Salvation, Is It A Grace vs. Works Problem

[revelation]

I think you are taking the Joseph Smith translation of the bible a bit far here. There are some verses that got corrected. Eight pages out of 1590, that's one half percent. Granted he didn't get to finish the translation but how much of the project was left unfinished we don't know. Most of the corrections don't substantially change the understanding from the original, just make it clearer where the wording isn't in very good english.

My Joseph Smith translation adds verses that aren't even in the Bible. It changes others by completely contradicting what the Bible says.

Not surprising that the Joseph Smith translation was never completed for no man can thwart the plans and purposes of God:

Job 5:12 "He thwarts the plans of the crafty, so that their hands achieve no success.

Job 42:2 "I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted."

Psalm 33:10 "The LORD foils the plans of the nations; he thwarts the purposes of the peoples."

Isaiah 8:10 "Devise your strategy, but it will be thwarted; propose your plan, but it will not stand, for God is with us."

Isaiah 14:27 "For the LORD Almighty has purposed, and who can thwart him? His hand is stretched out, and who can turn it back?"

That is not true. I believe it is of God. The BOM states that it is of God. The church uses it as a standard work. It contains the primary testimony of the resurrection, crucifiction, the atonement.

I don't believe in infallibility of the translation process. The original if we had it, maybe.

If you do as I said and do what the Bible says not what JS or the BOM or the LDS church says, you will know that God's word is infallible. Find out for yourself!

Even Paul gives verses that he says are his opinion. What about women being saved by childbearing? Is that something your POV agrees with? If so then what happens to single women who were never asked to become wives?

You have to take all of scripture into consideration when interpreting difficult passages like this one. Certainly many female children and women of God died before having children. That does not exclude them from being saved.

I do do what the bible says.

You can't do what the bible says until you first take the word as is without changing anything.

I find aspects of your interpretation on the fringe to be frank. I read the bible before being introduced to the LDS POV and my understanding of it agreed with the LDS POV prior to hearing the LDS POV. Well with the exception of a premortal life and degrees of glory. But I see the evidence of those doctrines in the bible now. I missed them before. But there was nothing that disagreed with those ideas.

Did you know that nobody can understand the scriptures until they have the Holy Spirit?

1 Corinthians 2:14 "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Unbeleivers cannot understand the Bible. Did you know that all unbelievers get the same message of salvation from the bible as you do? It's true.

Man is incapable of understanding the Bible apart from the Holy Spirit. Man doesn't think like God. Man thinks opposite of God:

Isaiah 55:8 ""For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD."

Unbelievers see the same salvation in the scripture as you do. I even know that from my own experience since I used to be an unbeliever! That is exactly how I saw salvation when I was an unbeliever!

I have not heard anything between our views of the doctrines of the bible that are that earth shakingly different in some ideas that you belabour as imminently important. You say we must start by being saved. But your definition of that word differs from mine. So we are not on the same page. And so it goes.

I believe that our doctrines are so earth shakingly different that the difference is eternal life or eternal death because they completely contradict one another.

If you'd like to explain your lexicon, please do so.

Sorry, my apologies, I am not sure what you want me to explain?

The most significant difference between our ideas is in the necessity of a formal priesthood directed by someone who holds the keys of the same.

Read all of Hebrews. The preisthood in the LDS sense has been made obsolete:

Hebrews 8:13 "By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."

If I were to go out and establish a church on my own, exactly like the LDS church in every way, from teachings to organisation, it would not be God's church because the keys cannot be duplicated.

The keys by definition are "the forgiveness of sins"

If you do not have those keys, you do not have the forgiveness of sins.

[urroner]

My Joseph Smith translation adds verses that aren't even in the Bible. It changes others by completely contradicting what the Bible says.

Not surprising that the Joseph Smith translation was never completed for no man can thwart the plans and purposes of God:

Job 5:12 "He thwarts the plans of the crafty, so that their hands achieve no success.

Job 42:2 "I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted."

Psalm 33:10 "The LORD foils the plans of the nations; he thwarts the purposes of the peoples."

Isaiah 8:10 "Devise your strategy, but it will be thwarted; propose your plan, but it will not stand, for God is with us."

Isaiah 14:27 "For the LORD Almighty has purposed, and who can thwart him? His hand is stretched out, and who can turn it back?"

If you do as I said and do what the Bible says, you will know that God's word is infallible. Find out for yourself!

Interesting comment about the inerrancy of the Bible and God not letting JS complete the translation.

1. How do you feel about the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible? Is it infallible since it contains books that aren't in the KJV?

