I hate it how Christians attribute random events of life to "miracles."

[LEDominator]

Well first of all, the Trinity is not the only thing in the universe that has a composite nature.

Take water for example. Water can exist in three states: solid, liquid, and gas. Each individual state of water is unique, yet all three are hydrogen hydroxide. Likewise, water can exist in its three forms at the same time.

The same can be applied to the Trinity. Each personage of the Trinity is like water. You have the Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit (Ghost). Each is individual, yet all three are the same God, at the same time.

No, that doesn't work, because water can not exist in all three state simultaneously as the Godhead does. Water can be in one and only one state at a time. And as we all know, the 3 always exist simultaneously. A very good evidence of this is at the Baptism of Christ. So your explanation still doesn't work.

ahahahaha, dude, ever heard of Antarctica, perhaps The Alps or the Himalayas? Yeah, there is snow and ice there, and if you are low enough there is snow (ice), water from the meltoff and, get this, water vapor in the AIR! OMG Amazing! lol.

btw, there are a number of teachings out of synch with Christianity:

1. Atonement
1. "Jesus paid for all our sins when He suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane," (Laurel Rohlfing, ?Sharing Time: The Atonement,? Friend, Mar. 1989, 39.)
2. "We accept Christ's atonement by repenting of our sins, being baptized, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and obeying all of the commandments," (Gospel Principles, Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1979, pg. 68.)

2. Baptism
1. Baptism for the dead, (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. II, p. 141.) This is a practice of baptizing each other in place of non-Mormons who are now dead. Their belief is that in the afterlife, the "newly baptized" person will be able to enter into a higher level of Mormon heaven.

3. Bible
1. "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. . ." 8th Article of Faith of the Mormon Church.
2. "Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God." (1 Nephi 13:28).
4. Book of Mormon
1. The book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible, (History of the Church, 4:461.)

5. Devil, the
1. The Devil was born as a spirit after Jesus "in the morning of pre-existence," (Mormon Doctrine, page 192.)
2. Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163.)
3. A plan of salvation was needed for the people of earth so Jesus offered a plan to the Father and Satan offered a plan to the father but Jesus' plan was accepted. In effect the Devil wanted to be the Savior of all Mankind and to "deny men their agency and to dethrone god." (Mormon Doctrine, page 193; Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, page 8.)

6. God
1. God used to be a man on another planet, Mormon Doctrine, p. 321. Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, Vol 5, pp. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol 2, p. 345, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333.)
2. "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man?s..." (D&C 130:22).
3. God is in the form of a man, (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 3.)
4. "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345
5. God the Father had a Father, (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 476; Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 19; Milton Hunter, First Council of the Seventy, Gospel through the Ages, p. 104-105.)
6. God resides near a star called Kolob, (Pearl of Great Price, pages 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, p. 428.)
7. God had sexual relations with Mary to make the body of Jesus, (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, p. 218, 1857; vol. 8, p. 115.) - This one is disputed among many Mormons and not always 'officially' taught and believed. Nevertheless, Young, the 2nd prophet of the Mormon church taught it.
8. "Therefore we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body . . . of flesh and bones." (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 38).

7. God, becoming a god
1. After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god, (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pages 345-347, 354.)
2. "Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them," (DC 132:20).

8. God, many gods
1. There are many gods, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163.)
2. "And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light: and there was light (Book of Abraham 4:3)

9. God, mother goddess
1. There is a mother god, (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443.)
2. God is married to his goddess wife and has spirit children, (Mormon Doctrine p. 516.)

10. God, Trinity
1. The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. "That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man." (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35.)

11. Gospel, the
1. The true gospel was lost from the earth. Mormonism is its restoration, (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 182-185.)
2. Consists of laws and ordinances: "As these sins are the result of individual acts it is just that forgiveness for them should be conditioned on individual compliance with prescribed requirements -- 'obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.'" (Articles of Faith p. 79)

12. Heaven
1. There are three levels of heaven: telestial, terrestrial, and celestial, Mormon Doctrine, p. 348.

13. Holy Ghost, the
1. The Holy Ghost is a male personage, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, (Le Grand Richards, Salt Lake City, 1956, page 118; Journal of Discources, Vol. 5, page 179.)

14. Jesus
1. The first spirit to be born in heaven was Jesus, (Mormon Doctrine, page 129.)
2. Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163; Gospel Through the Ages, p. 15.)
3. Jesus' sacrifice was not able to cleanse us from all our sins, (murder and repeated adultery are exceptions), (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 247, 1856.)
4. "Therefore we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body . . . of flesh and bones." (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 38).
5. "The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood - was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8: p. 115).
6. "Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers" (Mormon Doctrine," by Bruce McConkie, p. 547).
7. "Christ Not Begotten of Holy Ghost ...Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God!" (Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith, 1954, 1:18).
8. "Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh ..." (First Presidency and Council of the Twelve, 1916, God the Father, compiled by Gordon Allred, pg. 150).

15. Joseph Smith
1. If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation. There is no salvation [the context is the full gospel including exaltation to Godhood] outside the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 670.)

16. Pre-existence
1. We were first begotten as spirit children in heaven and then born naturally on earth, (Journal of Discourse, Vol. 4, p. 218.)
2. The first spirit to be born in heaven was Jesus, (Mormon Doctrine, page 129.)
3. The Devil was born as a spirit after Jesus "in the morning of pre-existence," (Mormon Doctrine, page 192.)

