Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The "Gospel" Of John
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 7 of 215 (165788)
12-06-2004 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by macaroniandcheese
12-06-2004 10:55 PM


Re: The one whom Jesus loved....
well one of my friends thinks it's heresy.
you mean me?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-06-2004 10:55 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-08-2004 2:41 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 11 of 215 (165805)
12-07-2004 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Swift
12-07-2004 12:06 AM


Re: The one whom Jesus loved....
I think the reason why you are annyoed with some parts of the Bible is that you don't understand it( agin not trying being offensive). And then some of bernnakimi's friends dont like it for what i feel is the same reason.
i understand it perfectly. in fact, better than you have demonstrated. the gospel of a john is a document of propaganda, not an attempt to record events. it reports jesus as saying things he would not have said (according to the other gospels). these are attributed sayings, designed to defend the religion in its early days. the things jesus says (regarding salvation etc) directly reflect the questioning of the religion in the jewish community at the time.
similarly, the religon at that point was seeking to separate from judaism, and thusly a very negative stance is takn towards jews in the book.
so, because of it's antisemitism, falsely attributed sayings, and propagandic nature, i disregard it as bearing any weight as a holy text.
It tells about the coming of God in the flesh (Jesus)
quote:
Exodus 33:18-23
And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory. And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy. And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.
You or your friends may be annoyed with this book or the Bible in general because it points out the need for a savior and that no one can be perfect
quote:
Gen 6:9 These [are] the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man [and] perfect in his generations, [and] Noah walked with God.
quote:
Gen 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I [am] the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
quote:
1Ki 11:4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, [that] his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as [was] the heart of David his father.
solomon wasn't perfect... but david was.
quote:
1Ki 15:14 But the high places were not removed: nevertheless Asa's heart was perfect with the LORD all his days.
asa even screws up. still perfect.
quote:
Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name [was] Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.
and then of course there's jesus, who had to be without blemish in order to be the sacrificial lamb, right?
that eveyone has faults and that no one can get to heaven by themselves.
quote:
Gen 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he [was] not; for God took him.
quote:
2Ki 2:11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, [there appeared] a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
for by grace are you saved by by FAITH. Ephs 2:8.
so says paul. does the text above support that?
To be saved you have to belive that all the bible is true
*ahem*
quote:
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith
and accept Jesus as God and savior and understnd your need for him.
actually, as a christian, i'm having a real problem with this one lately. i love god and believe that he does what's best for us. why do i need someone else to die to fit requirements you say god put on me? why would god require a sacrifice, instead of just saying "this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found?"
i've read the book of john. i've read matthew. i've read mark and luke. i've read a good deal of the bible, and it still doesn't make sense to me. this is my issue of faith right now.
but would you really want to take that chance that it might not be true and face etenal seperation from God and banishment in Hell.
why threaten hellfire? you've got a very dualistic misconception here, i think. yes, that's a good way to get converts, threaten and scare them. religion out of fear.
Jesus came to die because he loved everyone who was, is, and will be on earth and to save them from sin
i think jesus's life was far more important.
And if you havint i would reconmend watching the Gospel of John the motion picture.
the passion? do you realize how full of catholic dogma and relic references it is?
i would suggest franco zepherelli's "jesus of nazareth" or "the last temptation of christ" or even "jesus christ superstar" instead.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 12-07-2004 12:47 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Swift, posted 12-07-2004 12:06 AM Swift has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by dpardo, posted 12-07-2004 3:42 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 12 of 215 (165806)
12-07-2004 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by AdminPhat
12-07-2004 12:36 AM


