.
(And it wasn't a "translation", since Greek was the written language of those Scriptures.)
But I'm not surprised you didn't know that, either.

And yes, I *DO* use that Greek Bible, because unlike you, I can read Koine Greek.

Are you using the 1500's KJV of the Bible?

<Chuckle>
The KJV was published in 1611, not "the 1500's".
But I'm not surprised you didn't know THAT, either....

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"?

Well, here's something else you probably don't know. There isn't just one "Greek New Testament", it was copied into many manuscripts (since printing presses didn't yet exist). We have over 5800 Greek manuscripts of the NT, either in full or in part, dating from different time periods. We also have 10's of thousands of early translations of the Scriptures (Latin, Syriac, etc.)

The earliest manuscripts we have, dating from the 2nd to 4th century (eg. p64, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, etc.). don't have the wording, "without a cause". This reading was ADDED by scribes sometime later.

So the reason our more modern translations (which are based on earlier and more accurate manuscripts) is because Matthew didn't write "without a cause", it was added later by a scribe.

So you are following the words of man, not the word of God.

But I'm guessing you didn't know THAT, either, did you?

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?

No actually, it doesn't.
Just like you don't understand Koine Greek, I'm guessing you don't understand Hebrew either. Hebrew doesn't work the same way as English, and the translation of "Elohim" depends on the number of the VERB, not the noun.

At least that's what Hebrew scholars have told me, and I trust their understanding of Hebrew far more than I trust yours.

But no matter how many ways you slice it, no person interprets anything but from the perspective of their understanding.

Is that why Mormons always get things wrong?

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.

You truly have no clue how translation works.

There are hundreds of translations of the Bible. Why aren't they all the same?

They all teach the same thing.

 

[Aaron32]

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?

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.

Maybe you need Christ, then?

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.

 

[Theo1689]

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.

So by your own admission, we don't have to keep ANY commandments, we only need to have a "desire" to keep the commandments. Wow, that's pretty convenient, isn't it?

I'm a little confused on this question. Are you implying that it's possible to keep all of God's commandments?

?!
Of course, I didn't say anything of the sort.
This is why it's a complete waste of time to try to have a productive discussion with you. You pull some nonsense out of thin air, that I've never said, it comes right out of left field, and then you falsely project it to me to try to make me look ridiculous.

I don't appreciate that kind of tactic.

My question, "Maybe you need Christ?" is pretty straightforward.

Yes. We all need Christ.

No.
Christians don't "need" Christ.
We already HAVE Christ.
It is Mormons who still need Christ.