bluebell Posted May 11, 2018 Posted May 11, 2018 45 minutes ago, FormerLDS said: Ok, fair enough Bluebell. Your beliefs about eternal life are the same about your church's. Where does LDS doctrine say that you "are in the group that has eternal life" (your own words)? Please, just show me because I really do think your church teaches that you are in the group that has eternal life. Your church teaches that you do not have eternal life. That would mean starting this whole insane circle over again and I'm definitely not interested in that. This is probably the 30th time i've had this conversation with you so and you've haven't understood any of it before so, thanks but no thanks. 1
FormerLDS Posted May 11, 2018 Posted May 11, 2018 37 minutes ago, bluebell said: 1 hour ago, FormerLDS said: Ok, fair enough Bluebell. Your beliefs about eternal life are the same about your church's. Where does LDS doctrine say that you "are in the group that has eternal life" (your own words)? Please, just show me because I really do think your church teaches that you are in the group that has eternal life. Your church teaches that you do not have eternal life. That would mean starting this whole insane circle over again and I'm definitely not interested in that. This is probably the 30th time i've had this conversation with you so and you've haven't understood any of it before so, thanks but no thanks. Because everytime I demonstrate the disparity between your beliefs and what your church teaches, you hang up the phone.
FormerLDS Posted May 11, 2018 Posted May 11, 2018 1 hour ago, pogi said: Former, you are getting hung up on a semantics issue. It is a common use of language to use the present tense of have/has/hath for something that a person is only promised in the future and does not actually have yet. For example, "Take care of my dog, and you have my inheritance...it's yours". Does the person actually have the inheritance, or is that simply a figure of speech? Isn't it more of a promise that they will receive the inheritance if they keep their end of the bargain? I see your point Pogi. My point is that in order for me to understand and accept the LDS position on eternal life, I have to take the words of Jesus Christ as just a figure of speech vs believing what He plainly said. I choose to believe what Jesus Christ plainly says. "Hath" means just that.
pogi Posted May 11, 2018 Posted May 11, 2018 (edited) 55 minutes ago, FormerLDS said: I see your point Pogi. My point is that in order for me to understand and accept the LDS position on eternal life, I have to take the words of Jesus Christ as just a figure of speech vs believing what He plainly said. I choose to believe what Jesus Christ plainly says. "Hath" means just that. I hope that you take at least some of Jesus' words as figures of speech. Do you think that Jesus is "plainly" and literally going to separate sheeps on his right hand and goats on his left? As Biblical scholars have noted, Jesus often spoke in figures of speech, including: parables, allegories, similies, idioms, irony, repetition, exaggeration...and maybe even a little sarcasm. Ex: "You blind guides! You strain at a gnat but swallow a camel!" How many times should we forgive? "seventy times seven times". Are we to accept his word "plainly" (I think you mean literally), or should we accept that as a figure of speech to say, "Forgive as many times as is necessary"? What about this one? "If your right eye offends you, pluck it out and cast it off." Ouch!!! Should we accept what he "plainly" says there, or accept it as a figure of speech? I could go on for days. Does "goat, sheep, blind, gnat, camel seventy times seven, etc, tear out your eye, etc." mean "just that"? Nope. If you don't see Christ's use of figures of speech, then you are truly blind to his meaning and purpose. P.S. If you truly take his words plainly, then you will accept the plain words when he said that those who believe in him will do his works. Edited May 11, 2018 by pogi 2
Calm Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 (edited) 17 hours ago, FormerLDS said: Having or not having eternal life is directly proportional to whether or not Jesus Christ has ever known you. He told the rejected in Matthew 7:23 "I never knew you." The question I have for you, once you "know" someone, can you ever "not know" someone? In other words, I would interpret "I never know you" to mean "I never (EVER) knew you". So you believe Christ actually doesn't know people? If so, how is that a fair judgment when he is condemning those who are strangers to him? Or omniscience? Edited May 12, 2018 by Calm
theplains Posted May 12, 2018 Author Posted May 12, 2018 On 5/10/2018 at 4:21 PM, JayneAdelle said: Eternal life, however, is something altogether different. Immortality is about quantity. Eternal life is about quality. To use a metaphor, immortality is how long the dinner lasts. Eternal life is what is on the menu and who is with us at the table." Would it be fair to say that eternal life is living life as a god (quality) and having spirit children (quantity), only applicable for those who are in a celestial marriage? Jim
RevTestament Posted May 12, 2018 Posted May 12, 2018 17 hours ago, FormerLDS said: Because everytime I demonstrate the disparity between your beliefs and what your church teaches, you hang up the phone. Hebrew doesn't even really have present and future tense. It is determined by usage. This thought process carried over into the Galilean Aramaic of Yeshua's day. When He says he that believeth on me, it can be just as easily read he that continueth in me. Your insistence on present tense meaning is really pointless. If you feel you have Christ in you, great, but your continued effort to try to say LDS don't, because we don't have eternal life, seems to say to me that you don't really have what you claim. Perhaps, you have some other masquerading spirit. If anything, your insistence on debating this point shows to me that you do not have the eternal life you allege. 1
Recommended Posts