Re: The one whom Jesus loved....
In response to NightTrain, most sources pen the authorship of the Gospel of John, 1,2,3 John and Revelation on the same historical figure, namely John the Apostle.
i'm not convinced, but that's another topic.
Swift, many people here in this forum are not believers.
for the record, brennakimi and i are both believers, and we both hold the gospel of john to be greivously flawed. part of my position is in fact very religiously oriented. the gospel of john takes a very negative stance on judaism, god's chosen, and reports christ as saying blasphemous things. i would be lying if i said these objections had nothing to do with my belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by AdminPhat, posted 12-07-2004 12:36 AM AdminPhat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Phat, posted 12-07-2004 4:01 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 201 by Phat, posted 01-25-2015 10:31 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 14 of 215 (165808)
12-07-2004 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Swift
12-07-2004 12:55 AM


Re: The one whom Jesus loved....
you do realize that preaching won't get you very far here, right? especially not since you're preaching to the choir so to speak.
brennakimi and i are BOTH believing christians.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Swift, posted 12-07-2004 12:55 AM Swift has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Swift, posted 12-07-2004 1:30 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 16 of 215 (165818)
12-07-2004 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Swift
12-07-2004 1:30 AM


Re: The one whom Jesus loved....
Jesus was God and sacrificed himself so that we might belive in him.
can god die? is god mortal? these are dangerous claims. also, if jesus is god, why does address god as "father?" or address god at all?
The Gospel of John says that he came to save the world and not condeme it.
yet a few posts above you offered condemnations.
David sinned
yet according to the bible, david is still perfect and righteous in the eyes of god. which book are you going to disregard? kings or romans? do you really believe ALL of the bible? can you?
When he was dying on the cross he even prayed for the people crucifiing him.
and yet john, as well as the writings of paul condemn judaism. even matthew has hints of it, but none as fully blown as john.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 12-07-2004 01:51 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Swift, posted 12-07-2004 1:30 AM Swift has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 18 of 215 (165840)
12-07-2004 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Nighttrain
12-07-2004 2:32 AM


Re: The one whom Jesus loved....
If there were such a thing as the Atheist`s Bible, would you accept as evidence, me quoting from it?
Skeptic's Annotated Bible / Quran / Book of Mormon ?
i find it far more fun to refute standard dogmatic views with verses from the bible they claim to accept.
although, on a similar point, dpardo still hasn't answered my quotes in another thread. he wanted to know why quoting the new testament to jews was unacceptable, and so i quoted the koran to him. i think i'll try the book of mormon next. and if that doesn't work, dianetics.
simply put, if you don't believe the book, someone quoting it isn't gonna work well to convince you.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 12-07-2004 03:30 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Nighttrain, posted 12-07-2004 2:32 AM Nighttrain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by dpardo, posted 12-07-2004 5:37 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 23 of 215 (165868)
12-07-2004 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Phat
12-07-2004 4:01 AM


Re: The one whom Jesus loved....
Arachnophia, what constitutes your definition of a Believer?
faith in the existance of god, and belief in his son jesus christ.
How does a Christian be so defined in light of your stance on scriptural fallibility?
i worship a god, not a book.
Where then does the source of authority originate?
authority is falsely placed on the bible. do we need an authoritative book to believe in god? i don't see why there is any need for authority, at all. if you believe it, you believe it. if you don't, you don't. where does the book come in?
It is not in the Bible, if the Bible is an error prone literary adjunct.
Where is your source?
god. christianity is a personal relationship with god, right?
look, in some regards i believe the book of john. there is greater truth to it, and it's message is very poetic and powerful. i just feel that it is a very flawed representation of christ. any idiot can pick up a bible and go "duh this doesn't make sense, these stories all contradict each other." i can point out LOTS of them off the top of my head.
people have been doing this for thousands of years. how has faith continued to exist in spite of it? claiming that the bible is an infallible and reliable source is just plain wrong, but that doesn't mean we have to disregard ALL of it. it's not an all or nothing game; this idea perpetrated by the fundamentalist church has possible done more damage in recent years than any other.
look, genesis 1 and 2 may completely contradict each other. people have known this forever. both stories can't be literally true, and one has to be wrong. but even if they're both wrong (and they are) they both still contain a greater truth: there is some part of god in us. the trick to the bible is to look for those truths, not nitpick the details.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Phat, posted 12-07-2004 4:01 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Dr Jack, posted 12-07-2004 10:10 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 31 by dpardo, posted 12-07-2004 5:30 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 25 of 215 (165894)
12-07-2004 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dr Jack
12-07-2004 10:10 AM


