What Is Mormonism? A Baptist Answer

[tommyjones]

yes... you can read the book of Hebrews or Revelation or John...

The person in the Bible to follow is God through Jesus Christ.

well none of those were written by jesus; please show the passages where Jesus explictly said that god will not appear to anyone in the future.

 

[itsbob]

yes, I'm secure in my belief.

Then why is it wrong for me to be?

 

[fredcaudle]

well none of those were written by jesus; please show the passages where Jesus explictly said that god will not appear to anyone in the future.

If you knew the Bible, you would know what you just said is wrong according to Bible itself. I gave you three places, just simply read and then say, well, I didn't see Jesus saying that. Or say, ok, now I understand what that guy is saying.

Someone who wants to know why I believe what I believe has to read and then use the Bible as the context of what I'm saying. You have made many claims I don't agree with, but if I want to understand your claims better I will research them based on the information and sources you give me. If I don't want to know your claims, I move on.

No different here with what you have asked me and I have responded.

 

[fredcaudle]

Then why is it wrong for me to be?

Is it? I simply am saying what I believe.... I already know you don't agree with me. When I say I'm right and you're wrong... that's called debate. When you say I'm wrong or you don't agree, that's called debate.

At the end of these long threads each of us goes our own way continuing to believe what we choose we want to believe. For some reason, when a religious guy/girl says something we are labeled... when a non-religious guy/girl says something its ok. Can someone explain that reasoning?

 

[tommyjones]

Is it? I simply am saying what I believe.... I already know you don't agree with me. When I say I'm right and you're wrong... that's called debate. When you say I'm wrong or you don't agree, that's called debate.

At the end of these long threads each of us goes our own way continuing to believe what we choose we want to believe. For some reason, when a religious guy/girl says something we are labeled... when a non-religious guy/girl says something its ok. Can someone explain that reasoning?

all you have to do is look at the first posts in this thread to understand that it was started to disparage mormons.
hell, just look at the title.

why would someone start a thread about another religion just to say its wrong?

 

[fredcaudle]

And they didnt write it, the ones that wrote the Bible were given secondhand accounts from those who allegedly witnessed the acts.

Just one example for you.

Luke 1.1: Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those WHO FROM THE FIRST WERE EYEWITNESSES AND SERVANTS OF THE WORD.

.... (VS 3) THEREFORE, I [Luke] have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, ....

Is not that way all history/happenings have been handed down????????

 

[tommyjones]

Just one example for you.

Luke 1.1: Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those WHO FROM THE FIRST WERE EYEWITNESSES AND SERVANTS OF THE WORD.

.... (VS 3) THEREFORE, I [Luke] have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, ....

Is not that way all history/happenings have been handed down????????

not really, many times the events of history are recorded as they happen.

especially when the events are spectacular and witnessed by many

 

[itsbob]

Is it? I simply am saying what I believe.... I already know you don't agree with me. When I say I'm right and you're wrong... that's called debate. When you say I'm wrong or you don't agree, that's called debate.

At the end of these long threads each of us goes our own way continuing to believe what we choose we want to believe. For some reason, when a religious guy/girl says something we are labeled... when a non-religious guy/girl says something its ok. Can someone explain that reasoning?

Actually, don't respond. I forgot. You are secure that everybody is wrong and you are right.

Actually that sounds a lot like belittling and sarcasm, and not debate..

And yes you are labeled.. Christian!!!

 

[fredcaudle]

Wait so the Bible tells a parable about a man who had multiple wives, the man was not punished for the multiple wives (silent agreement) and in some instances is praised or rewarded in the Bible (not for the wives, but for something he did/witnessesed).

During the time the Bible was written, (both of them) it was a common practice to have multiple wives. It is a modern concept for that to be a sin. This is shown by the many instances in the Bible where men, who had Multiple wives, and the Parable wasnt focused on his polygamy.

If the Bible, and God didnt want man to have multiple wives (once again a common practice) it wouldnt have cast the men who practiced polygamy in a favorable light.

its a simple concept.

No God wouldn't have cast it that way. God cast His favor out to those whom He loves. "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." "It is by grace that we are saved...." You do realize before God all sin is sin and so polygamy is just as bad as murder to God. Same with each sin.

Man would completely be cast out as unfavorable to God if left to us. That's why it is God's love that redeems. If we refuse God's love, nothing is left but judgment since we don't want God.

 

[fredcaudle]

not really, many times the events of history are recorded as they happen.

especially when the events are spectacular and witnessed by many

ok... so the day of the Battle of Bull Run can only be believed if we are reading an account of someone on that field, that day, writing what took place.

Any other historical account (after the fact) and based on eyewitnesses is garbage or untrue or not reliable.

I just can't accept that reasoning.

 

[fredcaudle]

But who wrote the Gospel of Luke? What you are quote is dictation, because its accepted the Prophets DID NOT WRITE their Gospels.

2 Timothy 3.16: ALL Scripture... is God breathed...

Believe or don't, doesn't matter. My belief (doesn't have to be yours) is that man was moved by God to write down God's point of view.

 

[fredcaudle]

OK now your arguing just to see yourself Type.

God had issue with Homo's - he addressed it

God had issue with Non-Believers - he addressed it

God has an issue he addresses it.

He didnt have an issue with Polygamy. His word (supposedly the Bible) uses men who practice it in his parables, most in a favorable light. If God didnt agree with it, he would have addressed it, the same as he did in other instances.

You don't see His issue. That's ok. It is clearly in the Bible as NOT something God ordained or favored. If this is the one that trips you up... ok. He was not for all those other activities you listed either... but He IS FOR THE MAN in that He redeemed them from their sins by the blood of Jesus. IF we believe this, we are redeemed and therefore we change. If we are happy with who we are outside of Jesus' blood, we don't change.