17. Prophets
1. We need prophets today, the same as in the Old Testament, (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 444-445.)

18. Salvation
1. "One of the most fallacious doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by man is that man is saved alone by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus Christ alone is all that is needed for salvation." (Miracle of Forgiveness, Spencer W. Kimball, p. 206.)
2. A plan of salvation was needed for the people of earth so Jesus offered a plan to the Father and Satan offered a plan to the father but Jesus' plan was accepted. In effect the Devil wanted to be the Savior of all Mankind and to "deny men their agency and to dethrone god." (Mormon Doctrine, page 193; Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, page 8.)
3. Jesus' sacrifice was not able to cleanse us from all our sins, (murder and repeated adultery are exceptions), (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 247, 1856.)
4. Good works are necessary for salvation, Articles of Faith, p. 92.)
5. There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, p. 188.)
6. "The first effect [of the atonement] is to secure to all mankind alike, exemption from the penalty of the fall, thus providing a plan of General Salvation. The second effect is to open a way for Individual Salvation whereby mankind may secure remission of personal sins (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 78-79.)
7. "As these sins are the result of individual acts it is just that forgiveness for them should be conditioned on individual compliance with prescribed requirements -- 'obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.'" (Articles of Faith p. 79).
8. "This grace is an enabling power that allows men and women to lay hold on eternal life and exaltation after they have expended their own best efforts" (LDS Bible Dictionary, p. 697).
9. "We know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do," (2 Nephi 25:23).

19. Trinity, the
1. The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. "That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man." (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35.)
2. "Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God [anyhow]--three in one and one in three. . .It is curious organization? All are crammed into one God according to sectarianism (Christian faith). It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God--he would be a giant or a monster." (Joseph Smith, Teachings, 372).

-source carm.org

 

[Vic]

I really don't know what the atheists worry about given that the religionists can never stop fighting amongst themselves.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: LEDominator
ahahahaha, dude, ever heard of Antarctica, perhaps The Alps or the Himalayas? Yeah, there is snow and ice there, and if you are low enough there is snow (ice), water from the meltoff and, get this, water vapor in the AIR! OMG Amazing! lol.

ahahahaha, dude, ever heard of the fact that not a single water molecule is ever in all three states at once? If you paid attention, you would know exactly what I meant. If I wanted to see ice, water, and vapor, I don't need to go to Antarctica genius, I can look in my house. OMG Amazing, in my own house!! lol. Yet still, not a single particle that is in all three states at the same time.

btw, there are a number of teachings out of synch with Christianity:

You're quite right, but I never stated they were out of synch with Christianity. I'm rather grateful they are considering how off Christianity is. What they are not out of synch with is the Bible.

 

[LEDominator]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: LEDominator
ahahahaha, dude, ever heard of Antarctica, perhaps The Alps or the Himalayas? Yeah, there is snow and ice there, and if you are low enough there is snow (ice), water from the meltoff and, get this, water vapor in the AIR! OMG Amazing! lol.

ahahahaha, dude, ever heard of the fact that not a single water molecule is ever in all three states at once? If you paid attention, you would know exactly what I meant. If I wanted to see ice, water, and vapor, I don't need to go to Antarctica genius, I can look in my house. OMG Amazing, in my own house!! lol. Yet still, not a single particle that is in all three states at the same time.

btw, there are a number of teachings out of synch with Christianity:

You're quite right, but I never stated they were out of synch with Christianity. I'm rather grateful they are considering how off Christianity is. What they are not out of synch with is the Bible.

you never said a molecule, but again, you have to change the scenario once you are caught in a contradiction.

And, your teachings are out of sync with the Bible and therefore with Christianity. Though at least the mormons are finally recognising that. Its pretty clear even you are forced to recognise it but in your twisted state of mind go into denial over it. I showed my hand when you asked me to point out the inconsistencies and now you have... nothing.

Vic, Mormons aren't Christians, they just claim to be most of the time and thus the problem.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: LEDominator
you never said a molecule, but again, you have to change the scenario once you are caught in a contradiction.

No, you said one God, therefore you assume one water molecule genius. You can't compare a single entity with billions of entities. Doesn't work that way scooter. Sure, if I've got billions of water molecules, I can have ice, water, and vapor all exist at the same time. Problem is, there aren't billions of Gods. By your own words, there's one. So unless you're making the analogy correctly, which I obviously mistook you for being able to do, you can only have one molecule. However, since your not, your analogy is yet again worthless. But thanks for playing.

And, your teachings are out of sync with the Bible and therefore with Christianity. Though at least the mormons are finally recognising that. Its pretty clear even you are forced to recognise it but in your twisted state of mind go into denial over it. I showed my hand when you asked me to point out the inconsistencies and now you have... nothing.

You pointed out inconsistency with Christianity, not the Bible. You hand showed nothing. I have everything. If you would care to display to me how any of those verses are in disharmony with the Bible, I'm all ears. Give it your best shot.

Vic, Mormons aren't Christians, they just claim to be most of the time and thus the problem.

Actually, I want nothing to do with the title "Christian." The way people like you have polluted it, I find it more an insult that anything.

 

[LEDominator]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: LEDominator
you never said a molecule, but again, you have to change the scenario once you are caught in a contradiction.

