busybee Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 8 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: I am tired. Do you want to believe the tall tales of a 19th century confidence man? You have my permission. Do you want to believe the guests on the Art Bell radio program? You have my permission. Do you want to believe that sexual immorality is good and wholesome? You have my permission. You want to believe that Mormons are going to Hell. You have my permission. Just don't be surprised when you don't see us there.
busybee Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 9 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: To condemn them. Because they refused to get on the Ark, they refused Christ. Nope. It says he went to preach to them. Not to condemn them. Don't change the words in the scriptures to suit your opinions. 19 By whom also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison 1
busybee Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 9 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: The ecumenical creeds are binding because they reflect what is taught in scripture. Not the other way around. The creeds reflect what is in the scripture that is left after those involved in the Council cherry picked what to put in the scriptures and what to leave out. So yes, the other way around.
Anakin7 Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 7 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: Can you show me a portion of the bible where a sentiment like "after all you can do" is expressed? It would be an Honor to serve you Jim Stiles, as thesometimesaint has already provided an awesome reference to the Parable of the Talents. Also The Lord of Life Christ Jesus stated in Mark 13:13 - "All men will hate you because of me but he who stands firm to the end will be saved", So when all Hell breaks loose in an individuals life and are attack by the arrows and darts that are thrown at us [such as when we are attacked by anti LDS polemic] do we not do "all we can do to stand firm" in coming to Christ Jesus to accept/access/activate/grab hold of/hold on to/obtain His Grace to strenghen us to withstand ?. I would inive you to not read that scripture in complete isolation as the typical anti LDS polemicist such as yourself does. Please Jim Styles read the context !!!, start with vrs 23-30. Also Ephesians 6;10-18, see vrs 13 ! - Therefore put on the whole armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you will be able to standyour ground and " AFTER YOU HAVE DONE EVERYTHING TO STAND" [My emphasis in large letters ] for the rest of all you can do read the remaining verses 14 -18. Once again read the context of 2 Nephi 25:23, what was the "all they could do" ?, Keep the Law of Moses, and what else Jim Stiles ?, Believe in Christ, Have Faith in Christ, looking steadfastness to Christ, talking of Christ, rejoice in Christ,Preach of Christ, teaching there children where to look for a remission of their sins,deny Him not, bow down before him with all your might,mind,strenght with your whole soul. For an additional awesome read see http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2012/03/having-done-all-to-stand-exposing-self.html . And also Jim Stiies why do you ignor the other passages of the Book of Mormon that is it In and Only by Jesus Christ and his merits that we are Saved ?. This is not honest, if you were really serious to come in here and Dine and Dialogue with us in True agape love you would have read all of The Book of Mormon Scriptures that deal with True Salvation in and throught The Person and Work of Christ Jesus - http://aremormonschristian.com/can_we_save_ourselves_by_our_works.aspx . May True Grace be with you and those that you love. Washing My Robes The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7 1
Jim Stiles Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 The parable of the talents is about sanctification, not justification.
Jim Stiles Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 5 hours ago, busybee said: Nope. It says he went to preach to them. Not to condemn them. Don't change the words in the scriptures to suit your opinions. 19 By whom also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison Yes, he preached a message of condemnation. The gospel was bad news for those people.
Jim Stiles Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 13 hours ago, JLHPROF said: I follow a 19th century prophet called by Christ himself instead of 4th century academics and politicians masquerading as priests. The men who wrote and approved the ecumenical creeds were all clergy.
