Mormon Proxy Baptisms

#76
#76
T-TownVol said:
I agree that it is impossible if one is not open to receiving Christ. Much of the four Gospels are direct quote from Jesus. The rest was written by man's remembrance of what happened, but through divine guidance from the Holy Spirit. Therefore, as a believer, I do take what is written in the Bible as the "inspired word of God".
I, nor any other Christian, can say or do any thing that will "cause" any one to become a Christian. Only God can do that for the willing. We are just charged with telling as many people as we can of the saving grace of Jesus. What a person does with that knowledge is between them and God.
Click to expand...

This was kinda what I was getting at.

I read a lot of philosophy. Some of my favorite pieces are Apology, Crito, and Phaedo. These texts are written by Plato about Socrates being falsely charged, his eloquent self-defense, and his imprisonment through his last day on Earth. These are fairly lengthy considering they are all pretty much passed as direct quotes from Socrates himself.

Now, although they are passed as direct quotes from Socrates, I don't believe it was possible to truly quote everything he said in an accurate manner. Although Plato was present during the transgressions against Socrates and witnessed everything Socrates said, he was not there writing it down exactly as it was being said. Therefore, although very eloquent and moving, I don't believe those texts could possibly be the direct quotes from Socrates (as the entirety or whole, one or two lines could certainly be).

To me, the same is true with Christ. I do not believe the apostles were following Jesus at all times with pen and paper writing everything down that he uttered. Nor did they possess the technology of the recorder. When you add in the countless translations in the subsequent years and various Councils of Nicaea, I don't know how one could possibly believe that they are reading direct quotes from Christ (again, in their entirety, not a couple lines here or there).

It is just not a primary source.
 
#78
#78
T-TownVol said:
typed me........says Bible......nice bait though
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? You know it's subject to interpretation, right? When I read it (and I have read the Bible, New Testament more than once), I interpret the Godhead as 3 separate beings. I go with a literal interpretation. You go with a symbolic interpretation.

Jesus prays to God the Father:

1) They are 2 separate beings, or
2) It's symbolic of how our relationship with God should be
 
#80
#80
nbakerld said:
Are you kidding? You know it's subject to interpretation, right? When I read it (and I have read the Bible, New Testament more than once), I interpret the Godhead as 3 separate beings. I go with a literal interpretation. You go with a symbolic interpretation.

Jesus prays to God the Father:

1) They are 2 separate beings, or
2) It's symbolic of how our relationship with God should be
Click to expand...

10,000 post.
 
#82
#82
OrangeEmpire said:
More than once, lmao priceless
Click to expand...

I don't understand what is so funny. I've told him I'm not religious, so I felt the need to tell him I have indeed read the Bible. I'm not saying reading it more than once makes me an expert. I'm simply saying I'm familiar with it.
 
#83
#83
Off topic, but I just stumbled across Johnny Cash on iTunes reading the New Testament. Some of the best sleep I've ever gotten.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#84
#84
PKT_VOL said:
This was kinda what I was getting at.

I read a lot of philosophy. Some of my favorite pieces are Apology, Crito, and Phaedo. These texts are written by Plato about Socrates being falsely charged, his eloquent self-defense, and his imprisonment through his last day on Earth. These are fairly lengthy considering they are all pretty much passed as direct quotes from Socrates himself.

Now, although they are passed as direct quotes from Socrates, I don't believe it was possible to truly quote everything he said in an accurate manner. Although Plato was present during the transgressions against Socrates and witnessed everything Socrates said, he was not there writing it down exactly as it was being said. Therefore, although very eloquent and moving, I don't believe those texts could possibly be the direct quotes from Socrates (as the entirety or whole, one or two lines could certainly be).

To me, the same is true with Christ. I do not believe the apostles were following Jesus at all times with pen and paper writing everything down that he uttered. Nor did they possess the technology of the recorder. When you add in the countless translations in the subsequent years and various Councils of Nicaea, I don't know how one could possibly believe that they are reading direct quotes from Christ (again, in their entirety, not a couple lines here or there).

It is just not a primary source.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't accept it if Jesus had penned every word and you had the original manuscript.

If you accept that the miraculous can occur, then it is not hard to believe that the Holy Spirit guided the authors to complete truth and accuracy.

If you do not accept that the miraculous can occur, then you would reject the bible because of its stories rather than for its authorship, even if Jesus wrote it.

(this is said without rancor, btw. just an observation)
 
#85
#85
.The Trinity
God is a trinity of persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is not the same person as the Son; the Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the same person as Father. They are not three gods and not three beings. They are three distinct persons; yet, they are all the one God. Each has a will, can speak, can love, etc., and these are demonstrations of personhood. They are in absolute perfect harmony consisting of one substance. They are coeternal, coequal, and copowerful. If any one of the three were removed, there would be no God. (See also, "Another Look at the Trinity")

Jesus, the Son, is one person with two natures: Divine and Human. This is called the Hypostatic Union. The Holy Spirit is also divine in nature and is self aware, the third person of the Trinity.