No, you said one God, therefore you assume one water molecule genius. You can't compare a single entity with billions of entities. Doesn't work that way scooter. Sure, if I've got billions of water molecules, I can have ice, water, and vapor all exist at the same time. Problem is, there aren't billions of Gods. By your own words, there's one. So unless you're making the analogy correctly, which I obviously mistook you for being able to do, you can only have one molecule. However, since your not, your analogy is yet again worthless. But thanks for playing.

And, your teachings are out of sync with the Bible and therefore with Christianity. Though at least the mormons are finally recognising that. Its pretty clear even you are forced to recognise it but in your twisted state of mind go into denial over it. I showed my hand when you asked me to point out the inconsistencies and now you have... nothing.

You pointed out inconsistency with Christianity, not the Bible. You hand showed nothing. I have everything. If you would care to display to me how any of those verses are in disharmony with the Bible, I'm all ears. Give it your best shot.

Vic, Mormons aren't Christians, they just claim to be most of the time and thus the problem.

Actually, I want nothing to do with the title "Christian." The way people like you have polluted it, I find it more an insult that anything.

I never made the water analogy bud, you may want to check up on that. I may also point out that an analogy does not need like things in order to be an analogy. But then again you also miss the point. all three compose water which is "God." Therefore the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all the components of water which composes "God." If you fail to see it that is your problem, not mine.

The inconsistency IS with the Bible. Again, the only thing you have is delusion which is why you can't respond.

Here is a convienient table for you since you still don't get it

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: LEDominator
I never made the water analogy bud, you may want to check up on that. I may also point out that an analogy does not need like things in order to be an analogy. But then again you also miss the point. all three compose water which is "God." Therefore the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all the components of water which composes "God." If you fail to see it that is your problem, not mine.

Neither did I scooter, but you're the one arguing for it, so if you don't agree with it, stop using it. Not my fault it's a bad examply and you're using it.

Yes, all three compose water, yet all 3 are completely separate and easily distinguiable from the other. Ice, water, and vapor. All 3 separate and having separate characteristics.

So thank you for proving the Godhead and disproving the Trinity. Good job!!

After all, he's what you quoted about our belief:

1. The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. "That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man." (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35.)
2. "Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God [anyhow]--three in one and one in three. . .It is curious organization? All are crammed into one God according to sectarianism (Christian faith). It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God--he would be a giant or a monster." (Joseph Smith, Teachings, 372).

Wow, your example is spot on with the Mormon belief in the Godhead. Again, thanks!!

The inconsistency IS with the Bible. Again, the only thing you have is delusion which is why you can't respond.

Respond to what? You clearly stated as one of our beliefs that we believe the Bible to be the Word of God (as far as it is translated correctly). So how is that an inconsistency with the Bible?

I've asked you now twice, and this will be the third time, please provide me some form of inconsistency with the Bible? Am I supposed to be a mind reader and figure out what is going through your mind that makes you think there is some from of contradiction there?

Here is a convienient table for you since you still don't get it

Again, those are contradiction with Christianity, not the Bible. So please try again.

EDIT: Actually, I'm feeling charitable, so I'll go ahead and prove all those nasty like theories wrong. How's that.

Topic:
God. There is only one God. Look at the first verse in the Bible in its Hebrew form. Starts out with the exact same phrase, except I believe it uses "head of the Gods" rather than just "the Gods". And then in Genesis 3:22, "Man has become as one of us...". Who the crap is us? Done.

God has always been God. To us, he sure has. Simply because he has existed for all eternity proves nothing. If you're resurrected, you'll exist for all eternity. Does that mean that your life on Earth never happened? Done.

God is Spirit without Flesh and bones. Then how in the world does Christ sit on his right hand? Tell me, what are you? That little thing inside you? Thats you, and you're a spirit. Does that mean that you don't currently reside inside a body? Nope. Done.

Trinity. Well, I think enough has been said on that one, after all, you proved that one wrong when you supported the water theory.

Jesus born of a virgin. Sure was. What does him being born of a virgin have to do with the fact that he was born just as naturally as any other child. You seem to be mistaking born with conceived. Done.

The next two, I see no contradiction. Matter of fact, the one on the Holy Ghost is almost word for word the Mormon belief.

Salvation. Salvation is not earned, that is correct. But how are you forgiven of your sins if you never ask for it and you never stop doing wrongs, or I should say, try to stop doing wrongs? Salvation is extended through grace, grace is given to those who have faith in Christ, and faith without works is dead. The works don't earn you salvation, they help you develop the faith necessary for salvation to be extended to you, as well as making you worthy of Christ's forgiveness. Done.

Bible. Well, I'm fairly confident we covered that one too. Done.

So much for your "contradictions." Do I need to do those pathetic 19 you mentioned also?

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
I've asked you now twice, and this will be the third time, please provide me some form of inconsistency with the Bible? Am I supposed to be a mind reader and figure out what is going through your mind that makes you think there is some from of contradiction there?

Maybe he is getting at the fact that people use the Bible to support their arguments when there is really no evidence that the Bible itself is a credible source.

OT (not directed at engineer): One thing that has always been a mystery to me is how people can claim that the god of their religion exists, while simultaneously dismissing the gods of all other religions. I see no reason why any one religious text should be considered more valid than others. To me it makes more sense to combine the common morals present in all religions and use those as guidance.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: LEDominator
Vic, Mormons aren't Christians, they just claim to be most of the time and thus the problem.