JLHPROF Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 4 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: The men who wrote and approved the ecumenical creeds were all clergy. As I said. Clergy were the politicians of their day back then. And as I also noted, the Ecumenical Creeds were all 300 years or more after the death of Christ and the Apostles. They were also written by committee, debated, edited, and not unanimously accepted. Clearly not by revelation. Holding to them as the true examples of original apostolic teachings contemporary with Christ is simply false. 2
Jim Stiles Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, busybee said: The creeds reflect what is in the scripture that is left after those involved in the Council cherry picked what to put in the scriptures and what to leave out. So yes, the other way around. If you have a copy of what the Ante-Nicene church removed from the Bible, then by all means show us. We would like to know. In the mean time, point and laugh at the Gospel of Thomas http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gthlamb.html Quote (114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven." Edited February 2, 2016 by Jim Stiles layout
JLHPROF Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 1 minute ago, Jim Stiles said: If you have a copy of what the Ante-Nicene church removed from the Bible, then by all means show us. We would like to know. In the mean time, point and laugh at the Gospel of Thomas http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gthlamb.html Yeah, the Gnostics got a lot of stuff wrong. But on occasion they were closer to the truth than modern traditional Christians.
halconero Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 Ohhhhhhhh, I wrote my Honours Thesis on the Gospel of Thomas. That verse is not nearly so hilarious, weird, or out there if you understand the philosophical context. In fact, the Gospel of Thomas is one of the mostly interestingly boring texts from that era and far less weird than it might seem if you just read through it once. 1
Anakin7 Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: The parable of the talents is about sanctification, not justification. That is a interpetation yes however it also can read as to where in the Kingdom they will go in accepting /accessing/activationg True Grace and how they worked in True Grace on the Vine. Sanctification - to have the Potter mold them into service and by Free will accept it, Justification To Be and Stay saved to enter the Highest Levet of The Kingdom of God and of his Christ and accept it.. I also notice you did not state anything about the links I provided showing "Biblicaly" about "All You Can Do", Once again read the context. Thank you. In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7 Edited February 2, 2016 by Anakin7
thesometimesaint Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Yeah, the Gnostics got a lot of stuff wrong. But on occasion they were closer to the truth than modern traditional Christians. Books missing from the Bible. SEE http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Bible.shtml#lost The book of the covenant, through which Moses instructed Israel (Exodus 24:7). The book of the wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14). The book of Jasher (Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18). The book of the manner of the kingdom (1 Samuel 10:25). Possible books containing three thousand proverbs, a thousand and five songs, a treatise on natural history by Solomon (1 Kings 4:32,33). The acts or annals of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41). The book of Gad the Seer (1 Chronicles 29:29). The book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29). The prophecy of Ahijah, the Shilonite (2 Chronicles 9:29). The visions of Iddo the Seer (2 Chronicles 9:29). The book of Shemaiah the prophet (2 Chronicles 12:15). The story of the prophet Iddo (2 Chronicles 13:22). The book of Jehu (2 Chronicles 20:34). The Acts of Uzziah, by Isaiah, the son of Amoz (2 Chronicles 26:22) Sayings of the Seers (2 Chronicles 33:19) The New Testament also refers to the Book of Enoch in Jude 14; a missing epistle of Paul to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3); a missing Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9); and a missing Epistle to the Colossians, written from Laodicea (Col. 4:16). These writings were important enough to quote or refer to in subsequent writings preserved now as scripture. In addition, Matthew 2:23 cites a now fulfilled prophecy from "the prophets" that Christ would be a Nazarene (someone from Nazareth), but this prophecy is not found anywhere in any existing Old Testament canon. Matthew was citing scripture which is missing now. Another example of missing scripture is the text containing the words of Christ that Paul quotes in Acts 20:35: "remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive." This saying of Christ appears in none of the Gospels. Here Paul was writing to foreign converts who were not around to hear Christ preach, so how were they to "remember" those words? Paul obviously must have been citing it from a sacred writing that they had. We no longer have that writing. Something is missing. 1
Jim Stiles Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: As I said. Clergy were the politicians of their day back then. And as I also noted, the Ecumenical Creeds were all 300 years or more after the death of Christ and the Apostles. They were also written by committee, debated, edited, and not unanimously accepted. Clearly not by revelation. Holding to them as the true examples of original apostolic teachings contemporary with Christ is simply false. You are correct. It was not unanimous. Two bishops abstained. http://www.churchhistory101.com/council-nicea-325.php Quote Despite the urging of the Emperor for peace, accusations were thrown about and Arius was called upon to present his views and defend himself. As Arius explained his position on the nature of Jesus some of the bishops actually plugged their ears, unwilling to listen. In the end a vote was taken to decide if Arius was to be allowed to remain in his position - it was a unanimous vote against Arius with two bishops abstaining. The views of Arius were condemned. It is important to realize that this vote was not a vote on the divinity of Jesus, or the trinity, but specifically on the views of Arius and whether or not he would be allowed to stay in his position.
