Nathair/|\ Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 No wait... you have Nephi quoting the gospels before they were written... hmmm... that's what I'm asking?Why can't Heavenly Father give Nephi the same message in essentially the same way as he would subsequently give through the gospel authors?
CQUIRK Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 No wait... you have Nephi quoting the gospels before they were written... hmmm... that's what I'm asking?Nephi was a prophet, I guess God revealed it to him first.
ed2276 Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 No wait... you have Nephi quoting the gospels before they were written... hmmm... that's what I'm asking?Can you explain these verses from the book of Hebrews, please? Chapter 3 : 14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end; 15 While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation. 16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.Who are these "some" who heard and provoked the Lord? It was those who came out of Egypt by Moses' hand. 17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.Paul makes it clear that he is speaking of those who sinned against the Lord while in the Wilderness, not those of Paul's day. How did they sin and provoke the Lord? By their unbelief.Paul then addresses his present audience and tells them not to make the same mistake as those whom the Lord brought out of Egypt. Chapter 4: 1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.What was it that ancient Israel rejected, which provoked the Lord to anger and to swear that they shouldn't enter into His rest? It was the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul says the Gospel was preached to his present audience, but it was also preached to ancient Israel in the Wilderness. 2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.How is it that Paul knows that the Gospel existed and was preached to the Hebrews after God brought them out of Egypt by Moses' hand? How is it that the Gospel pre-existed even Nephi? Christ's coming, His ministry, His Day, was known even before there was an Israel, a Moses, or a Nephi. Abraham saw the Lord and His ministry long before the Gospels were written:John 8: 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.Jesus proclaimed Himself to be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: the Great, I am, who existed before Abraham was, and who appeared to Abraham and Moses. Nephi knew of the Gospel and of Christ's day long before the Gospel was written in precisely the same way Abraham and Moses knew of it. The Lord revealed it to him.
webbles Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 I meant what I said. Righteousness doesn't come from following rules. Of course I'm talking about the righteousness that is a gift of God, through Christ. You might be talking about sanctification, that part where God works on our hearts to will and to do his good works. Either way, it's God who does the work. Our job is to let him. Neither is a permission to be lazy.To clarify for myself, do you think that:1 - Faith and obedience are both necessary for salvation?2 - Faith is only necessary for salvation and disobedience will not affect it?3 - Obedience is only necessary for salvation while unbelief will not affect it?I'm guessing that you don't accept #3 but do you accept #1 or #2?
ed2276 Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 It's the actual event that gives the symbol meaning.The symbol has no meaning without a true death and resurrection of our spirits. It's not the symbolic act of getting wet that saves us, but what the symbol is representing that saves us. Further, not getting wet doesn't prevent the actual event in our spirits from taking place.I am not sure one could realize the effects of the actual event without getting wet. Symbolic burial must entail being buried. The medium for that is water. How can one have the spiritual effects of the actual event of a clean conscience, a newness of life, and a remission of sins without dying, being buried, and being raised from the dead through baptism in water without getting wet?
Hughes Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 Why can't Heavenly Father give Nephi the same message in essentially the same way as he would subsequently give through the gospel authors?I suppose he could. However, what is the probability that he did that, verses Joseph Smith putting words into the mouth of a supposed Nephi? Nephi was a prophet, I guess God revealed it to him first.That's a stretch, given that Isaiah et al didn't have such revelations.
Avatar4321 Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 Jesus Christ is a Heretic? God the Father is a Heretic?Who knew? I doubt they did.
Hughes Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 Nephi knew of the Gospel and of Christ's day long before the Gospel was written in precisely the same way Abraham and Moses knew of it. The Lord revealed it to him.If Nephi existed as a real person, and a prophet, it still stretches the limits of imagination to think that he gave Nephi (a prophet no one heard of until 1830) what he didn't give to the other prophets. And then add to the nearly word for word King James English of the revelation.
Nathair/|\ Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 I suppose he could. However, what is the probability that he did that, verses Joseph Smith putting words into the mouth of a supposed Nephi? About 109999999999999/1 Or similar odds to a pot of water put on a hot burner not freezing. That's a stretch, given that Isaiah et al didn't have such revelations.CFR (I'm not saying he did, just that we don't know what might not have come down to us.)
Hughes Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 To clarify for myself, do you think that:1 - Faith and obedience are both necessary for salvation?2 - Faith is only necessary for salvation and disobedience will not affect it?3 - Obedience is only necessary for salvation while unbelief will not affect it?I'm guessing that you don't accept #3 but do you accept #1 or #2?1 - Faith is obedience as in, if you are obedient, you have faith, and yes both are necessary. 2- If one has Faith, they will also obey, if they don't obey, their salvation will be lost if they continue down that path, but only God judges when/where that point is. 3 - One can't enter if they only "do" things without faith. It is impossible to please God without faith.
Hughes Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 Hughes, on 06 February 2011 - 09:51 PM, said:I suppose he could. However, what is the probability that he did that, verses Joseph Smith putting words into the mouth of a supposed Nephi? About 109999999999999/1 Or similar odds to a pot of water put on a hot burner not freezing. In other words it's expected? CFR (I'm not saying he did, just that we don't know what might not have come down to us.)I know of no prophet anywhere that quotes the gospels of the NT before they were written. The NT writers quote the prophets (except Nephi), but I haven't ever heard of one quoting the gospels 600 years prior to their writing.
ed2276 Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 If Nephi existed as a real person, and a prophet, it still stretches the limits of imagination to think that he gave Nephi (a prophet no one heard of until 1830) what he didn't give to the other prophets. And then add to the nearly word for word King James English of the revelation.But, I think I have shown you from the Bible (quoting Paul and The Lord) that the Lord did give to Abraham and Moses precisely what He gave to Nephi. What would stretch the imagination in my opinion would be a Nephi who knew nothing about the Gospel of Christ before it was ever written when obviously "real" prophets like Abraham and Moses did know about it. That Nephi knew about the Gospel long before it was written, just as Abraham and Moses had, seems to be pretty good evidence for Nephi being a prophet.
