Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
|
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Salvation FREE and Eternal (Part 1) -- Sheepdog, 16:07:38 08/02/05 Tue
LV:Why do that when God has already provided a far more reliable method of testing if your doctrine is true, by testing it against the gospel that Christ has already preached in his living word, the Bible.
SD: It's can be reliable if you don't take your pastor's word for who is and isn't a false teacher. That takes communication from God.
The Jews also were warned to beware of false teachers and the Priests told everyone that Jesus was one of those false teachers that scripture warned of. That is why they felt he deserved to be stoned for blaspheme against God!
The Bible is a book. We do not worship a book. We worship Christ.
To you, a living word is a written word, to me it’s when I hear someone speak to me who is there. To me, the book is a tool. It shows me how others obtained a real living relationship with God. I do not worship their experience or the book they wrote. I use the advice there to help me have my own real experiences.
The scripts of the apostles were many. Evil men discarded the scripts that offended them, even though they were written by the twelve.
To think that you have it all is a vain hope, especially after considering all that the scripts had been through before they were compiled into what we now call a Bible. Don’t get me wrong, I’m thankful for what made it through, yet I know that because of motives and other things, I can’t trust every word is untouched by other humans or that all important info was contained and not scapped.
I do not trust what Constantine and his book burning left us with. We know that other Christians had texts of the apostles that he burned. Now why would he do that? Well, he didn’t get all of them burned because in 1945 some that had been hidden were found. The gospel of Thomas and the gospel of Philip to name a few.
In the NT after Christ was resurrected he taught the disciples for 40 days or so, don't you think that this information would have been good to have?
LV:After all, if God is immutable and perfect, it would make sense that his gospel would be immutable and perfect as well, and that any gospel that differed from it would be false. And we all know what God has to say about false gospels
SD: He is perfect, His gospel is perfect, but the book is not “his gospel” nor could it be perfect unless it was hand written by Him, which it was not.
The apostles didn’t have the NT. They had Him and then when he died they still had direct revelation from Him. He gave them a government to run the church by. He left them with that, He did not leave them with a book that contained His gospel.
LV:Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
SD: This is one of my favorite verses. Only a Christian who didn’t know the history of his own faith could possibly use this scripture against the LDS.
The key verse is “if any man"....claiming to be of God (like an angel would)...
The gospel the Emperor Constantine left to you was the accursed gospel.
Do you know what he did to the gospel of Christ?
In a nut shell...
His motive was power and money. He wanted to stop the fighting between religions because it was causing so much trouble for him. The Christian sects were fighting among one another about doctrine and there were many sects. (NOT just one!)
The Pagans were fighting with the Christian too.
It was totally a mess. Constantine knew that he must unite the people, by force if necessary.
He favored both Christians and Pagans when it suited his motives.
One year he's giving tribute to the Pagan God and a couple of years later he's claiming to have a Christian "vision".
He established a church to please and pacify both. Many Christians were punished and killed because they would not comply. He changed the Sabbath to Sunday in order to please the Pagans who worshipped the Sun God. He combined the celebration of Jesus’s birth to the Sun God’s birth (Dec. 25). He combined the celebration of the resurrection with the Pagan God of fertility (Easter).
He demanded all Christians stop their preaching and turn over their buildings of worship to the new government church.
He assembled some bishops and insisted they come up with a definition of God that all could be forced to accept, Pagan's and Christians alike. It's the definition you still have today and anybody who has a problem with it is automatically called "non Christian" even though there were many who shuttered at the creeds back then. What did they do with these people? Charge them with blaspheme, just like their Savior, and punish or kill them.
Constantine built the first elaborate “Christian” church only for the rich to attend, no poor allowed.
He made it so that sins could be paid for with money and favors to him.
He was a murderer and he had his wife and son boiled to death and he conquered many nations under the symbol of the cross. The cross was his symbol, not Christ’s.
He pretended to have a vision in which Jesus told him that he could kill and conquer as long as it was under the sign of the cross.
Does this sound like a man of God?
What ever happened to the doctrine of preaching the gospel "meek and mild and harmless as doves"?
Wow, free pass to murder!
He burned all books and scripts that were “not approved”.