Anakin7 Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) Will post more later In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7 Edited February 2, 2016 by Anakin7
halconero Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 10 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: You are correct. It was not unanimous. Two bishops abstained. http://www.churchhistory101.com/council-nicea-325.php Well...that and about 4/5ths of them were absent. 1
Jim Stiles Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 17 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: Books missing from the Bible. SEE http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Bible.shtml#lost The book of the covenant, through which Moses instructed Israel (Exodus 24:7). The book of the wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14). The book of Jasher (Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18). The book of the manner of the kingdom (1 Samuel 10:25). Possible books containing three thousand proverbs, a thousand and five songs, a treatise on natural history by Solomon (1 Kings 4:32,33). The acts or annals of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41). The book of Gad the Seer (1 Chronicles 29:29). The book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29). The prophecy of Ahijah, the Shilonite (2 Chronicles 9:29). The visions of Iddo the Seer (2 Chronicles 9:29). The book of Shemaiah the prophet (2 Chronicles 12:15). The story of the prophet Iddo (2 Chronicles 13:22). The book of Jehu (2 Chronicles 20:34). The Acts of Uzziah, by Isaiah, the son of Amoz (2 Chronicles 26:22) Sayings of the Seers (2 Chronicles 33:19) The New Testament also refers to the Book of Enoch in Jude 14; a missing epistle of Paul to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3); a missing Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9); and a missing Epistle to the Colossians, written from Laodicea (Col. 4:16). These writings were important enough to quote or refer to in subsequent writings preserved now as scripture. In addition, Matthew 2:23 cites a now fulfilled prophecy from "the prophets" that Christ would be a Nazarene (someone from Nazareth), but this prophecy is not found anywhere in any existing Old Testament canon. Matthew was citing scripture which is missing now. Another example of missing scripture is the text containing the words of Christ that Paul quotes in Acts 20:35: "remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive." This saying of Christ appears in none of the Gospels. Here Paul was writing to foreign converts who were not around to hear Christ preach, so how were they to "remember" those words? Paul obviously must have been citing it from a sacred writing that they had. We no longer have that writing. Something is missing. Those books did not contain what the LDS church wanted them to contain. If they did, then they would have been rejected because they disagreed with the basic message of the books in the our Bibles.
JLHPROF Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 17 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: Those books did not contain what the LDS church wanted them to contain. If they did, then they would have been rejected because they disagreed with the basic message of the books in the our Bibles. And you know this because you've read the missing books?
thesometimesaint Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 23 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: Those books did not contain what the LDS church wanted them to contain. If they did, then they would have been rejected because they disagreed with the basic message of the books in the our Bibles. You're a laugh a minute. We believe the Bible to be the word of God... .
busybee Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 1 hour ago, Jim Stiles said: Yes, he preached a message of condemnation. The gospel was bad news for those people. The gospel is never bad news. The word itself means literally 'good news'. If those spirits were in Hades just waiting to be reunited with their bodies so that they could be burned they were already condemned, the Saviour going their to preach to them would have been be pointless. And mean. What did he say to them.'I came to Atone for the sins of all of God's children, but not yours because you died before I was born. Sorry about that.'