Hughes Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 But, I think I have shown you from the Bible (quoting Paul and The Lord) that the Lord did give to Abraham and Moses precisely what He gave to Nephi. What would stretch the imagination in my opinion would be a Nephi who knew nothing about the Gospel of Christ before it was ever written when obviously "real" prophets like Abraham and Moses did know about it. That Nephi knew about the Gospel long before it was written, just as Abraham and Moses had, seems to be pretty good evidence for Nephi being a prophet.Yet, Abraham and Moses didn't quote the NT gospels, as Nephi supposedly did. Further, the NT writers quote Abraham and Moses, but not Nephi?
Nathair/|\ Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 Yet, Abraham and Moses didn't quote the NT gospels, as Nephi supposedly did. Further, the NT writers quote Abraham and Moses, but not Nephi?How would Peter and Paul's audience have known about someone living on the Yucatan peninsula?
Bernard Gui Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 I know of no prophet anywhere that quotes the gospels of the NT before they were written. The NT writers quote the prophets (except Nephi), but I haven't ever heard of one quoting the gospels 600 years prior to their writing.You can learn something new every day.Bernard
SeattleGhostWriter Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 The issue here is that Faith is the keyword. A person can be baptized, can be obedient to the ordinances and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, they can even have a testimony of the reality of Jesus Christ. Yet, if they lack faith in who Christ is, they are dead because they have not truly been converted. That is why the first principle of the Gospel is Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Without faith, our works are dead (James 2:17). Faith in Jesus Christ is not merely having an intellectual knowledge of who Christ is. Remember, for even Satan and the demons confess that Jesus is the Christ, they don't believe in him. The problem we have here is that some take the Sola Fida (Faith Alone) with Sola Gratia (Grace Alone) as the Scriptural account and relegate all the other necessary commandments and ordinances as subordinate, or nonessential to the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who insist that Baptism saves and is necessary. Yet, the middle ground is where the Latter-day Saints reside. It is the place that is not understood by modern evangelicals. As Mormons, we are not saying that salvation comes by Baptism alone, nor by performing the required ordinances of the Gospel as commanded by God. We know that the Pharisee's and Sadduccees of Christ's day believed they were of Abraham's seed, but in reality did not believe in who Christ truly was. The key factor is Faith. Faith in Christ is this: Jesus Christ as the Son of the Living God, the promised Messiah to come and redeem fallen humanity. Once we have faith, the next step comes true repentance. We repent of our sins, and we seek the forgiveness of our Heavenly Father. This is where the Atonement begins to cleanse us. In a sense, we are forgiven once we repent of our sins. Third, we seek baptism for the remission of our sins. This is why Baptism is essential to the gospel of Jesus Christ because it is for the remission of our sins. What sins are washed away? Well, the first is that of our disposition toward sin because of Adam's transgression. In this sense, the Original Sin is washed from us.
Bernard Gui Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 All Christian churches (that I know of) teach that the act of baptism is symbolic, not actually a salvation requirement.That is not an answer to my question. I made the statement that the bible is insufficient todefine the doctrine of baptism. If it were, all Christian churches would share the samedoctrine and practice. They do not.And who wrote 2 Nephi 31? And when did the Father command all men to be baptized?Nephi, son of Lehi, of the tribe of Joseph. Before the foundation of the world...thus the Lamb slain from the before the foundation of the world.It is the eternal plan of the Father.Bernard
Bernard Gui Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 We have the prophet Nephi supposedly quoting Jesus before he existed? Please explain how you guys see this because it's just bizarre to me.Are you saying Jesus did not exist 600 years before his birth? Or that he was not capable of speaking?That sounds bizarre to me.Bernard
Bernard Gui Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 No wait... you have Nephi quoting the gospels before they were written... hmmm... that's what I'm asking?We would call that revelation. Also, in 1 Nephi 10, Lehi, Nephi's father, saw in vision the ministry of Jesus,including the baptism of Jesus and the prophet who would baptize him. He shared his vision andknowledge with his family.Bernard
Anakin7 Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 Hughes back to Baptism as essential from our Catholic Christians comrads - http://www.catholic...._of_Baptism.asp In His Debt/Grace Anakin7 LDS JEDI KNIGHT
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 Catholics believe in baptismal regeneration but could not be comfortable with this argument. It could be argued that the Saviour set an example to follow. Most evangelicals believe that one should get baptized after salvation. They undoubtedly believe, as do Catholics, that Jesus did not need to be saved. Just to clarify the LDS position, in case some one has not done so already, we do not beleive that Jesus needed to be saved and that was the reason for his baptism. We believe that he had to be baptized to do the will of the Father. IOW if had not done the baptism he would have not been perfect in keeping with the will of the Father and thus, ironically would have needed that baptism for the remission of sins.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 1 - Faith is obedience as in, if you are obedient, you have faith, and yes both are necessary. 2- If one has Faith, they will also obey, if they don't obey, their salvation will be lost if they continue down that path, but only God judges when/where that point is. 3 - One can't enter if they only "do" things without faith. It is impossible to please God without faith.You, in essance just said that both faith and works are required for salvation. If one does not have works "their salvation is lost". THat tells me it is required to be saved. Quit talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Anakin7 Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 Hughes - http://www.angelfire...Ibebaptized.htm In His Debt Grace Anakin7 LDS JEDI KNIGHT
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 I am so glad I have Hughes on ignore. Ha, I hear ya. I currently don't have him on ignore but I do ignore alot of his posts.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.