Sadly, they're more Christian than any Calvinist crap out there.

 

[LEDominator]

lol, good cuz I'm not a calvinist.

Engineeyor, I have cited the Bible and yet you dismiss it...

As far as this: fter all, he's what you quoted about our belief:

1. The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. "That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man." (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35.)
2. "Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God [anyhow]--three in one and one in three. . .It is curious organization? All are crammed into one God according to sectarianism (Christian faith). It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God--he would be a giant or a monster." (Joseph Smith, Teachings, 372).



Wow, your example is spot on with the Mormon belief in the Godhead. Again, thanks!!

it proves that your teaching is out of sync with the Bible, which at least you finally acknowledged in an albeit implicit way.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: LEDominator
lol, good cuz I'm not a calvinist.

Engineeyor, I have cited the Bible and yet you dismiss it...

Really? I haven't seen a reference to the Bible yet. I've seen your table, and I've proven it wrong. Yet there are not references anywhere that I could find to the Bible. So if you have made any, please bring them to my attention.

As far as this: fter all, he's what you quoted about our belief:

1. The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. "That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man." (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35.)
2. "Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God [anyhow]--three in one and one in three. . .It is curious organization? All are crammed into one God according to sectarianism (Christian faith). It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God--he would be a giant or a monster." (Joseph Smith, Teachings, 372).



Wow, your example is spot on with the Mormon belief in the Godhead. Again, thanks!!

it proves that your teaching is out of sync with the Bible, which at least you finally acknowledged in an albeit implicit way.

No, actually it proves them to be spot on. And your agreement with the water example proves you believe the same thing too. But again, nice try. Don't blame us because you can't interpret the Bible. And again, don't confuse Christianity belief with the Bible. As is evident, they are not always in accordance.

EDIT: Well, since I'm such a nice guy, I guess I'll go ahead and take the initiative and give you Biblical reference of the fact that they are separate beings. Here are a few.

Gen 1:26
Gen 3:22
Matt 3:17
Matt 20:23
Matt 26:39
Matt 28:19
Luke 1:32
Luke 3:22
John 5:19
John 8:18
John 14:28
John 17:21
John 20:17
Acts 2:33
Acts 7:55
Acts 17:29
2 Cor. 4:4
Eph. 3:14
Col. 1:15
Heb. 1:2
1 John 5:7

 

[Vic]

There is no mention of the nature of the Holy Trinity in the Bible, so it is impossible that any reasonable teaching regarding that nature could be "out of sync with the Bible."
This subject, in fact, was the topic of hot debate during the early centuries of Christianity, and it was only for political reasons that the trinitarian view won out in the end.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Vic
There is no mention of the nature of the Holy Trinity in the Bible, so it is impossible that any reasonable teaching regarding that nature could be "out of sync with the Bible."
This subject, in fact, was the topic of hot debate during the early centuries of Christianity, and it was only for political reasons that the trinitarian view won out in the end.

I agree. If memory serves, it was one of the chief arguments between Arianism and the Church at the Council of Nicea. I believe the chief reason for dismissing Arius' claims was that they feared the concept of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost as separate beings would promote a polytheistic religion. Since the Romans themselves were polytheistic, how could they still call them pagans and expect them to join if they themselves appeared to be polytheistic.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. Memory is a little rusty.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Vic
There is no mention of the nature of the Holy Trinity in the Bible, so it is impossible that any reasonable teaching regarding that nature could be "out of sync with the Bible."
This subject, in fact, was the topic of hot debate during the early centuries of Christianity, and it was only for political reasons that the trinitarian view won out in the end.

I agree. If memory serves, it was one of the chief arguments between Arianism and the Church at the Council of Nicea. I believe the chief reason for dismissing Arius' claims was that they feared the concept of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost as separate beings would promote a polytheistic religion. Since the Romans themselves were polytheistic, how could they still call them pagans and expect them to join if they themselves appeared to be polytheistic.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. Memory is a little rusty.

No, you are correct for the most part, although I'm not sure that there was any fear of polytheism so much as it was major power play within the church.

 

[petrek]

One thing that has always been a mystery to me is how people can claim that the god of their religion exists, while simultaneously dismissing the gods of all other religions. I see no reason why any one religious text should be considered more valid than others. To me it makes more sense to combine the common morals present in all religions and use those as guidance.

There is only one religion which denies the need for good works for Salvation, that is Biblical Christianity. The simplicity of the Gospel which was once delivered to the Saints is this, that works are not necessary for Salvation. The simple truth is that if any man thinks he can in any way contribute to his Salvation, he is deceived.
It doesn't matter how religious you are, it doesn't matter how "good" you are, it doesn't matter how "christian" you are, if you in any wise think you can contribute to your Savation you will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.


Luke.5:32

I came not to call the righteous (those who think they are capable of good works, see also Isaiah 64:6), but sinners to repentance.


Romans 5:18

Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life


Romans 6:23

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.


Hebrews 10:10,14

By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all...For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.


Titus 3:5

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;


Ephesians 2:8-9

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.


Biblical Christianity is the only religion in which God has done ALL the necessary work needed for Salvation, and all that is required of any man who wants Eternal Life is to simply accept His free gift. It is for this reason that when men stand before God, they will be without excuse because that the free gift of eternal life was extended to any and all men freely by the death of Christ on the Cross.