Anakin7 Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 2 hours ago, Anakin7 said: It would be an Honor to serve you Jim Stiles, as thesometimesaint has already provided an awesome reference to the Parable of the Talents. Also The Lord of Life Christ Jesus stated in Mark 13:13 - "All men will hate you because of me but he who stands firm to the end will be saved", So when all Hell breaks loose in an individuals life and are attack by the arrows and darts that are thrown at us [such as when we are attacked by anti LDS polemic] do we not do "all we can do to stand firm" in coming to Christ Jesus to accept/access/activate/grab hold of/hold on to/obtain His Grace to strenghen us to withstand ?. I would inive you to not read that scripture in complete isolation as the typical anti LDS polemicist such as yourself does. Please Jim Styles read the context !!!, start with vrs 23-30. Also Ephesians 6;10-18, see vrs 13 ! - Therefore put on the whole armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you will be able to standyour ground and " AFTER YOU HAVE DONE EVERYTHING TO STAND" [My emphasis in large letters ] for the rest of all you can do read the remaining verses 14 -18. Once again read the context of 2 Nephi 25:23, what was the "all they could do" ?, Keep the Law of Moses, and what else Jim Stiles ?, Believe in Christ, Have Faith in Christ, looking steadfastness to Christ, talking of Christ, rejoice in Christ,Preach of Christ, teaching there children where to look for a remission of their sins,deny Him not, bow down before him with all your might,mind,strenght with your whole soul. For an additional awesome read see http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2012/03/having-done-all-to-stand-exposing-self.html . And also Jim Stiies why do you ignor the other passages of the Book of Mormon that is it In and Only by Jesus Christ and his merits that we are Saved ?. This is not honest, if you were really serious to come in here and Dine and Dialogue with us in True agape love you would have read all of The Book of Mormon Scriptures that deal with True Salvation in and throught The Person and Work of Christ Jesus - http://aremormonschristian.com/can_we_save_ourselves_by_our_works.aspx . May True Grace be with you and those that you love. Washing My Robes The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7 Repost for Jim Stiles, please read context and links that respond to your polemics. Have a Grace Blessed day.
busybee Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 53 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: Those books did not contain what the LDS church wanted them to contain. If they did, then they would have been rejected because they disagreed with the basic message of the books in the our Bibles. You have no idea what those books contained. CFR. (Call For References) Please provide proof of what, according to you, the LDS would reject from those books.This should be interesting
Anakin7 Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 1 hour ago, halconero said: Well...that and about 4/5ths of them were absent. And do not forget all the political stuff going on as well outside the voting arena. Threats of banishment of those who did not vote in favor of Athanasious, along with physical punishment and banishment of family members. I have read about this in the past at my local Methodist School of Theology. In His Debt/Grace Anakin7 1
JLHPROF Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 1 hour ago, Anakin7 said: And do not forget all the political stuff going on as well outside the voting arena. Threats of banishment of those who did not vote in favor of Athanasious, along with physical punishment and banishment of family members. I have read about this in the past at my local Methodist School of Theology. In His Debt/Grace Anakin7 Given the choices of source of canon, I am more than comfortable accepting Joseph Smith's revelations over these Ecumenical Councils conclusions. Regardless of what I have been taught to see as doctrinal errors in their interpretation of Biblical texts, the very councils choosing the books of the Bible and the interpretation of their contents do not appear to have had the spiritual welfare and doctrinal truth as their primary interests. It seems politics and power were as much the deciding factors as anything spiritual. 1
Jim Stiles Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 4 hours ago, busybee said: The gospel is never bad news. The word itself means literally 'good news'. If those spirits were in Hades just waiting to be reunited with their bodies so that they could be burned they were already condemned, the Saviour going their to preach to them would have been be pointless. And mean. What did he say to them.'I came to Atone for the sins of all of God's children, but not yours because you died before I was born. Sorry about that.' The gospel is bad news, even in this life, to those who will never be saved. These persons, called reprobates in formal theological language, will never be saved and for whom the cross, not the garden of Gethsemane, will always be foolishness. Martin Luther said: Quote On the Bondage of the Will, Pg. 149 (1525) Throughout your treatment you forget that you said that 'free-will' can do nothing without grace, and you prove that 'free-will' can do all things without grace! Your inferences and analogies "For if man has lost his freedom, and is forced to serve sin, and cannot will good, what conclusion can more justly be drawn concerning him, than that he sins and wills evil necessarily?" Paul of Tarsus said: Quote 1 Corinthians 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. Quote 1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
Recommended Posts