Re: Applause from the crowd.
*bows*
as a side not (added by edit), i think it's important to note why i study the inconsistencies and errors in the bible, as a believer. i find that it's useful to know and understand how much leeway or literalness i should read the text with, judging from the context and when it was written.
part of the reason i try to make people aware of the problems is so that people think about the text some more. the book of job may be from two different sources, and the poetry may contradict the story slightly, and it's written MUCH later than it's set, but it tells us something important. it's good to get the details out of the way so we can focus on the message, the reason behind the writing. i think it's much more interesting and meaningful to read and understand these books as literature, instead of just following along in church.
it's only when i disagree with the book on an idealogical basis that i choose to completely disregard it. such is the case with john and paul's letters. it's not that there are contradictions, but that they insult my faith.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 12-07-2004 12:20 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dr Jack, posted 12-07-2004 10:10 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Phat, posted 12-07-2004 2:49 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 28 of 215 (165958)
12-07-2004 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by dpardo
12-07-2004 3:42 PM


Re: The one whom Jesus loved....
don't ever claim to be a literalist. swift didn't say "sinless" he said "perfect." genesis calls noah "perfect."
i believe you'll find the other quotes follow suit.
You have misunderstood what is meant by "perfect" in Genesis 6:9.
actually, i haven't. noah is just and upright and without blame. when this word is applied to job, it HAS to mean sinless: if job has sinned then god's curses are just punishment. but the point of the story is that he has not sinned.
i think you and swift have misunderstood something about god: he is a forgiving and understanding god. asa sins, but is called perfect. david sins, but is called perfect. noah and job are perfect. god is not this cruel overlord that you make him out to be, striking us down for our tiniest faults. he made us, with those faults, and loves and forgives us in spite of them.
one of the messages of job is that even job is perfect and righteous, he cannot even begin to compare to god. but god does not expect us to be gods, does he?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by dpardo, posted 12-07-2004 3:42 PM dpardo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by dpardo, posted 12-07-2004 4:42 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 37 of 215 (166092)
12-08-2004 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by dpardo
12-07-2004 5:37 PM


Re: The one whom Jesus loved....
If you are interested in debating material in the Koran I suggest you create a new thread. I would be interested in participating if you are prepared to defend the Koran as divine revelation by God.
you missed my point. i am not prepared to defend the koran as divine revelation. if i was, i'd be muslim.
my point is that you don't accept it because it is of another religion that distorts the foundation of your beliefs in such a way that you can plainly see it's "problems."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by dpardo, posted 12-07-2004 5:37 PM dpardo has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 38 of 215 (166094)
12-08-2004 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by dpardo
12-07-2004 5:30 PM


Re: The one whom Jesus loved....
It has been shown, on this forum, that it is completely reasonable to accept Genesis 2 as elaboration, in part, of Genesis 1. The narrative style of the author is used again in Genesis 5:1-2:
we've been over this before, but this not the place. it is the standard academic position that gen 1 and 2 are separate accounts.
Is it logical to deduce that this is yet another creation account?
No. It is plainly a continuation of the story.
you want the proper position? yes and no. it's not another creation story, but it is a separate account. gen 1 is from source e, gen 2+3 are from j, and gen 5 is from p. they are all separate and DISTINCT styles of writing, serve separate functions, and refer to god in different ways.
why does gen 6:9 repeat 5:32? why does 6 contain a new introduction and reference point if it's a story continued from gen 5 and 4?
try skipping the genealogies next time, you probably do anyways. heck, most of us do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by dpardo, posted 12-07-2004 5:30 PM dpardo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by dpardo, posted 12-08-2004 2:00 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 39 of 215 (166095)
12-08-2004 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by dpardo
12-07-2004 4:42 PM