Dave

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: petrek
Ephesians 2:8-9

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Ephesians 2:10
For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

 

[Oblivionaire]

:music:I Believe in miracles
Where you from?
you sexy thing:music:

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: petrek
Ephesians 2:8-9

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Ephesians 2:10
For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Yep, as faith without works is dead.

I don't think people are saying that you must earn your salvations through your works. When we say that work is necessary, it is because in order to obtain the faith that we need in order to be saved by grace, we must work at it. No amount of work will justify our salvation, but what it will do increase our faith to a sufficient level as to make us capable of being saved by Christ's grace.

Do you also agree Vic, or am I misinterpreting what you're saying?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: petrek
Ephesians 2:8-9

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Ephesians 2:10
For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Yep, as faith without works is dead.

I don't think people are saying that you must earn your salvations through your works. When we say that work is necessary, it is because in order to obtain the faith that we need in order to be saved by grace, we must work at it. No amount of work will justify our salvation, but what it will do increase our faith to a sufficient level as to make us capable of being saved by Christ's grace.

Do you also agree Vic, or am I misinterpreting what you're saying?

To an extent, although I do not consider myself a Christian (IMO what passes for modern Christianity is a crock that would make Jesus angier than He was in the temple). My point is that works are a requirement to salvation according to Christian belief. They are a "given," for lack of a better word. An expectation. Of course, salvation is a gift of God. Of course, no one can grant salvation to another nor boast of salvation. Of course, everyone will sin. But the point is that you try not to sin. And that you try to help everyone you can while you can. Sing "Hallelujah! Praise the Lord! I believe!" all you want, but if you do not act accordingly through your works, then you're just fooling yourself.

The "faith only" argument is a corruption of the original Protestant Lutheran rebellion against the Catholic practice of granting indulgences. That is all.

 

[petrek]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: petrek
Ephesians 2:8-9

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Ephesians 2:10
For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Yes Vic, once a person has been Saved by grace through faith, which is the gift of God, Not of works, they are able to do good works because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
For if Salvation is by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Scripture plainly teaches that Salvation is Not by works, but that once a person has been Saved solely by the grace of God, and has been born again by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, good works will follow because the Holy Spirit (God) is the only one capable of good works (man is not Isaiah 64:6).

Dave

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Vic

To an extent, although I do not consider myself a Christian (IMO what passes for modern Christianity is a crock that would make Jesus angier than He was in the temple). My point is that works are a requirement to salvation according to Christian belief. They are a "given," for lack of a better word. An expectation. Of course, salvation is a gift of God. Of course, no one can grant salvation to another nor boast of salvation. Of course, everyone will sin. But the point is that you try not to sin. And that you try to help everyone you can while you can. Sing "Hallelujah! Praise the Lord! I believe!" all you want, but if you do not act accordingly through your works, then you're just fooling yourself.

The "faith only" argument is a corruption of the original Protestant Lutheran rebellion against the Catholic practice of granting indulgences. That is all.

That works. I'd agree with that.

 

[petrek]

To an extent, although I do not consider myself a Christian (IMO what passes for modern Christianity is a crock that would make Jesus angier than He was in the temple).

What passes for modern Christianity is consistent with what the Scripture says will happen during the end time events. A falling away from the faith, followed by a one world apostate church which will be ruled by the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

My point is that works are a requirement to salvation according to Christian belief.

Biblical Christianity is governed soley by the Scriptures, and the Scriptures plainly teach that Salvation is Not of works, but solely the free gift of God.

They are a "given," for lack of a better word. An expectation. Of course, salvation is a gift of God. Of course, no one can grant salvation to another nor boast of salvation. Of course, everyone will sin. But the point is that you try not to sin. And that you try to help everyone you can while you can.

Now that Vic, is more consistent with what the Scripture teaches, a paraphrase if you will of numerous Scriptures.

Sing "Hallelujah! Praise the Lord! I believe!" all you want, but if you do not act accordingly through your works, then you're just fooling yourself.

That would depend on what you mean by "fooling yourself". If you mean that because you don't have works you are definately not Saved then I would disagree, because Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, and Not of works. If by "fooling yourself" your referring to the thought that a person will be rewarded for works that they attempt to do without the Holy Spirit that indwells the born again believer than I would agree. Keep in mind though that because that person was born again, they will only loose their works, but not their Salvation because their Salvation like all that are Saved by grace through faith was Not of works in the first place, but was, is and always will be by the free gift of God.

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

The "faith only" argument is a corruption of the original Protestant Lutheran rebellion against the Catholic practice of granting indulgences. That is all.

The following verses of Scripture which clearly teach that Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, and that it is Not of works, but is the free gift of God did not suddenly appear in the Bible at the time of Luthers split with Catholocism but have always been an obvious doctrine of Biblical Christianity.
Luke.5:32

I came not to call the righteous (those who think they are capable of good works, see also Isaiah 64:6), but sinners to repentance.


Romans 5:18

Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life


Romans 6:23

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.


Hebrews 10:10,14

By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all...For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.


Titus 3:5

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;


Ephesians 2:8-9

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Dave

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Your link gives me a time line with dates, that is all. How can I make assumption based on something like that?