I surely could go on and on about this accursed gospel which was preached and established by a man that was NO angel sent from God.
These are the roots of your church. He did this to the original gospel. This was the “different gospel” talked of here. In other places it is written that it would come to pass soon. If Constantine would have known what was symbolically written of in Revelations, he’d have burned that too. The Lord knows how to get his message through so that the wicked don’t see it or comprehend.
Many Christians will say that they don’t follow the gospel of Constantine, but they do. He was the author of your creeds which God rightly called an abomination.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Next! -- Lord Veritas, 18:47:01 01/28/06 Sat
>LV:Why do that when God has already provided a far
>more reliable method of testing if your doctrine is
>true, by testing it against the gospel that Christ has
>already preached in his living word, the Bible.
>SD: It's can be reliable if you don't take your
>pastor's word for who is and isn't a false teacher.
>That takes communication from God.
LV: You did not answer my question. My question was why pray for divine inspiration on whether or not a text is scripture when you can easily test its validity against those of the previous scriptures. All you did was say "Do not take your pastor's word for who is/is not a false teacher", and by doing so, completely ignored my question.
SD:>The Jews also were warned to beware of false teachers
>and the Priests told everyone that Jesus was one of
>those false teachers that scripture warned of. That is
>why they felt he deserved to be stoned for blaspheme
>against God!
>The Bible is a book. We do not worship a book.
LV: Neither do we. We simply acknowledge that the Bible is the complete and living Word of God.
SD:We worship Christ.
LV: Then why do you have no faith in His ability to preserve His Word and Church from being corrupted by a mere man such as Constantine? Why do you have no faith that He is powerful enough to bring you into heaven without needing any "extra help" from you trying to fulfill commandments that you can't fulfill?
SD:To you, a living word is a written word
LV:Wrong. The living word is the gospel and scriptures of God, not simply anything that's "written". You've jumped to a radical conclusion for no apparent reason.
SD:, to me it’s
>when I hear someone speak to me who is there
LV: I hope you have better qualification than that for a "living word". Any imbecile or demon can say a word. If you heard Satan speak to you, and he was there in front of you, would you consider his lies "living word"? I certainly hope not.
SD: To me,
>the book is a tool. It shows me how others obtained a
>real living relationship with God. I do not worship
>their experience or the book they wrote.
LV: Neither do we Christians. We use it to discover what God wants from our lives, to discern truth, and as a measuring rod to make sure that we are not duped by every "new scripture" that people try to fling at us.
SD:I use the advice there to help me have my own real experiences. The scripts of the apostles were many. Evil men
>discarded the scripts that offended them, even though
>they were written by the twelve.
LV: Not true. Many books were excluded from the Bible because they either:
1) Preached doctrines that were contrary to the gospel and the previous written Words of God, and therefore, false, since God does not contradict himself.
2) Were completely irrelevant (ex. stuff like shopping lists, or address books)
3) Were not actually authored by the prophets or the apostles (ex, the Gospel of Thomas, which was written at least five decades after he was killed in India)
To think that every little thing an apostle wrote should be included in the Bible is tantamount to claiming that Shakespeare's bills and shopping lists should be included in his play anthologies. It would be ridiculous to put anything that was not a play into a play anthology, just like it would be ridiculous to put anything that was obviously not divinely inspired into God's divinely inspired Word. And somehow, I think that a council of over two hundred church leaders who spent most of their lives studying the thousands of scriptural texts are a bit more qualified than an American with a third grade education is to figure out which texts are divinely inspired.
SD:To think that you have it all is a vain hope,
>especially after considering all that the scripts had
>been through before they were compiled into what we
>now call a Bible. Don’t get me wrong, I’m thankful for
>what made it through, yet I know that because of
>motives and other things, I can’t trust every word is
>untouched by other humans or that all important info
>was contained and not scapped.
LV: Yet, you trust everything Joseph Smith wrote was untouched by other humans/motives, despite the fact that he and his followers were all humans. Good to know your standards are consistent...
SD:>I do not trust what Constantine and his book burning
>left us with. We know that other Christians had texts
>of the apostles that he burned. Now why would he do
>that? Well, he didn’t get all of them burned because
>in 1945 some that had been hidden were found.
