Antichrist

[Vic]

Originally posted by: fitzov
While I'm certainly not a theology expert, the last two posts seem to completely ignore the Calvanist traditions, which believe that salvation lies in faith alone. Acts are irrelevant since predestination is an aspect of Calvanism. These would include: Puritan, Reformed Baptist, Congregationalist, some versions of Anglican, and others.

I was pretty clear about my dislike of the teachings of John Calvin. In fact, I said in an earlier post (and I quote) "Calvin was just plain wrong and full of sh!t." If one is going to be a Christian (I am not), then IMO one should be a Christian. Predestination, which Calvin taught, is completely and entirely in conflict with the teachings of Christ, who emphasized Free Will. It is my belief that Calvin taught Predestination in order to justify the conceit of the faithful, i.e. "We're saved and you're not." Note how Crono here immediately turned to his Calvinism to justify his attack on another faith. It is hypocritical in the extreme. Ephesians 2, which they use to justify their prejudice, says that God saves whom He chooses. They twist that, in complete contradiction of the very intent of the passage, into God saves whom THEY choose.

:disgust:

 

[Crono]

You're probably right, I did miss the point. Why? Because there wasn't one, just like there is not one here. Paul said "the mystery". Now you seem to be supposing that the "mystery" to which he is referring is the converting of the Gentiles. Now there are two problems with your interpretation. 1.) He said "other ages" not "all other ages", meaning that at times this knowledge was not made known, but at other times it may have been, and secondly, tell me the exact time period that makes an "age", 2) The mystery involves the Gentiles being converted, not the fact that they will be converted. The mystery of Christ was made known to them, which allowed them to administer to the Gentiles. The mystery is what allowed them to administer, not the actual administration. Now what your real question should be is "what is that mystery". I highly recommend you explore that, because it is an incredible bit of knowledge to gain.

The phrase ?other ages? comes from a combination of two Greek words: ?heteros?, other or different?, and the plural form of ????????a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons)?. So together the phrase means in ?other ages? or in ?other generations?. He doesn?t say ?in all other generations? because it is implied by what he says next: ?as it has now been revealed?. The key word is ?now?. Notice he doesn?t say ?again?. That indicates that it wasn?t known before.

You?re definitely right that knowing what the ?mystery? is is important. I didn?t quite understand your explanation of what the mystery is, but nevertheless I went back and read the chapter (Ephesians 3) and Paul explains. I also looked at an outline created by John MacArthur, who knows a lot more than I, having spent thousands and thousands of hours in the Word of God, and just listening to him you can tell he has great knowledge and strong relationship with the Lord. I suggest that anyone wanting to know what the mysteries are should read that as a guide, which enumerates the different references that relate to the mystery. In any case, within that portion of Ephesians 3 Paul says the mystery ?is that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel? and 2 Nephi says ?as many of the Gentiles as will repent are the covenant people of the Lord?. Paul is saying explicitly that the mystery in this case is that the Gentiles will be fellow heirs of the covenant as the Jews are (the covenant established with Abraham) and 2 Nephi says the same. Considering Paul had just said that this was not revealed in times past, but only now (during the time of Paul, after the death and resurrection on Christ), and that Mormons claim 2 Nephi was written long before the birth of Christ, there is only 1 conclusion you could possibly draw without completely distorting what is said either in the Bible or 2 Nephi: that 2 Nephi was written after the birth of Christ. The answer you about this contradiction has twisted what is clear as day in this passage. God did not mean for there to be different interpretations of His Word, but it is a tactic Satan uses to divide the children of God and to discourage anyone from seeking Him. He mixes lies with truth in order to deceive.

Map of Israel
Jerusalem and Bethlehem are 2 different cities. Bethlehem was never part of Jerusalem.

And I have more to say, but got to go- I'll be late for class otherwise.

 

[tealk]

He will be whomever makes peace in the middle east. That much I know for sure. That time is near.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Crono

The phrase ?other ages? comes from a combination of two Greek words: ?heteros?, other or different?, and the plural form of ????????a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons)?. So together the phrase means in ?other ages? or in ?other generations?. He doesn?t say ?in all other generations? because it is implied by what he says next: ?as it has now been revealed?. The key word is ?now?. Notice he doesn?t say ?again?. That indicates that it wasn?t known before.