There is, though, an apparent separation of some functions among the members of the Godhead. For example, the Father chooses who will be saved (Eph. 1:4); the Son redeems them (Eph. 1:7); and the Holy Spirit seals them, (Eph. 1:13).

A further point of clarification is that God is not one person, the Father, with Jesus as a creation and the Holy Spirit as a force (Jehovah's Witnesses). Neither is He one person who took three consecutive forms, i.e., the Father, became the Son, who became the Holy Spirit. Nor is God the divine nature of the Son (where Jesus had a human nature perceived as the Son and a divine nature perceived as the Father (Oneness theology). Nor is the Trinity an office held by three separate Gods (Mormonism).

The word "person" is used to describe the three members of the Godhead because the word "person" is appropriate. A person is self aware, can speak, love, hate, say "you," "yours," "me," "mine," etc. Each of the three persons in the Trinity demonstrate these qualities.

The chart below should help you to see how the doctrine of the Trinity is systematically derived from Scripture. The list is not exhaustive, only illustrative.

The first step is to establish the biblical doctrine that there is only one God. Then, you find that each of the persons is called God, each creates, each was involved in Jesus' resurrection, each indwells, etc. Therefore, God is one, but the one God is in three simultaneous persons. Please note that the idea of a composite unity is not a foreign concept to the Bible; after all, man and wife are said to be one flesh. The idea of a composite unity of persons is spoken of by God in Genesis (Gen. 2:24).

There is only one God
The first step is to establish how many Gods exist: one! Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5,14,18,21,22; 46:9; 47:8; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:5-6; Gal. 4:8-9

•"I am the LORD, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God," (Isaiah 45:5).
•“Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me," (Isaiah 44:6).


This explains the Trinity pretty well from the Christian stand point. The chart mentioned would not copy, sorry. It has dozens of scripture references to back up they stance. This comes from CARM - Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. Title is :The Trinity", if any one wants to look it up.
I do, contrary to what some think, realize that people interpret the Bible differently and will not get into a pissing match about something so obvious.

By the way, there is a forum on that site as well for any one that wants to speak with some of the best Christian apologists in the world.
 
Last edited:
#86
#86
Yes, I agree. There are tons of scriptures where it seems clear the trinity is one. There are also many scriptures that make it appear the trinity is 3. It just depends on which scriptures you think deserve literal interpretations, and which merit a symbolic interpretation"

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:" - Deuteronomy 6:4

The Hebrew word for “God” is “Elohim” which is a plural. The Biblical Hebrew word for “one” in the above passage is “echad” which is a corporate oneness, not merely a numeric count.

"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one." - John 17:20-22

Clearly when the scripture says "one" it isn't saying they are one and the same, it is saying they are of one purpose, or mind, etc. Unless you think we can literally become part of the godhead.

"It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me." - John 8:17-18

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." - Genesis 1:26

"Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me." – Isaiah 6:8



Like I said, it just depends on the interpretation.
 
#87
#87
Matthew 5:17 -

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
 
#89
#89
RespectTradition said:
You wouldn't accept it if Jesus had penned every word and you had the original manuscript.

If you accept that the miraculous can occur, then it is not hard to believe that the Holy Spirit guided the authors to complete truth and accuracy.

If you do not accept that the miraculous can occur, then you would reject the bible because of its stories rather than for its authorship, even if Jesus wrote it.

(this is said without rancor, btw. just an observation)
Click to expand...

1) Depends on what you mean by "miraculous". I can get on board with supernatural or events not known by humans.

2) Let's presume you are correct about the Holy Spirit guiding the authors; How do you decipher prophecy? Meaning, how do you know whether to believe someone who claims to be a prophet?

3) Again, let's presume you are correct about the Holy Spirit guiding the authors, do you believe their work has accurately survived countless translations and various Councils of Nicaea?
 
#91
#91
PKT_VOL said:
1) Depends on what you mean by "miraculous". I can get on board with supernatural or events not known by humans.

2) Let's presume you are correct about the Holy Spirit guiding the authors; How do you decipher prophecy? Meaning, how do you know whether to believe someone who claims to be a prophet?

3) Again, let's presume you are correct about the Holy Spirit guiding the authors, do you believe their work has accurately survived countless translations and various Councils of Nicaea?
Click to expand...

My own personal beliefs...
1) Sorry, I have misunderstood some of your past posts.

2) a) Deciphering prophecy is usually pretty easy, but sometimes you have to look at the exact one in question. God's intent with the NT is to make things clear and understandable. We are let in on the mysteries so to speak. Very little prophecy is left to play out. Most of it was fulfilled during the time of Christ. The little remaining can be tricky in places, but I can't really answer without talking specifics. b) I don't believe that prophecy exists any longer. I believe the time of miracles has passed and the word has been given once and for all. So don't believe anyone claiming to be a prophet.