LV: I gave you plenty of room to write about Constantine in the "Rants about Constantine" thread. Please use it.
SD:The gospel of Thomas and the gospel of Philip to name a
few.
LV:Gospel of Thomas has already been addressed. Gospel of Philip will be looked at soon.
SD:In the NT after Christ was resurrected he taught the
>disciples for 40 days or so, don't you think that this
>information would have been good to have?
LV: I had this crazy idea that this information that Christ taught the apostles would be contained in the TWENTY SEVEN DIVINELY INSPIRED New Testament scriptures that they wrote AFTER CHRIST ASCENDED TO HEAVEN, which, coincidentally, took place AFTER CHRIST TAUGHT THE DISCIPLES FOR FORTY DAYS. If you cannot logically follow that, then perhaps you are not adequately prepared to participate in a debate.
>LV:After all, if God is immutable and perfect, it
>would make sense that his gospel would be immutable
>and perfect as well, and that any gospel that differed
>from it would be false. And we all know what God has
>to say about false gospels
>SD: He is perfect, His gospel is perfect, but the book
>is not “his gospel” nor could it be perfect unless it
>was hand written by Him, which it was not.
>The apostles didn’t have the NT. They had Him and then
>when he died they still had direct revelation from
>Him. He gave them a government to run the church by.
>He left them with that, He did not leave them with a
>book that contained His gospel.
LV: Not true. They had the Old Testament, which, if I am not mistaken, was WRITTEN DOWN. If Christ preached a contrary doctrine to what was previously mentioned in the Old Testament, then any imbecile could have called him out on it! However, the New Testament is full of Old Testament references to prove its consistency with God's previous teachings. The gospel Matthew is especially famous for this. Honestly, double check your facts before you post, please. It will result in less headaches for all who are involved.
>LV:Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from
>heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that
>which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
>As we said before, so say I now again, If any man
>preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have
>received, let him be accursed.
>SD: This is one of my favorite verses. Only a
>Christian who didn’t know the history of his own faith
>could possibly use this scripture against the LDS.
>The key verse is “if any man"....claiming to be of God
>(like an angel would)...
LV: That is not what it said. This is what the verses said:
Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from
heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that
which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, If any man
preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have
received, let him be accursed.
If you read the above carefully, it does not say "“if any man"....claiming to be of God (like an angel would)..."
It says if any man or angel preaches a different gospel than the gospel God has already given to us, then let them be accursed. Man or Angel. Not Man claiming to be of God like an Angel would. Man or Angel. Plain and simple. This is outrageous-this session is supposed to be us debating whether salvation is free and eternal or not, not me explaining to you the fundamentals of the English language.
SD:The gospel the Emperor Constantine left to you was the
>accursed gospel.
LV: This, and the rest of it which has been deleted, belongs in the Constantine rant section. This was supposed to be about whether or not Salvation is free and Eternal, yet, you have taken us way off-topic. I hate to say it Sheepdog, but quite frankly, you have proven over and over again that you are not qualified for a debate. You completely ignore simple questions, take up paragraphs of space on tangential subjects, can't get basic facts straight, and cannot comprehend verses that a child could understand. Therefore, I am afraid I shall no longer engage you in this discourse. I hereby wish you best of luck in all your endeavors and pray that God will allow you to see the truth one day. But until then, goodbye.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Next! -- Like I said... brainwashed, 10:12:56 02/07/06 Tue
LV:
>This is outrageous-this
>session is supposed to be us debating whether
>salvation is free and eternal or not, not me
>explaining to you the fundamentals of the English
>language. ...
...This was
>supposed to be about whether or not Salvation is free
>and Eternal, yet, you have taken us way off-topic. I
>hate to say it Sheepdog, but quite frankly, you have
>proven over and over again that you are not qualified
>for a debate. You completely ignore simple questions,
>take up paragraphs of space on tangential subjects,
>can't get basic facts straight, and cannot comprehend
>verses that a child could understand....
Like I said.