You?re definitely right that knowing what the ?mystery? is is important. I didn?t quite understand your explanation of what the mystery is, but nevertheless I went back and read the chapter (Ephesians 3) and Paul explains. I also looked at an outline created by John MacArthur (http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg2138.htm), who knows a lot more than I, having spent thousands and thousands of hours in the Word of God, and just listening to him you can tell he has great knowledge and strong relationship with the Lord. I suggest that anyone wanting to know what the mysteries are should read that as a guide, which enumerates the different references that relate to the mystery. In any case, within that portion of Ephesians 3 Paul says the mystery ?is that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel? and 2 Nephi says ?as many of the Gentiles as will repent are the covenant people of the Lord?. Paul is saying explicitly that the mystery in this case is that the Gentiles will be fellow heirs of the covenant as the Jews are (the covenant established with Abraham) and 2 Nephi says the same. Considering Paul had just said that this was not revealed in times past, but only now (during the time of Paul, after the death and resurrection on Christ), and that Mormons claim 2 Nephi was written long before the birth of Christ, there is only 1 conclusion you could possibly draw without completely distorting what is said either in the Bible or 2 Nephi: that 2 Nephi was written after the birth of Christ. The answer you about this contradiction has twisted what is clear as day in this passage. God did not mean for there to be different interpretations of His Word, but it is a tactic Satan uses to divide the children of God and to discourage anyone from seeking Him. He mixes lies with truth in order to deceive.

Map of Israel
Jerusalem and Bethlehem are 2 different cities. Bethlehem was never part of Jerusalem.

And I have more to say, but got to go- I'll be late for class otherwise.

You're still guessing at what the mystery is, even if you are quoting an "expert" on the subject. By the way, the link doesn't work.

If you wish an explanation as to what the mystery is, it is very simply. Why was the gospel not preached to the Gentiles before? Why did Christ not minister to the Gentiles before? The question is not whether the Gentiles would receive the gospel. Even Isaiah saw that in prophecy (Isaiah 11:10, 42:1, 42:6, 49:6, 49:22). That is why I asked about the "ages" period, because it is more than obvious that Isaiah saw the Gentiles receiving the Gospel, yet you claim that this is the mystery and no one before Paul saw it. The fact that the Gentile would look to Christ and be received was common knowledge. The mystery is why they could not receive it until after Christ had come, which all of these verses confirm.

The answer is there, and I don't even need the Book of Mormon to find it, but it sure does help.

As for your Jerusalem/Bethelehem thing, the Bible itself even refers to Jerusalem as a land quite often (2 Sam 5:6, 2Kgs. 24:14-15, 1 Chr. 11:4, 2 Chr. 36:3, Jer 6:8). Jerusalem, whether your map shows it or not, was often used to refer to the city, the surrounding area (land), or even simply the people that reside there. The Savior himself often referred to Jerusalem (Matt 23:37, Luke 13:34) and did so by meaning not simply the people and locations within the city, but of all his people in all the land round about Jerusalem, which would have included Bethlehem. Unless you think he wasn't talking to them or offering to gather them in unto himself? Perhaps he should have said, "O Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Hebron, Galilee, Jerico, etc., how oft I would have gathered thee". I mean, after all, was he not speaking to all of them actually?

You're grasping at straws and it's getting old. The fact is you believe what you want to believe because it allows you to sleep at night. You can preach how wrong I am and you can believe it all you wish, but it doesn't change anything. I have a confirmation from God of what I believe and no offense, but you, like me, are merely a man. Why would I believe you even if you were actually able to prove a contradiction? And since I know you're going to say it, NO, I have not been deceived, and don't even try to pull that "well I know you're wrong because I've been guided by the spirit to know it." If you believe such is the case, then tell me by what authority you received the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and I want a trace of that authority back to Jesus Christ. I have one. Do you?