2. Is the Catholic Bible, it has the Apocrypha in it, considered the true word of God?

[revelation]

Interesting comment about the inerrancy of the Bible and God not letting JS complete the translation.

1. How do you feel about the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible? Is it infallible since it contains books that aren't in the KJV?

2. Is the Catholic Bible, it has the Apocrypha in it, considered the true word of God?

Read these three books below and then we will discuss all this.

From God to us - How We Got Our Bible by Norman L Geisler & William E. Nix (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974)

The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988).

Bible: God's Inspired, Inerrant Word by Pastor Brian R. Keller.

Check out Northwestern Publishing house for these.

[urroner]

Read these three books below and then we will discuss all this.

From God to us - How We Got Our Bible by Norman L Geisler & William E. Nix (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974)

The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988).

Bible: God's Inspired, Inerrant Word by Pastor Brian R. Keller.

Check out Northwestern Publishing house for these.

revelation, I don't have time to read those books and I have no desire. I have read lots about the inerrancy of the Bible and through studying the Bible and reference material, there is a lot of evidence that it isn't inerrant.

Besides, I think you should answer either of the questions I asked you in my previous post. Either those Bibles are the word of God or they aren't.

[Tanyan]

I thought this tread was about Grace/Works .

In Hs Debt/Grace Tanayn LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[urroner]

I thought this tread was about Grace/Works .

In Hs Debt/Grace Tanayn LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

It got derailed so long ago.

[Tanyan]

Read these three books below and then we will discuss all this.

From God to us - How We Got Our Bible by Norman L Geisler & William E. Nix (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974)

The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988).

Bible: God's Inspired, Inerrant Word by Pastor Brian R. Keller.

Check out Northwestern Publishing house for these.

Athiests/Humanists have responded to the material in these books.

[shalamabobbi]

Did you know that nobody can understand the scriptures until they have the Holy Spirit?

1 Corinthians 2:14 "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."

And how does one go about receiving the Holy Ghost?

Did you know that the bible states it is through the laying on of hands by those in authority with the priesthood?

Honestly do you think I haven't read the bible?

Do you think when you quote a scripture to me that it is one I have not considered previously?

If you'd like to explain your lexicon, please do so.

Sorry, my apologies, I am not sure what you want me to explain?

You never put your whole package together. Salvation, rewards, definitions, how salvation is obtained etc.

For example you gave a piece of it with "state" vs "standing"

You gave your belief that man can be saved in the presence of God while yet being sinful and by having Christ cover that sinfulness.

All of it. You said you were putting it all together. Pretend you are going to preach to a native of the amazon forest and you don't get to use a bible, only your notes. What would you teach that native to believe and why?

Read all of Hebrews. The priesthood in the LDS sense has been made obsolete:

Hebrews 8:13 "By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."

The new covenant is the gospel which existed prior to Mosaic law, and was restored by Christ. Abraham practised the 'new' covenant.

It is 'new and everlasting'. The reason for the Mosaic law was the children of Israel proved unworthy of the new covenant. They received something less.

The lesser law was finally done away.

The priesthood existed prior to the Mosaic law.

There is no justification to believe the priesthood spoken of by Peter was anything other than a literal priesthood as it has always existed.

What happens in heaven? All these OT prophets who had the priesthood for an eternal organisational purpose mix with post Christ peoples who lack it. What organisation exists there then - when once time and relative displacement in time upon the earth have no meaning? Your POV contradicts history as well as scripture. The Catholic church did not create the priesthood out of thin air. It has existed in an unbroken chain from the early church. It's authority has been lost but it's form has remained. Why is this so if Peter believed as you do about the priesthood becoming obsolete?

And why, as has been illustrated by a recent jewish poster, is the priesthood of Aaron called an everlasting priesthood?

The keys by definition are "the forgiveness of sins"

If you do not have those keys, you do not have the forgiveness of sins.

The keys were given to a man. They were held anciently as they are held today by the quorum of the twelve and they are only operative in one leader of the church at a time.

They relate to the forgiveness of sins as in Luke because the gospel in being preached and received brings the forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance from sins, and baptism for the remission of sins, etc. The priesthood keys relate to the direction of the body of the priesthood in the church in relation to the work of proclaiming the gospel.

[revelation]

revelation, I don't have time to read those books and I have no desire. I have read lots about the inerrancy of the Bible and through studying the Bible and reference material, there is a lot of evidence that it isn't inerrant.

Besides, I think you should answer either of the questions I asked you in my previous post. Either those Bibles are the word of God or they aren't.