Nice posts though LV. You have proven him (her) wrong over and over again and he/she never has a valid or even logical response. It's been elightening reading your posts LV. I for one, have learned from them so your words did not go to waste on sheepwash.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Rich ruler, poor apostles (rebuttal part 1) -- Lord Veritas, 13:21:38 08/15/05 Mon
>What does “receive him” and “believe on his name” mean?
>Does it require any action by us?
>Lord Veritas: Only our faith, which is enough to
>release the grace of God that saves us.
>SD: According to Christ, faith alone (if faith means
>belief inside) isn’t enough.
>Remember the man who asked Christ what he must do to
>be saved? Jesus didn’t say, “believe in me, that’s
>it.” Nope, he told the man to keep the commandments.
>The man replied that he had done this all his life,
>what more did he need to do? Sell all that he had and
>follow, (in other words, feed the sheep by becoming a
>missionary and leaving the world behind.) this is not
>faith alone. It is action, in addition to keeping all
>the commandments.
Let's take a look at what the passage of the rich young ruler REALLY says. Because, after all, you must know what a passage says before you can discern what it means.
Matthew 19:16-29
" 16 ¶ And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Ex. 20.13 · Deut. 5.17 Thou shalt not commit adultery, Ex. 20.14 · Deut. 5.18 Thou shalt not steal, Ex. 20.15 · Deut. 5.19 Thou shalt not bear false witness, Ex. 20.16 · Deut. 5.20
19 Honor thy father and thy mother: Ex. 20.12 · Deut. 5.16 and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Lev. 19.18
20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? "
In the above verses, the rich young man asks Christ what can he do to get eternal life. Christ replies that if he will enter into eternal life, then keep the commandments. The young man replies that he has already kept all the commandments; yet his question "What do I lack" reveals that he still lacks something crucial. Notice that upon hearing that he kept the commandments, Christ does not say"Congratulations, you have earned a spot in heaven"
"21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me."
In this Christ says that the young man must
a) give up everything he has
b) to come and follow him
Then the young man will be perfect and "have treasure in heaven". Your "missionary clause" in your above paragraph is woefully absent.
"22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
23 ¶ Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven."
The rich man rejects Christ's teaching for his own possessions and leaves. In response, Christ turns to his apostles and says that, in spite of keeping the commandments, the rich man's chances of entering heaven are not only not guaranteed...they are also highly unlikely.
"24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
This is the punctuation on Christ's earlier point, that just as it is impossible for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, it is even more impossible for even a rich man to get into heaven. This clearly shows that even the most "valuable" men cannot get into heaven, at least, not on their own.
"25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."
After that bombshell is dropped the apostles ask Christ who can be saved. Christ replies that salvation is impossible for men, but that through God, everything (which includes salvation) is possible.
"27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, Mt. 25.31 ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Lk. 22.30 "
This time Peter speaks up. Note that he does not say that he or his apostolic brethren kept the commandments. He only that they all gave up everything they had to follow Christ. Yet Christ still promises that they will sit on twelve thrones, judging all of Israel.
"29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
30 But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first "
Herein Christ tells what truly gets men into heaven: giving up everything for his name's sake. This will cause "the first" such as the wealthy man, to be the last into heaven (if they even get there at all), and the "last", such as the poverty-stricken apostles, to be "first" (who are already guaranteed thrones over Israel).
And that is what true saving faith requires, to give up everything you have to follow Christ.
So, when taken in context, this passage shows that keeping the commandments will not get you into heaven. The rich man, in spite of being wealthy and keeping all the commandments, has virtually no chance of entering heaven. Incontrast, the poor apostles, who, having given up all they have, are relying on nothing except Christ for their future, have been promised thrones over God's chosen nation
and will, because of their faith, achieve everlasting life.
Christ does say in verse 17 "if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." But apparently, you misunderstood it to mean , " You have to keep the commandments to get eternal life" which it doesn't, especially in the context of the rest of the passage. Rather, it is an "if-then statement", meaning that "if you are among those who will get eternal life, then you should keep the commandments. ", not "If you are among those who keep the commandments, then you will get eternal life". Simply put, you got Christ's words backwards. And, if you reread the passage, you will clearly see that he DOES say faith alone on him (synonymous with belief on his name), is enough.