this is gonna get silly in a hurry
I didn't say he said "sinless", I said he implied "sinless".
i never said that you said he said "sinless" i just said that he did not say "sinless" and reading things the bible didn't say into it merely interpretation, when in fact what i said was that the bible said that we can be perfect without being "sinless" so to speak.
*breathes*
ok, now which end is which?
my point is that the bible says the perfection in the eyes of god is realistically attainable to any human being, but that god doesn't expect us to be perfect in the "like god" respect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by dpardo, posted 12-07-2004 4:42 PM dpardo has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 42 of 215 (166105)
12-08-2004 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Swift
12-07-2004 10:36 PM


Arachnophilia your question "can God die?"
don't thank me, thank neitzsche. oh wait, nevermind...
was it "god is dead" -- neitzsche or "neitzsche is dead" -- god. i forget?
Jesus was God in the flesh(hint:flesh) he died and rose so that the world might belive that he was who he said he was.
1. why did jesus need to prove it?
quote:
John 20:29
blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.
2. why did jesus need to die?
quote:
Psalm 40:6
Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.
3. why is jesus resurrection significant in conquering death?
quote:
John 11:43,44
And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.
And God the Father since he was the God head it makes perfect since why Jesus refered to him as father even though they are the same.
actually, it doesn't. i bought into the trinity idea for many years, and i don't anymore. read any gospel's record of the events in gethsemane. jesus is not some remote extention of diety, he's very separate and small compared to god.
And you mentiened condemnations. If you are refering to my comment on sin it is because it is the truth, everybody does sin.
no, i'm talking about threats of hellfire. jesus ame to tell us how to live our lives, loving one another. the kingdom of god on earth. religion out of fear is stupid. just in case, right? focus on the afterlife, ignore this one?
And dpardo was right I did mean sinless when i said perfect. Thanks dpardo.
who is righteous when compared to god?
god does not expect us to be god. just the person he made us to be. being sinless is almost inhuman. i say almost, because perfect in the context of job certainly does mean without sin. otherwise, we have no book.
And what propaganda? Could you expalian? And how do these books condeme Judisam?
the verses after the last john verse i quoted:
quote:
John 11:45-48 Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him. But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done. Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all [men] will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
see also the all the external references (the Jews, "YOUR law," etc.) who does it blame for the death of jesus at roman hands?
And also qouting the koran and other books that go aginst the bible(dont know what dianetics is thogh)? And yet you said in another couple threads that you where a christian? It sounded by what you said that you belived those books. That to me is like saying your on a diet yet have a snikers bar hanging out of your mouth.
calling me a hypocrite, eh? nice try though.
i quoted the koran to demonstrate a point about why quoting outside the religion (or lack thereof) isn't redily accepted. dpardo wasn't supposed to accept the verses, he was supposed to reject them.
although, ironically, i do agree with the intent of those verses: strict monotheism, none comparing to god. but no, i do not believe the koran, or the book of mormon. but i do find it useful to compare religions, various sects, and the literature of surrounding nations (as well as extra-biblical literature such as the apocrypha and pseudepigraphica) for a sense of context. i like to make my choices from all available possibilities.
and "dianetics" is a book by l. ron hubbard, regarding scientology, which is very obviously bogus to very many people. but don't tell that to john travolta.
You said that the bible does not have to be all truthfull and that you dont worship it. Well nethier do I, but I would not follow a religon if its teachings were part wrong and part right just like I would not put a celling fan up over my bed if part of the directions to put it up where wrong. It is also like a bridge. You cant go over a bridge that is half built.
yet you do.
want another one of the top of my head? give me the name of jesus's (earthly) grandfather on joseph's side. what does luke say? what does matthew say? moreover, compare matthew's early half of the genealogy to chronicles. why does matthew skip a few? and why is luke's 15 whole generations longer (not counting pre-david)?
both of these authors though this point was important enough to include, and ONE of them HAS to be wrong. now compare that to paul's view:
quote:
1Ti 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: [so do].