Since you are unwilling to look at such evidence, the topic is off limits for discussion. Lets get back to the topic of perfection.

[revelation]

Athiests/Humanists have responded to the material in these books.

Thanks for sharing! That is wonderful news since Satan is always out to appose God. And Athiest's and Humanists are not men sent from God. That is clear.

[urroner]

Thanks for sharing! That is wonderful news since Satan is always out to appose God. And Athiest's and Humanists are not men sent from God. That is clear.

Typical response. If you can't defend your position, do one of the following:

1. Damn the other side to Hell.
   
2. Exalt yourself to a position where you refuse to lower yourself to answering any questions and let one and all know that you have to maintain your high standards, even if they aren't really that high, you know, it's all about image.
   
3. Demand that the other side read a gazillion books, knowing that they won't have time to do so or even the desire to do so since they might have a life and other things more important to do, and then tell them that if they aren't willing to make such little sacrifices, sacrifices that you probably won't make for them, that you won't discuss it because in order for them to even begin to comprehend such important things, that have to read those books, else discussion wouldn't be worth it. Interesting sidenote, revelation, didn't you tell us to just read the Bible with an open mind and God will reveal all that we need to know? If that was you, why are you telling us to read non-biblical books, isn't the Bible good enough any more?
   

What is clear revelation is that you can't defend your own position.

[revelation]

Typical response. If you can't defend your position, do one of the following:

1. Damn the other side to Hell.
   I am not the one who said "athiests" and "humanists" But These are very obviously unbelievers.
   All Unbelievers are under the control of Satan. Satan also blinds their minds. And The man without the Spirit cannot accept the things that come from God. They are foolishness to them. So who would ever give credit to anything an athiest says when all the things of God are naturally foolish to them.
   2 Corinthians 4:4 "The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers"
   1 Corinthians 2:14 "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned"
   

2. Exalt yourself to a position where you refuse to lower yourself to answering any questions and let one and all know that you have to maintain your high standards, even if they aren't really that high, you know, it's all about image.

Your the one who made the first refusal.

What is clear revelation is that you can't defend your own position.

I can defend it just fine. Read the books and we will talk. I am willing. It is you who is not willing.You certainly have an enormous amount of time to be here in this forum, if you have that kind of free time on your hands, pick up those books and lets discuss them when your done.

[Tanyan]

Thanks for sharing! That is wonderful news since Satan is always out to appose God. And Athiest's and Humanists are not men sent from God. That is clear.

Adhominum.

[revelation]

Adhominum.

You won't know until you read the books.

[Tanyan]

I am not the one who said "athiests" and "humanists" But These are very obviously unbelievers.

All Unbelievers are under the control of Satan. Satan also blinds their minds. And The man without the Spirit cannot accept the things that come from God. They are foolishness to them. So who would ever give credit to anything an athiest says when all the things of God are naturally foolish to them.

2 Corinthians 4:4 "The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers"

1 Corinthians 2:14 "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned"

Your the one who made the first refusal.

I can defend it just fine. Read the books and we will talk. I am willing. It is you who is not willing.

You certainly have an enormous amount of time to be here in this forum, if you have that kind of free time on your hands, pick up those books and lets discuss them when your done.

Read the responses.

[Tanyan]

Read the F.A.I.R Wiki.

In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[revelation]

And how does one go about receiving the Holy Ghost?

Did you know that the bible states it is through the laying on of hands by those in authority with the priesthood?

Honestly do you think I haven't read the bible?

Do you think when you quote a scripture to me that it is one I have not considered previously?

Read these:

Romans 10:17 "Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message" together with 1 Corinthians 12:3 "no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit."

Acts 2:38 "Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

2 Corinthians 5:20 "We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God."

You never put your whole package together. Salvation, rewards, definitions, how salvation is obtained etc.

For example you gave a piece of it with "state" vs "standing"

You gave your belief that man can be saved in the presence of God while yet being sinful and by having Christ cover that sinfulness.

All of it. You said you were putting it all together. Pretend you are going to preach to a native of the amazon forest and you don't get to use a bible, only your notes. What would you teach that native to believe and why?

Wow! Thanks for the reminder! I plum forgot about it. My apologies! I will put that together this weekend for you.

The new covenant is the gospel which existed prior to Mosaic law, and was restored by Christ. Abraham practised the 'new' covenant.

It is 'new and everlasting'. The reason for the Mosaic law was the children of Israel proved unworthy of the new covenant. They received something less.

The lesser law was finally done away.

The priesthood existed prior to the Mosaic law.