Directly from the site. "The prologue/elilogue to Gospel not completed until after 95 AD." Is there something in that that is confusing or that I'm missing?

Yeah, how am I supposed to take one sentence as fact?

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
The validity and evidence of a 96 AD date, as opposed to a pre-70's date, is presented in the links.

And yet there is still evidence that points to an earlier date. Funny.

Why do you continue to say that? The point of the articles is to refute your "evidence," which they succeed at doing. Now why don't you study them and show me their errors.

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
I thought you made an announcement that this topic was pretty much over?

Funny, I don't recall saying that.

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Of course I am, but I also have proof to back it up.

No you don't. There is ample proof to validify the claim of closer to 69 A.D., just as there is in the 96 A.D. Matter of fact, there is ample evidence to suggest that the Gospel of John was not written all at one time, but over a large period of time, such as is seen here.

Gospel of John

What the crap? What was John doing add to scripture after having written Revelations?

Hello!? Why must I continue to repeat myself on this matter. All evidence for an early date has been refuted.


As for the link, you do realize that manuscripts are not the original writings, right? The original work as written by the author himself is called an autograph, of which none exist today. Of course the manuscripts are going to be dated later than when the original was actually written, as it took quite a while for writing to be fully circulated back then.

The thesis of that particular article is this:

The belief that large gaps of time passed between the time of Christ and the writing of the NT is no longer tenable, and all conclusions based on such speculation (no matter how dogmatic or clever) must now be rejected.

I do not disagree with that at all, in fact it is my belief. Where it does disagree with me is this:

"We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today." -Dr. William Foxwell Albright, the distinguished archaeologist, 1955 (McDowell, pp. 62-63).

...to which the answer has already been declared.

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
The dates for the writings of John, sans-Revelation, are traditionally said to be anywhere from 85 AD to the early 90's. Revelation is 96 AD. So how is the earliest date for the Gospel "much later" than the earliest date for Revelation? It is if you include the pre-70's date of preterists, but that is incorrect.

No, that is very valid. And see the link above again.

(Answered)

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Here is some very strong internal evidence supporting the pre-Revelation dating of John:

What does that have to do with anything? Even if it did, that only proves that portion of the Book was written first, not the book.

Do you realize that the Gospel of John is one of the most consistent books of the Bible? If John had indeed written the "epilogue" (John 21) after Revelation, his style and form would have most definitely been different as there would have been a break of several years before it was written. The point is that a writer does not write the same way when an intermission of a significant amount of time (a year or more) is taken. The sheer fact that John does not change his form of composition is evidence that it was written at one time.

With that being said, the last few verses of John 21 give strong evidence that his book was written before Revelation.

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Your link shows nothing. It is a simple time line with dates; there is nothing explaining how they obtained them.

Then maybe you should ask them, or, you could do your own search. You could try "dates of new testament books". Found plenty there that supports my claim. Actually, found several links that point to many of the other New Testament book, not written by John, being written in the early 100's. What does it also show? Some people think nothing could have been written after 95 A.D. Matter of fact, I found one saying nothing could have been written before 75AD. That one was interesting.

Point is, like you already stated, neither of us can prove the other wrong, so what's the point here?

It's not my job to prove your point. If you present evidence, you should have something to back it up other than several sentences. As for searching, I have done that numerous times and have found that no sources make an absolute claim about the date. However, the majority ruling is that it took place from the late 80's to early 90's. I quote:

Unger, Merrill F., The New UNGER'S Bible Dictionary, The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, 1988, p. 502

Although the synoptic gospels cannot be dated precisely, numerous scholars date Mark A.D. 65-75, Luke A.D. 85, Matthew A.D. 85 or 90; and John A.D. 90 or somewhat later. C.C. Torrey dates Mark A.D. 40, Matthew only slightly later, and Luke and John not beyond A.D. 60. This extreme early dating has not found wide acceptance, however. More scholars follow A. Harnack's view (cf. The Sayings of Jesus [1908]; The Date of the Acts and the Synptic Gosppels [1911]), that Luke is to be dated before A.D. 60 and Mark somewhat earlier.
The tendency today is to date the Synoptic Gospels before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and the gospel of John in the last decade or two of the century. [Emphasis added]

Unger, Merrill F., The New UNGER'S Bible Dictionary, The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, 1988, p. 701

Date. The date of the fourth gospel is to be assigned between A.D. 85 and 95. A papyrus bit containing two verses of the gospel of John has been discovered; it belongs to the Papyrus Rylands and is dated c. A.D. 140. This bit of evidence suggests that the fourth gospel was in existence as early as the first half of the second century and at that time was already in wide use.

Unger, Merrill F., The New UNGER'S Bible Dictionary, The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, 1988, p. 1078

Occasion and Date. John wrote by express command of Christ (1:10-20). The "angels" of the seven churches of chaps. 2-3 are apparently the "ministers" of those churches, and the apostle wrote to comfort them and their congregations. Quite a few scholars date the book about A.D. 68 or 69 (Westcott, Lightfoot, Hort, and Salmon.) The reasons for this, however, are not convincing. The best date seems to be A.D. 95 or 96 (cf. Swete, Milligan, Moffatt, and Zahn). This date accords with evidence from Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Eusebius to the effect that the banishment to Patmos was in the later reign of Domitian, A.D. 81-96. This view is in agreement with the fact that the Domitian persecution, unlike the Neronic, was the result of the Christians' refusal to worship the emperor (cf. 1:9; 13:9-10, 12).