Action and keeping the commandments will not get you into heaven; the faith that results in actions and keeping the commandments gets you into heaven. Christ said it himself in the passage you tried to use against me. But once again, the truth triumphs over the lie...who would have thought that THAT would happen...
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Rich ruler, poor apostles (rebuttal part 1) -- QUITTNER, 11:20:01 08/19/05 Fri
As I understand it, those who wrote the 4 "authorized" gospels, at least 40 years after Jesus was killed by the Romans, were NOT members of "The Kingdom of God", and they relied on garbled stories about it handed down mouth-to-mouth.
..... The "Kingdom of God" ("of heaven") was an alternative community, separated from "The World", partly described in Acts 2 and Acts 4. Members had a different, communal, loving lifestyle, quite different from those of the outsiders who still lived "in the World". It was an artificial "family" of likeminded, specially selected members. No others could get in, and high quality of character/morality was required of all members. Compare with current rquirements of religious orders and other groups that still require of all applicants for full membership vows of obedience, poverty and chastity. Keeping always all of the commandments of God was, of course, only one of these requirements - nobody could get to be a member otherwise. All members were poor as individuals, including Jesus and the apostles, they had pooled their possession and given them to the administration of the Kingdom of God for the use of all members as required. Outsiders therefore called members "The Poor". Members, and ONLY members, had "life", even "eternal life", as compared with the outsiders who were (spiritually) "dead". Compare with the passage where a member was not permitted to attend a funeral (let the dead bury their dead).
..... After the Romans had killed Jesus, many changes were made, many new unauthorized versions of Christianity were invented, and the first priority was on maximizing the quantity of members (read: of their money), never mind their quality.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
You don't read many scriptures, do you? -- Lord Veritas, 17:15:29 02/07/06 Tue
>As I understand it, those who wrote the 4 "authorized"
>gospels, at least 40 years after Jesus was killed by
>the Romans, were NOT members of "The Kingdom of God",
>and they relied on garbled stories about it handed
>down mouth-to-mouth.
LV: That does not say much for your understanding. Three of those who wrote the gospels, Matthew, Mark, and John, were all eyewitnesses to the life and death of Christ and saw him after his resurrection. Luke compiled his gospel based on other eyewitness accounts. So much for your garbled "mouth to mouth" theory.
>..... The "Kingdom of God" ("of heaven") was an
>alternative community, separated from "The World",
>partly described in Acts 2 and Acts 4. Members had a
>different, communal, loving lifestyle, quite different
>from those of the outsiders who still lived "in the
>World". It was an artificial "family" of likeminded,
>specially selected members. No others could get in,
>and high quality of character/morality was required of
>all members. Compare with current rquirements of
>religious orders and other groups that still require
>of all applicants for full membership vows of
>obedience, poverty and chastity. Keeping always all of
>the commandments of God was, of course, only one of
>these requirements - nobody could get to be a member
>otherwise. All members were poor as individuals,
>including Jesus and the apostles, they had pooled
>their possession and given them to the administration
>of the Kingdom of God for the use of all members as
>required. Outsiders therefore called members "The
>Poor". Members, and ONLY members, had "life", even
>"eternal life", as compared with the outsiders who
>were (spiritually) "dead". Compare with the passage
>where a member was not permitted to attend a funeral
>(let the dead bury their dead).
LV: An interesting conspiracy theory, but unless you have specific quotes from the Bible that show that heaven is not the kingdom of God, that eternal life is a code phrase, etc, then that is all you have-an interesting conspiracy theory. I will address the passage of the "let the dead bury the dead" in a following post.
>..... After the Romans had killed Jesus, many changes
>were made, many new unauthorized versions of
>Christianity were invented, and the first priority was
>on maximizing the quantity of members (read: of their
>money), never mind their quality.
LV: I am going to assume that the reason you cited no specific information for this theory was because you were pressed for time. Either way, the accusations you make in the passage above are too vague and need to be substantiated to be taken seriously, otherwise, they are nothing more than a rant. In addition, the issue of unauthorized "Christian" sects is tangential to the main argument here of whether salvation is free and eternal or not, so please bring up that issue in a different thread where it has more relevance, such as the lost gospel and Constantinian threads.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]