There is no justification to believe the priesthood spoken of by Peter was anything other than a literal priesthood as it has always existed.

What happens in heaven? All these OT prophets who had the priesthood for an eternal organisational purpose mix with post Christ peoples who lack it. What organisation exists there then - when once time and relative displacement in time upon the earth have no meaning? Your POV contradicts history as well as scripture. The Catholic church did not create the priesthood out of thin air. It has existed in an unbroken chain from the early church. It's authority has been lost but it's form has remained. Why is this so if Peter believed as you do about the priesthood becoming obsolete?

And why, as has been illustrated by a recent jewish poster, is the priesthood of Aaron called an everlasting priesthood?

The keys were given to a man. They were held anciently as they are held today by the quorum of the twelve and they are only operative in one leader of the church at a time.

They relate to the forgiveness of sins as in Luke because the gospel in being preached and received brings the forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance from sins, and baptism for the remission of sins, etc. The priesthood keys relate to the direction of the body of the priesthood in the church in relation to the work of proclaiming the gospel.

Hebrews teaches that the Aaronic priesthood was replaced by Melchizedek:

Hebrews 7:11-12 "why was there still need for another priest to comeâ??one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? For when there is a change of the priesthood,..."

Melchizadek was always a priesthood of one person and was replaced by one person: Jesus :

Hebrews 7: 15-17 "if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. For it is declared: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."

God declared that Jesus would be the priest forever and I repeat, the Melchizadek priesthood is a priesthood of one priest:

Hebews 7:20 "when God said to him:

"The Lord has sworn

and will not change his mind:

'You are a priest forever.'

Now since Jesus is the Priest, having other Priests in the Melchizadek priesthood is a denial of Jesus as the Priest.

Men who were priests died and so they couldn't continue in their office, therefore replacements were nessessary when the Priests died. But now Jesus is the priest and he lives forever so there is no longer any need for replacements:

Hebrews 7:23-24 "Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood."

So the priesthood of men is obsolete all together now because Jesus is a permanent Priest, able to serve us in ways even greater than the priesthood of the past. That preisthood was only a shadow of the reality we have in Christ. When the reality comes, and it has, the shadow is obsolete.

[Calm]

Read these three books below and then we will discuss all this.

From God to us - How We Got Our Bible by Norman L Geisler & William E. Nix (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974)

The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988).

Bible: God's Inspired, Inerrant Word by Pastor Brian R. Keller.

Check out Northwestern Publishing house for these.

So you are appealing to books outside of the Bible to prove that the Bible is inerrant and therefore self-sufficient. Isn't that self-defeating?

In order to know if the Bible is of God, whether it is infallible, means to do what IT says, not what Joseph Smith says. Now if you do this, you will know the bible is infallible! You will know whether it be of God or whether if be the mistakes of men.

Does the Bible tell us to read these three books?

[shalamabobbi]

Read these:

Romans 10:17 "Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message" together with 1 Corinthians 12:3 "no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit."

Look at 2 verses previous: Rom 10:15 And how shall they preach except they be sent?

Someone who is sent has to first be baptised into the church.

They then have had hands laid on their head to receive the holy Ghost before they are sent.

They would also receive the priesthood first as well.

Then they can say Jesus is Lord by the Holy Ghost per 1 Cor 12:3

Acts 2:38 "Peter replied, "Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

And you will receive the laying on of hands in other words, to be confirmed members of the church.

2 Corinthians 5:20 "We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God."

I don't know what you intended to convey with this passage but consider:

John 17:18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

Was Christ sent bearing the higher Melchizedek priesthood? Can you deduce how he sent the apostles?

John 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you.

Ordination is a function of the priesthood.

Here's Webster's definition of the verb: to invest officially (as by the laying on of hands) with ministerial or priestly authority.

How did Christ choose them? He prayed all night, he called them from their occupations, they sacrificed their livelihoods and followed the call.

The apostles later followed the same pattern and called others into the priesthood

Acts 14:21-23 And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch,

Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.

And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

Titus 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that were wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee.

Matthias was ordained to replace Judas. Paul was ordained to replace someone who was killed 1 Tim 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle..

Luke 10:1 After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, wither he himself would come.

2 Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest.

9 And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.

16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

17 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.

19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.

I will answer the rest of your post in a while.

[shalamabobbi]

Hebrews teaches that the Aaronic priesthood was replaced by Melchizedek: Hebrews 7:11-12

Actually the Melchizedek was restored again. The lessor law of Moses lost the ministration of the higher priesthood and was administered under the lessor priesthood.