 

[itsbob]

ok... so the day of the Battle of Bull Run can only be believed if we are reading an account of someone on that field, that day, writing what took place.

Any other historical account (after the fact) and based on eyewitnesses is garbage or untrue or not reliable.

I just can't accept that reasoning.

You are saying there is no historical evidence to support the Battle of Bull run?? There aren't any letters home from soldiers that were there? No diaries of soldiers, nurses, docotors, and conscripted teachers that were there?

There are eyewitness accounts who's stories were written by others, but there were also all of the above.. and then some.. to back the eyewitness claims as to truthfulness.

 

[fredcaudle]

yes but your (purposefully) circling my question, and that isnt what i asked.

The Scripture that you read, wasnt authored by the person its attributed to.

Luke didnt author his scripture

Timothy didnt author 3:16

Someone else penned Timothy 3:16, and claimed Timothy stated or recited it. Those same authors claimed it was "God Breathed", makes it pretty neat and tidy to keep any criticism or free thought from being interjected doesnt it?

Exactly... that's why I believe. All other stuff we are discussing is circular with no authority... but then God's breaths it to man and we now have some authority to go on. (Again, my belief and others think it foolish or whatever, still doesn't really change what I believe.)

I'm big on choosing authority in which to live. Man changes daily... unstable. God's word has never changed as often as people have tried to eliminate or destroy it or simply reject it. I don't want to believe murder is wrong today... but tomorrow it will be ok because a government changes hands or a majority opinion came into existence.

 

[fredcaudle]

You are saying there is no historical evidence to support the Battle of Bull run?? There aren't any letters home from soldiers that were there? No diaries of soldiers, nurses, docotors, and conscripted teachers that were there?

There are eyewitness accounts who's stories were written by others, but there were also all of the above.. and then some.. to back the eyewitness claims as to truthfulness.

No, I was going with the line of thinking posed in the previous message. All history is based on handed down eyewitnessed accounts. Either from documents written at that moment or written from the verbal handed story that is from someone who witnessed.

The Bible in its HISTORY is no different. The Scriptural truths to live by are from God, not man.

 

[tommyjones]

ok... so the day of the Battle of Bull Run can only be believed if we are reading an account of someone on that field, that day, writing what took place.

Any other historical account (after the fact) and based on eyewitnesses is garbage or untrue or not reliable.

I just can't accept that reasoning.

well the battle of bullrun was in fact recorded as it happened through variious means....

we are talking about an event that was recorded many to hundreds of years later, not by anyone that was actually there.

so here is another question. if the people who wrote the bible were recording what they were told happened, why would they need to be guided by god, wouldn't the historical facts guide their recolection?

 

[fredcaudle]

well the battle of bullrun was in fact recorded as it happened through variious means....

we are talking about an event that was recorded many to hundreds of years later, not by anyone that was actually there.

so here is another question. if the people who wrote the bible were recording what they were told happened, why would they need to be guided by god, wouldn't the historical facts guide their recolection?

"we are talking about an event that was recorded many to hundreds of years later, not by anyone that was actually there." Not so, New Testament was written within 30-60 years of Jesus' death and resurrection. And re-read Luke (who by the way did in fact write Luke - it says this in verse 1 of chapter 1) All he wrote was from EYEWITNESSES.


No, there are many history books with error and they are even based on historical douments. Personal opinion always taints history. We call it today, "revisionist" history. God is perfect, Holy, and without error. Man can't say that.

 

[tommyjones]

"we are talking about an event that was recorded many to hundreds of years later, not by anyone that was actually there." Not so, New Testament was written within 30-60 years of Jesus' death and resurrection. And re-read Luke (who by the way did in fact write Luke - it says this in verse 1 of chapter 1) All he wrote was from EYEWITNESSES.

Luke 1.1: Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those WHO FROM THE FIRST WERE EYEWITNESSES AND SERVANTS OF THE WORD

No, there are many history books with error and they are even based on historical douments. Personal opinion always taints history. We call it today, "revisionist" history. God is perfect, Holy, and without error. Man can't say that.

i dont think Luke says what you are claiming. look at the red verse.

the stories were handed down by eyewitnesses, not given by god, or the eyewitnesses themselves, but from people who relayed the stories.

 

[fredcaudle]

Luke 1.1: Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those WHO FROM THE FIRST WERE EYEWITNESSES AND SERVANTS OF THE WORD




i dont think Luke says what you are claiming. look at the red verse.

the stories were handed down by eyewitnesses, not given by god, or the eyewitnesses themselves, but from people who relayed the stories.

as so you believe... I appreciate "I don't think"... but I know what I'm claiming... you can remain in your thoughts and I am fine with that. Doesn't make you or me lessor or greater.

Actually, (because humans can err) Luke 1.1-4 is how we know Luke can be the author.. sorry, see what I mean about not being perfect in man recording history.

 

[fredcaudle]

Luke 1.1: Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those WHO FROM THE FIRST WERE EYEWITNESSES AND SERVANTS OF THE WORD




i dont think Luke says what you are claiming. look at the red verse.

the stories were handed down by eyewitnesses, not given by god, or the eyewitnesses themselves, but from people who relayed the stories.

I've got to get back to what I'm actually paid to do.... but I will close on what will make all of us right on this site....

I find myself dead and food for worms (if that be possible of course - finding myself): I can say, darn... I wish I would have eaten, drank, and been more merry.

I find myself in hell... darn, I wish I would have listened to that crackpot foolish person who said "Jesus is the only way"..... OR

I find myself in heaven... man, I'm glad God redeemed me by His grace!

Let's all pick one, shall we? [Or maybe there are other ways to find ourselves at the end...]