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Do I have the "authority" to state that there is a Trinity even though the Bible doesn't specifically say so? Yes, I do, because even though it doesn't outright say that word, I can determine from context and common sense that this is speaking of the Trinity.

It says nothing about the Trinity. There are very specific example of 3 distinctly separate individuals constituting the Godhead (which is spoken of in the Bible, as opposed to the Trinity) working together as ONE. This definition clearly works with every verse of scripture in the Bible. You're plain and simply does not.

The Trinity is no different from the God-head; they are separate terms for the same thing.

The Bible never refers to multiple Gods, but it does refer to multiple gods. In fact the Bible eliminates any polytheistic possibilities with verses like these:

Isaiah 45:5 (King James Version)

I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:


Isaiah 44:6 (King James Version)

Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.


As you can see, your definition clearly does not work with every verse of scripture in the Bible.

The Bible says that the Three that bear record in Heaven are one, not one in purpose. But as a Mormon, you must accept the tri-theistic teachings of your church, and thus you must make a way around what the Bible says.

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
It is not coincidence that Revelation ends like it does:

Revelation 22:20-21 (King James Version)

He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

The End


He ends by proclaiming that he will return "quickly." This comes after God's revelation of the judgment to come and the promises of eternity.

Now tell me, what more exactly would God have to reveal to mankind after Revelation? Why would God write the conclusion to his Book, and then proceed to write more, especially at a much later date when this would confuse Christians abroad and shake their faith in the Bible as being perfect and complete?

The second coming of the Christ was also prophecied of in Isaiah. Why did the Bible not end there? What more could he possibly have to say? What kind of a question is that? He's got a whole heck of a lot more he could and did say.

Many of the topics in the Bible were only scarcely touched upon. Is it not possible that he spoke more on the subject than was recorded in the Bible? As I said before, there were other groups that existed other than just the ones in Jerusalem. What were his dealings with them? And if he had dealings with them, wouldn't it be important to know about them?

And here's a big reason. With all the screw-up's men are having with understanding the scripture, why couldn't he provide more to help eliminate the confusion?

You have to understand that the entire New Testament was prophesied of in the Old Testament. However, the New Testament reveals and expounds upon the OT prophesies. Looking back, we can see that what was being said in the OT is synonymous with what occurred in the NT; but that is only because we have the NT to reveal the mysteries. The OT by itself was not sufficient for the Church, which is why the NT was written.

You're right, they weren't, and the Bible does not contain all that happened. It does, however, contain all the God deemed necessary or wanted us to know. John says:

John 21:25 (King James Version)

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.


So there was no doubt more that happened in the life of Christ, but the Lord provided us with all we need.


What confusion? I'm not confused about anything. The only confusion comes from those who wish to change the meaning of the Bible, and malign its holy words. And the Lord already provides us help when confusion arises. It's called prayer.

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
The Bible reveals to mankind the history of the world from beginning (Genesis) to end (Revelation), what else is there to say?

[/i]

Plenty. What else happened between, as I believe it is plainly obvious it reveals the history of only a small group of people, not even all of the tribes of Israel.

As stated above, God chose to reveal what he thought important for us to know. Everything else, while certainly not harmful, is not what a Christian has to know.

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Where did I say that God "lost" them. The term "lost books" refers to other books mentioned in the Bible (Epistle to the Laodiceans, for instance) that were not excepted as part of the canon by believers. There is very little known about these books, so it is obvious that God did not intend for them to be including in his holy write otherwise he would have preserved them like he said.

So I will ask again, since you still won't answer. Where the men that put together the Bible inspired? Did they have the authority from God, the same that existed in the Biblical writings, to do what they did? Plus, not all books were "lost". Several of them were still there and simply weren't included. What right did these men have to "add to or take away from" the Bible? These books existed. If the verse means what you believe it means, they had no right to do so.

If you read down a little, you would see that I did answer you. Read before you talk.

No the men weren't inspired, but they were guided. The authority of God on the men should not be the question; what should be asked is whether or not God's authority was on the books that we have today, which it was. The fact that the Textus Receptus or Received Text, which consists of 90 percent of all Greek MSS, only includes those MSS which contain the books that we have today in the Bible is absolutely incredible. The fact that the books were accepted almost unanimously by the people in all of the churches at that time is also amazing. The fact that there has never been any major dispute at all over the credibility of these books is something not to be taken lightly.

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
You sure seem to not have faith in the God you claim to believe is capable of doing what he says he is. Why are you questioning his authority and power and the authenticity of his Word so much?

Oh, I'm not the one questioning God. You're the one saying he can't write anymore than he has, nor that he can give his word to anyone other than what the Bible says he did. Matter of fact, the Bible clearly states he did give it word to others, yet you would still reject these words cause their not in the Bible.

Clearly, it's not me with the problem. I accept the Bible as the word of God, and I accept the books in it as the Word of God. However, I'm not willing to let men tell me when God has said enough.

I didn't say he can't write anymore, I said he won't and he didn't. Big difference.

If you accept the Bible as the perfect Word of God, than your entire Mormon belief system falls apart. That's why your own writ says:

Articles of Faith 1:8

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly...