3) Translations can definitely screw things up, but luckily we have a lot of really old manuscripts. There is also a collection of writings from what are commonly referred to as the 'church fathers'. As I recall, all but a handful of verses are quoted by these men in their writings. This gives us another source, outside of the manuscripts, to compare to. Also, picking the books to be used is somewhat easier when you look at these writings. These men wrote during the end of the first century into the second, before all the so-called councils. These men were taught directly by the apostles and from first generation converts. The writings that they quote as the holy word is a reflection of what was considered 'canon' by the early church rather than any later innovations. That makes them a uniquely valuable resource for determining which books to consider 'true'.
 
#92
#92
I'm with baker on the trinity. No such thing. Not using the Bible either. Catholic church acknowledges that the apostles didn't believe or teach a trinity and that they didn't incorporate into worship until Constantine "converted". It was merely a political move. Protestants took the teaching with them.

Anyone can misinterpret or twist a scripture. Harder to do with history.
 
#93
#93
RespectTradition said:
2) a) Deciphering prophecy is usually pretty easy, but sometimes you have to look at the exact one in question. God's intent with the NT is to make things clear and understandable. We are let in on the mysteries so to speak. Very little prophecy is left to play out. Most of it was fulfilled during the time of Christ. The little remaining can be tricky in places, but I can't really answer without talking specifics. b) I don't believe that prophecy exists any longer. I believe the time of miracles has passed and the word has been given once and for all. So don't believe anyone claiming to be a prophet.
Click to expand...

Last week, I read excerpts from The Guide for the Perplexed by Moses Maimonides. He was a twelfth century Jewish philosopher and renowned expert on the Torah. He laid out strict criteria for prophecy. If your interested in the topic, you might want look at his work.

RespectTradition said:
3) Translations can definitely screw things up, but luckily we have a lot of really old manuscripts. There is also a collection of writings from what are commonly referred to as the 'church fathers'. As I recall, all but a handful of verses are quoted by these men in their writings. This gives us another source, outside of the manuscripts, to compare to. Also, picking the books to be used is somewhat easier when you look at these writings. These men wrote during the end of the first century into the second, before all the so-called councils. These men were taught directly by the apostles and from first generation converts. The writings that they quote as the holy word is a reflection of what was considered 'canon' by the early church rather than any later innovations. That makes them a uniquely valuable resource for determining which books to consider 'true'.
Click to expand...

I was under the assumption that the oldest documents found were of a small variety and not in great condition. I wish TRUT was around. He could probably settle this pretty quickly.
 
#94
#94
I am just glad that the issue of the Trinity is not a salvation issue. Three persons as one God is clear to me in scripture and I acknowledge that many disagree. God gave us Jesus to set the example of how we should live. Since no man can live without sin, Jesus took the sins of all man to the cross and rose again so that we can have salvation if we believe in him. I think that is pretty simple and all the other stuff is wide open for debate and opposing beliefs/religions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#95
#95
T-TownVol said:
I am just glad that the issue of the Trinity is not a salvation issue. Three persons as one God is clear to me in scripture and I acknowledge that many disagree. God gave us Jesus to set the example of how we should live. Since no man can live without sin, Jesus took the sins of all man to the cross and rose again so that we can have salvation if we believe in him. I think that is pretty simple and all the other stuff is wide open for debate and opposing beliefs/religions.
Click to expand...
+1

A lot more important to see the big picture message than bog down in details.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#96
#96
The truth is that Jesus did not die for everyone. Jesus only died for his wife the church that he foreknew before the foundation of the world.

If Jesus died for everyone, meaning he washed away everyone's sins, wouldn't everyone inherit eternal life?

If the answer is no, then I would ask this. Do unbelievers die and go to hell for rejecting Christ, or do they go to hell for their sins?
 
#97
#97
mtt2d said:
The truth is that Jesus did not die for everyone. Jesus only died for his wife the church that he foreknew before the foundation of the world.

If Jesus died for everyone, meaning he washed away everyone's sins, wouldn't everyone inherit eternal life?

If the answer is no, then I would ask this. Do unbelievers die and go to hell for rejecting Christ, or do they go to hell for their sins?
Click to expand...


?

A lot going on here, but rejecting christ is a sin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#98
#98
mtt2d said:
The truth is that Jesus did not die for everyone. Jesus only died for his wife the church that he foreknew before the foundation of the world.

If Jesus died for everyone, meaning he washed away everyone's sins, wouldn't everyone inherit eternal life?

If the answer is no, then I would ask this. Do unbelievers die and go to hell for rejecting Christ, or do they go to hell for their sins?
Click to expand...

John 3:16 is only the most quoted verse in all of scripture.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top