which do you agree with? all three can't be right. two have to be wrong. personally, and it sickens me to no end to say this, i agree with paul here, at least in part. i differ in that i think questions are useful. they let us know to take the bible with a bit of a grain of salt.
so now suppose that both genealogies are just made up as paul implies. does that affect the truth that god loves us?
The Bible says that god is truthfull.
it also reports god in a lie, and quotes god as sending a lying spirit to speak on his behalf. which do you believe?
The Bible is Gods WORD.
nope. guess again?
the bible is a collection of documents regarding and relating to one specific god, whom you and i hold to be the only god. it is composed of many different sources, all written down by fallible men, combined and compiled and editted by fallible men, and translated by fallible men. if you really want i can point out scribal mistakes in the masoretic hebrew thousands of years old...
the bible may contain inspiration from god, or even some of his words, but being his word, definitive and complete and inerrant? well, i've already proven that wrong 3 or 4 times in this thread alone. you should pay more attention.
And if even just a part of the Bible is wrong that means God lied. But he dosent lie because he is a God of truth.
quote:
Gen 2:17 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.
that was a lie, wasn't it? adam didn't die that day, he lived another 590 years. and don't tell me it's not, because i am VERY thankful for that lie. don't get me wrong, i'm not implying god's judgement was wrong, or that lying to his children is somehow bad. it was obviously the right thing to do. but god is very much above our morality. so what if god lies?
doesn't mean doesn't exist or that we shouldn't have faith in him. what choice do we have?
I also dont think that the apostles would have lied or made something up. Why? Because they would have had nothing to gain from it.
actually, churches are the best tax-exempt sources of income (ask l. ron hubbard). paul had EVERYTHING to gain by lying.
Unlike Mohammed who lived the rich and carefree life after he proclaimed himself as a prophet of Allah, but the apostles died terrable deaths just like Jesus and where not anywhere close to rich or even middle class.
saul was rich before he became paul. yeah, the romans executed christians and such. but apparently the biblical accounts are a little distorted. the roman were well known for tolerance: they let jewish observers refrain from roman temple tributes, let them use their own coinage in their own temples, allowed them certain things for their holy laws, etc. while they didn't view the new christian church as legitimate, there were no practices that outright provoked attack other than refusal to observe roman practices. people were never killed just because they were christians, but because they didn't pay their taxes.
this is why the nt takes a very apologetic view on the romans, and tries to convince followers to go with rome (give unto caeser). in a judaic view, a true messiah would have lead a military uprising against roman occupation. but it was really only the dissidents and not the majority that were looking for any such messiah at all.
And i dont think they would have gone along with it if they were making it up. They probobly would have renounced there beleifs if they had made it up. Plus these guys were Jews and i dont think they would be hatefull or antisemistic.
don't look at me, i didn't write the books.
and they were not jews, they were FORMER jews. the antisemitism began when the christian church separated from the judaism. it would not have been around at the time of christ.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Swift, posted 12-07-2004 10:36 PM Swift has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Swift, posted 12-08-2004 11:35 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 43 of 215 (166106)
12-08-2004 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by macaroniandcheese
12-08-2004 2:41 AM


Re: The one whom Jesus loved....
yes *scrunches nose*
ashtar too. he started it, actually.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-08-2004 2:41 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 46 of 215 (166117)
12-08-2004 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by macaroniandcheese
12-08-2004 2:59 AM


using new testament verses to prove to a jew that jesus is the messiah is about as useful as using verses in the mormon text to prove to you that joseph smith actually had golden tablets
precisely.
and now for a quote from lds scripture:
quote:
Moroni 10:3-5
Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
this is the standard mormon test of faith, the keystone to the religion. they believe because of that gut feeling, god telling them what's right. now i agree with alot of mormon doctrines, and i mean alot. the church of latter day saints is simply the best church i have ever been to. but i didn't have the heard to tell the missionaries that their book didn't pass that simple test with me.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 12-08-2004 03:16 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-08-2004 2:59 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024