This statement allows the privilege to change what the Bible says if it isn't in accordance with the Mormon beliefs.

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
So how is this better than my link in any way? Once again, a simple chart with no substance.

It shows the evolution of the Bible, a book you clearly claim can not be changed. If you idea is correct, why do you support it being changed?

I don't support it being changed, but that has nothing to do with it being formed.

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Nobody ever said that Revelation was the Bible, but that it was an integrated part of it much like the chapters in a book. It also doesn't matter if the Bible didn't exist when Revelation was written, as it was God's responsibility to preserve his Word. Sure the men weren't inspired, but that doesn't mean God didn't have part in making sure that his Word would be preserved.

You're exactly correct, which is why other books are currently available for people to read and learn from even today. Since these men weren't inspired, they obviously didn't have any right to do what they did (even though you support them in it), so in order to make it better, God has to do something. So what has he done? He's brought forth additional scripture that we can use as a witness of the first.

Look at all the crap that's come out these days. Now several of these book are crap. They are obvious Arianist knock-offs, and many of them are confusing the crap out of people. Why? Because we know the Bible didn't contain everything. So the question is, what is correct of the stuff that was left out? Well, give the Bible a second witness, like the Book of Mormon, and it's all much easier to sort out because it verifies the teachings within the Bible. These new books not only have to correspond with the Bible, but with the Book of Mormon also. And if they don't, they're knock-offs. If they do, then they are likely legitimate writings that could have been/should have been included. Thus one of the truly great purposes of the Book of Mormon, a second witness of Christ.

What you keep harping on about is that the men weren't inspired so they could have no authority in what they did. It is true that these men were not inspired as were the men who wrote the Bible, but your putting to much weight on the word "inspired." Inspired in Greek means "God-breathed." The forty writers of the Bible were inspired in the sense that God "breathed" to them the words to write down. However, today "inspired" means other things one of which has to with Divine influence. Using the latter definition, the men were inspired which is why there must be a distinction between the two.

Next I have to point out that the men did not actually pick the Canon of Scripture. The common people where the ones who recognized which books were of God. That is how the Textus Receptus [Received Text] obtained its name. It was also why the Greek text in the Textus Receptus was written in Koine Greek, or the Greek of the common people.

The various councils that were held served the purpose of ratifying the texts that were accepted by the majority, and establishing it as dogma. The Bible says:

Mark 12:37 (King James Version)

David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.


It is clear that the common people were the ones who accepted Christ; they were the ones who gladly heard the Word of God.

The Book of Mormon isn't legitimate as it doesn't even correspond with the Bible. The Book of Mormon disagrees with and contradicts the Bible in so many ways that I can't see why Mormons even use the Bible in the first place.

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Why are you doubting so much?

I doubt man, not God. There's a big difference.

Then why question whether God preserved his Word or not?

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
If you add to Z, you are not adding to X as an individual part of the encyclopedia, but to the encyclopedia as a whole who's parts are individual yet united as one.

For one moment, take away all of the individual distinctions of each section of the encyclopedia (the markings such as A,B,C, et al), and imagine them as combined physically into one giant, continuous book. Now pose the same question. Do you see where I'm taking you?

Yes I do, and I see my point still holding.

...

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Just because there are distinctions within the sections (books) of the encyclopedia (Bible) does not mean that you isolate one from the other. They are separate (In name, topic, etc.), yet the same (All part of a greater whole that is united as one). When you refer to Z or Y, you are, in both cases, referring to the encyclopedia; yet Z is neither Y, nor the encyclopedia. When you add to Revelation, you add to the Bible; when you add to the Bible, you are not necessarily adding to the Revelation section, but because they are one, the distinction does not matter.

Either way, Revelation isn't the only place that forbids adding or taking away:

Deuteronomy 4:2 (King James Version)

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.


Proverbs 30:6 (King James Version)

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

So what you're saying is that everything past Deuteronomy 4:2 is false? Obviously, since your interpretation is correct, then nothing more could be added after that. Everything else is false.

Your interpretation, not mine, has not disproved the majority of the Bible. Congratulations.

Since you want to act like you have no basic comprehension skills or common sense, I'll pose you a question.

What does that do to the Book of Mormon? Oops! That wasn't supposed to happen!

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
I assume when you say "scripture," you mean scripture as that of God. In this case, what other scripture (holy) is there?

Book of Mormon. Wonderful book of scripture. You should read it. Together with the Bible, it can bring you closer to God than you ever thought possible. Did for me.

So which one is the superior authority?

 

[drinkmorejava]

You know what I really hate, waking up every single bloody day for the past month and having to see this thread.

 

[thoro86]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
I had dinner with my grandparents and their friends whom they haven't seen in ages, tonight. The couple kept sharing these stories about minor, everyday events and then attritubed them to god. WTH...do they *seriously* think that god determines when their car tire blows out? Do they really think that it was God that made them run into an old friend that they hadn't seen in a year? Come on, these are seemingly educated people who spout this crap. I find it almost nauseous. My grandparents are getting a little edgy also, but the couple keeps doing it.

You know what? Here's some tap water, turn it into motherfvcking wine. Here's my friend with cancer, heal her. Here's my dead friend, raise him from the grave. Otherwise quit fvcking talking to me about the angels that you see. Come back to me when you quit hopping up on LSD. :roll:

So does other religion followers too