Speaking of which, how many more contradictions are you going to present? Is this just going to keep going until you think you've found one that stumped me? I'm easily stumped my friend, for there are many things I don't know or understand yet, yet you have shown nothing but your insistence that I am wrong and you are right. If you wish to continue to debate this, do it over PM because you're wasting a lot of space on this thread with your anti-Mormon attitude that has absolutely nothing to do with the original topic.

EDIT: And you are correct, Satan does twist the truth in order to deceive. Question is, which of us is deceived? My guess is that the answer will only be revealed at the Judgement day, and I can't wait!!

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
We're created in his IMAGE (Gen 1:27, Gen 9:6)
We're created in his LIKENESS (Gen 5:1)
Feet (Ex. 24:10)
Fingers (Ex 31:18)
Back parts (Ex 33:23)
Mouth (Num 12:8, Matt 4:4)
Hands (Acts 7:56)
Christ in the very appearance of God (John 14:9), oh and if you don't like my definition of image, look at (2 Cor 4:4, Philip 2:6, Philip 3:21, Hebrew 1:3)

If God doesn't have a body, how can Christ be his "express image of his person" if he doesn't have a body?

As for seeing him
Saw him face to face (Gen 32:30, Ex 33:11, Ex 33:23, Isaiah 6:5)
Appeared to Solomon twice (1 Kings 11:9)

Though you're right. There are verses that say we can not see God and live. Looks like a contradiction, huh? Can you explain it without contradiction? I can, but I would like to let you try the "prove contradictions wrong" shoes on for a bit.

Again, either you?re not reading what I posted, or you are reading what isn?t there. I said no one has seen the Father, and the Father is spirit. Read 1 Colossians 1:15:
?He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.?

First, let?s examine the definition of image, as it was used in the OT, in the original Hebrew, because the usage of the word ?image? varies slightly from the Hebrew word in the text. Notice the definition provided in that link: ?an image, likeness?. So when the Bible says we are in the image of God the Father, or Jesus is in the image of the Father, it is saying we are in the likeness of Him; such as a shadow is in the likeness of the person or object casting the shadow. Note, however, that in none of the references you gave, does it say man has a physical body like the Father nor does it say the Father has a body.

Now you are quite correct in pointing out that Moses and the elders saw God on the mountain, He appeared to Solomon, as well as others (Abraham, King Nebuchadnezzar, Gideon, etc.).Who they saw, as well as others in the Old Testament and of course the New Testament, was Jesus, not the Father. As I said before, no one has seen the glory of the Father. Read Exodus 33:19-20:
?Then He said, ?I will make all My goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before you. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.? But He said, ?You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live.?

 

[Kadarin]

My opinion is that the very concept of religion is a human cultural invention that fulfulls a need for many to feel like their lives have some deeper meaning. In other words, it's largely (if not entirely) hogwash.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
My opinion is that the very concept of religion is a human cultural invention that fulfulls a need for many to feel like their lives have some deeper meaning. In other words, it's largely (if not entirely) hogwash.

:thumbsup:

 

[Mashed Potato]

I remember learning of greek gods, lightning bolts...yada yada.....saying to myself...looney tunes....do you think future generations will be learning of jesus, crosses, bread and wine...yada yada....and thinking of us as looney tunes?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
My opinion is that the very concept of religion is a human cultural invention that fulfulls a need for many to feel like their lives have some deeper meaning. In other words, it's largely (if not entirely) hogwash.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Crono

Again, either you?re not reading what I posted, or you are reading what isn?t there. I said no one has seen the Father, and the Father is spirit. Read 1 Colossians 1:15:
?He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.?

*yawn*, wow, this just keeps going on and on. I see you still have not addressed any of my questions, nor have you acknoledged the fact that all of my explanations have withstood your pamphlet questions. Yet I shall endulge you one last time with an explanation since you don't seem to be able to come to them on your own.

Do you see him? Have you seen him? Does that mean he isn't there? Does that fact in any way, shape or form have any bearing on what he looks like? Nope. He could look like a giraffee and you would never know because you can't see him as you are. So this verse in no way, shape, or form has any bearing on his appearance, only the fact that you can not see him in your *current state*.