That is why perfection cannot come by the law of Moses, even if it is the pure uncorrupted law of Moses that had its faith centered in Christ properly.

It only administered in the preparatory gospel. Faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism.

Melchizadek was always a priesthood of one person and was replaced by one person: Jesus :

There is no foundation for that conclusion from Hebrews.

You are getting confused with the office of high priest which was a type of Christ. But there were many Priests.

Hebrews 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law(of Moses), what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Hebrews 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

The law of Moses changed or replaced by the law of Christ. Note that the phrase "a change of the law" implies the gospel is also a law. And that gospel is administered by the higher or Melchizedek Priesthood.

God declared that Jesus would be the priest forever and I repeat, the Melchizadek priesthood is a priesthood of one priest:

There is no bases for that conclusion. It flies in the face of scripture and history.

Now since Jesus is the Priest, having other Priests in the Melchizadek priesthood is a denial of Jesus as the Priest.

It is not. All priesthood is forever, if we obey our covenants. That is a type of the Saviour's resurrected life which is forever.

It is priesthood that is without beginning of days, etc in Heb 7:3

Men who were priests died and so they couldn't continue in their office, therefore replacements were nessessary when the Priests died. But now Jesus is the priest and he lives forever so there is no longer any need for replacements:

Hebrews 7:23-24 "Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood."

So the priesthood of men is obsolete all together now because Jesus is a permanent Priest, able to serve us in ways even greater than the priesthood of the past. That preisthood was only a shadow of the reality we have in Christ. When the reality comes, and it has, the shadow is obsolete.

Your argument falls apart when you consider that Jesus brought again the higher priesthood to supercede the lesser priesthood because the greater is associated with administering the gospel and the lessor is associated with administering the law of Moses. The gospel was a restoration. It existed before the law of Moses. Abraham lived it. Therefore the higher priesthood existed prior to the law of Moses as well. Therefore there was more than one priest after the order of Melchizadek.

Again the history of the Catholic church disproves your hypothesis. There was a priesthood in the church or how did it appear in the Catholic church?

Your analysis is oversimplified thinking drawn from the types of Christ found in the priesthood.

And scripture contradicts your hypothesis:

1 Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

There is a type of proof in mathematics that works when something can't be proven directly. You assume the contrary is true and if it leads to a contradiction then the proof of the original is made.

This is what happens with your hypothesis. Priesthood after Christ is an historical fact. It contradicts the idea you put forward.

If Peter were as bright as you he would know as much as you about priesthood and would not have let it continue in the church. Then the church would have been as bright as you as well. Then the following generations would have not had any priesthood either. But the facts are there was always a form of priesthood in the church as a matter of historical record. Not until the reformation did ideas such as yours spring into existence.

[urroner]

So you are appealing to books outside of the Bible to prove that the Bible is inerrant and therefore self-sufficient. Isn't that self-defeating?

Does the Bible tell us to read these three books?

Cal, I already made that comment, but the irony of revelation's comments hasn't dawn upon him and the Catholics have commented upon Irresistible Ignorance. It is obvious from revelation's comments that he isn't here to discuss anything with us, he is only to to lecture and cast disdain and contempt in our direction. There is no love in his comments, only hauteur, pride, and scorn. I guess it should be changed from Irresistible Ignorance to Irresistible Arrogance.

[Hoops22]

Cal, I already made that comment, but the irony of revelation's comments hasn't dawn upon him and the Catholics have commented upon Irresistible Ignorance. It is obvious from revelation's comments that he isn't here to discuss anything with us, he is only to to lecture and cast disdain and contempt in our direction. There is no love in his comments, only hauteur, pride, and scorn. I guess it should be changed from Irresistible Ignorance to Irresistible Arrogance.

You, making these comments, is laughable.

[urroner]

You, making these comments, is laughable.

Well, they say that laughter is the best medicine. If I can help you overcome your spiritual illness in anyway, please just let me know.

[Tanyan]

http://www.thebible.net/study/articles/Are...ceAlone-dm.html

Back on topic . Tanyan LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[revelation]

So you are appealing to books outside of the Bible to prove that the Bible is inerrant and therefore self-sufficient. Isn't that self-defeating?

Does the Bible tell us to read these three books?

Thank you for your comments. In a previous discussion with Urroner I appealed to the Bible alone. Urroner and others were unsatisfied with that and that is because they don't believe in the Bible alone and don't believe it was translated properly. That makes it impossible for Urroner and those who agree with him to be satisfied. So I provided something "more" for them. For me, The Bible is self-sufficient.