I'm not following you. I thought all Christians believed essentially the same thing with regards to Satan's goal. Throughout the Bible, Satan is seen as the tempter, as the being who is fighting against God and wants to influence people to do evil. I can't come up with a single verse in which Satan's goal is explicitely stated, if that's what you're looking for. What do you believe his goal to be?
Sorry. I ought to have explained that I do not believe we existed as spirit children in a pre-mortal life.
Are you serious? You really wanted me to list every translation of the Bible? I gave you a list of the major ones that are in print today. What would a list of every single one of them accomplish?
I was curious as to whether or not you were exaggerating.
I would hardly know where to begin without doing a huge cut and paste job. In my own experience, I can recall an online conversation with a Catholic on the subject of saints and what the word really meant. I said that a saint was always used in the Bible to mean any follower of Christ. He said the word wasn't even in the Bible and that a saint is someone who has been canonized by the Church. I thought he was nuts. He thought I was nuts. Eventually, we discovered that the translations we were using were pretty different. His really didn't make any reference to the word "saint" at all. Instead, I believe it used the words "holy people" or something like that. I really can't remember for sure. I do remember, though, that to me, a "holy person" is not the same thing at all as someone who is a disciple of Christ.
But the word for
saint and
holy person are the same.
"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:" (1 Cor. 1:2 KJV)
Most likely, he just wasn't familiar with his Bible:
"to the church of God that is in Corinth, to you who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be holy, with all those everywhere who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours. " (1 Cor. 1:2 New American Bible)
I believe it is, precisely because I am interested in what they claim for themselves. I make it a practice not to tell people who consider themselves to be Christians that they really aren't. I find it rather "un-Christian" to do so.
So it is okay to tell non-LDS people that their Bibles are incomplete, that their doctrines are an abomination to God, but no matter what they believe they are Christians? How is that any different than Methodists calling Baptists Christians even though they interpret the Bible differently?
I merely asked a question to make a point. I didn't intend for anybody to go off on a tangent. You believe that God would not allow His word to be corrupted in any way, but apparently you don't see the number of different denominations of Christianity as a corruption of a united faith. I believe I said the number of Christian denominations now exceeds 30,000. Please don't ask me to list them all.
You needn't list them. A corruption of a united faith doesn't exist. Those who have been born again are being taught by the Holy Spirit. Does the Holy Spirit lead people astray?
Of course it's not in the Bible. How could it be? Do you agree that Jesus set apart Twelve men to be the foundation upon which He built His Church? Do you agree that Paul said this foundation should remain in place until we all came into the unity of the faith? Do you agree that the Apostles were all martyred and that no one was called to replace them?
Jesus was not replaced after his death. It wasn't necessary. Death of a human is not reason to destroy the foundation and start over again.
"For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Corinthians 3:11)
Once the foundation is laid, we build
upon it. We do not replace the original foundation, because Christ did not lay a foundation that would crumble. It is built on a solid rock.
The reason that Judas Iscariot was replaced with Matthias was that there were to be twelve apostles who would sit with Christ to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. The apostles, because they were part of the
foundation of the Church, did not need to be replaced over and over again. Once the foundation is laid, the builder starts on the walls.
I never claimed to have proven anything. You did.
"Could you tell me when the Son of Perdition sat in the temple of God?" He has done so since the Church fell into apostasy.
I'm asking again, could you tell me when the Son of Perdition sat in the temple of God?"
You haven't proven a complete apostacy.
"Okay, so we've come full circle. You believe that the Bible (any and all translations apparently) are all 100% correct and complete. I don't. You accept this on faith. I accept the Book of Mormon on faith. You don't. Let's throw out all scholarly opinions and we will have no argument.
It boils down to the possibility that one of us is deceived.
I'm getting awfully darned close to just giving up.
Do you mean that you give up trying to convince me that it is necessary to have original manuscripts to judge the accuracy of the Bible, but it is not necessary to have original documents to judge the accuracy of the Book of Mormon because Joseph Smith, Jr. never made a mistake in what he wrote? How would you know whether or not he made mistakes?
Scripture can be given by inspiration from God but be corrupted (either intentionally or not) by men. I do judge all scripture by the same standard and have repeatedly told you I do. You're not listening.
I'm reading what you post. You say that God allows men to corrupt scripture whether intentionally or unintentionally. The Book of Mormon says that it is done intentionally. Yet the Book of Mormon is translated correctly. It is the Bible that LDS claim has had many plain and precious things deliberately removed from it.
Book of Mormon:
26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold,
they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.
27 And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.
28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.
29 And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest—because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God—because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them. (1 Nephi 13: 24-29)
I'd like to ask you just one question. Do you consider yourself to be a Bible literalist? Do you, for example, believe in a six-day creation followed by one day of rest? Do you believe that Noah literally gathered up two of every single species in the world and took them on a 40-day sea voyage? Do you believe that the languages of the world all came into existance as the result of the Tower of Babel? Just curious.
I don't know if I'm a literalist or not. But I do know that either the Bible can be trusted to show us God's will for our lives or He doesn't care what we do, and I'm very much inclined to believe the former. I believe that Jesus Christ died for my sins and was resurrected and will come again.