First, let?s examine the definition of image, as it was used in the OT, in the original Hebrew, because the usage of the word ?image? varies slightly from the Hebrew word in the text. Notice the definition provided in that link: ?an image, likeness?. So when the Bible says we are in the image of God the Father, or Jesus is in the image of the Father, it is saying we are in the likeness of Him; such as a shadow is in the likeness of the person or object casting the shadow. Note, however, that in none of the references you gave, does it say man has a physical body like the Father nor does it say the Father has a body.

Good point. And does the shadow not take on the EXACT SAME SHAPE of the body? If God is simply a spirit and has no body, and we are created in him image (shadow), we should have the same form. Consider a cloud. Does a clouds shadow not come in the same form as the cloud itself?

Does it say anywhere that God has a body? In those words, no. Why? Because they already knew he had a body!! This wasn't rocket science to them. Why state the obvious? Rather, state aspects about what is not already known. If someone ask me to describe another person, I'm not going to say "Oh, they have a body!!!" Well no kidding!! It's understood!! So rather, I'll tell you about different parts of their body. What color hair they have, their eyes, skin color, physical stature. Sounds like the same things that were mentioned in those verses. What are the odds???

As for your image description, let's look at Gen 5:3
And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

Now what are the odds that that would follow RIGHT AFTER the description given about man's appearance as compared to God's?? Hmm, even used the same words?? Curious, very curious. All you have to do is look at THAT verse to understand exactly what the Lord meant when he said we are created in his image, and in his likeness. Just as a son/daughter is created in the likeness and image of his father/mother, so we are created in the image of God. Period.

Now you are quite correct in pointing out that Moses and the elders saw God on the mountain, He appeared to Solomon, as well as others (Abraham, King Nebuchadnezzar, Gideon, etc.).

Oh wait, you said no one ever saw God. Are you confessing to being incorrect?? Can't be, let's look at the explanation.

Who they saw, as well as others in the Old Testament and of course the New Testament, was Jesus, not the Father. As I said before, no one has seen the glory of the Father. Read Exodus 33:19-20:
?Then He said, ?I will make all My goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before you. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.? But He said, ?You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live.?

Ah, so God and Christ are two separate beings and you're willing to admit that??? Interesting. Should that not be the case, then your explanation holds no water and you need to try again.

However, you're still wrong. Consider Genesis chapter 3. Adam sees the Lord. Now you claim that he saw Christ. Now if you are correct, and Adam saw Christ and Christ only, then what is Christ talking about when he said, "Behold, the man is become as one of us," (verse 22).

Now Christians have long sense used that verse to show the concept behind the trinity. Why? Because it shows the presence of more than one intity there. So this can mean one of three things, 1) You're wrong about the trinity and Adam only saw God there, and that verse is a misinterpretation, 2) The trinity is correct but your idea that no man has seen God the Father is incorrect, or 3) Both ideas are wrong. Personally, I go with 3, but that's my opinion.

If you wish to understand what the scripture you quoted really means, you first understand what happened to those individuals when they saw God, and I do mean the Father. Each of these people were changed. Adam didn't need to be because the fall had not as yet happened. But you'll notice, after this event, he was separated from God's presence. Does that mean that people couldn't see him? No, but it does mean they need to be in a state similar to Adams in order to do so.

Consider (and try to actually do that) what Moses said.

And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have bseen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

Now why would he say that if the same thing wasn't in place for Christ as was in place for God?? He was marveling at the fact that he *could* see God and yet still live. Why? Because it is possible, but a change my occur because we can not see God in our natural state.

I understand why you feel the way you do, but you're not proving anything here. Every question you've asked, I've answered. Every snide remark you've made has been throw aside. You're not going to prove the LDS faith wrong because it isn't. Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and the work he did was foreordained by God. It is God's work and it will not be stopped by you. Many have tried, all have failed. Accept it if you will, reject it if you choose. Such is you're right. But I know it to be the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and the one sure way to return to him again.