Christianity... An issue,

[sandy whitelinger]

Again, the LDS response to this question will differ from that of most, if not all, other Christians. We believe that the entire gospel plan was known to Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham and Moses. The gospel has been the same since the beginning. It never has and never will change. It is truth, and truth is constant. It is an eternal principle.

I'm not LDS but isn't this obvious? Why were Cain and Abel making sacrifices? Why did Job know that he needed a redeemer? Why did Abraham give tithes? These examples and more that came before the law are evidence that the plan of salvation has been known from the beginning.

Futher evidence that Moses knew of Christ (this is taking into account that one believes both the New and Old Testaments) comes from Hebrews 11:

[24] By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;
[25] Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;
[26] Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.

 

[Fluffy]

Please someone make sense of this.

A very unfortunate consequence of a very effective piece of rhetoric designed to gain more converts to a fledgling religion.

 

[Katzpur]

I'm not LDS but isn't this obvious?

Not to a great many people, evidently. I'm glad it is to you.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

A very unfortunate consequence of a very effective piece of rhetoric designed to gain more converts to a fledgling religion.

Uninformed gibberish.

 

[Ody]

Uninformed gibberish.

Actually i felt it hit the point exactly, you may not agree with it, but you should not put it down. :jiggy:

 

[Fluffy]

Uninformed gibberish.

Gaining converts was an unintentional side effect of the concept of "No other god before me"?
"No other god before me" mixed with powerful symbolism and playing of base human needs and insecurities (eg the heaven/hell system) is not an effective piece of rhetoric?

Or perhaps you are suggesting that the discrimination and religious bigotry we see today as a direct result of "no other god before me" was in fact intentional as opposed to an unfortunate consequence?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Actually i felt it hit the point exactly, you may not agree with it, but you should not put it down. :jiggy:

I can put it down because it's based on a flawed precept and not based on knowledge of Scripture but a biased opinion.

 

[Ody]

I can put it down because it's based on a flawed precept and not based on knowledge of Scripture but a biased opinion.

What?? How does it show a lack of knowledge of scripture? Does one have to believe in it to be knowledgable?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

What?? How does it show a lack of knowledge of scripture? Does one have to believe in it to be knowledgable?

Let's start with the idea that forgiveness of sin started in the book of Genesis and was not a creation of the early church with the goal of attracting new converts. Just because one thinks of an idea does not make it either truthful or valid.

 

[Ody]

Let's start with the idea that forgiveness of sin started in the book of Genesis and was not a creation of the early church with the goal of attracting new converts. Just because one thinks of an idea does not make it either truthful or valid.

There is no interpretation of the bible that is 100% true, thats how G-d made it the most accesible, by making it that it taught many different lessons with the same story.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

There is no interpretation of the bible that is 100% true, thats how G-d made it the most accesible, by making it that it taught many different lessons with the same story.

That's a cop out. That allows the Bible to be a muddied jumble of nonsense which can be molded to suit any purpose which it is not and can not. That answer also seems to have nothing to do with the original train of thought.

 

[Ody]

That's a cop out. That allows the Bible to be a muddied jumble of nonsense which can be molded to suit any purpose which it is not and can not. That answer also seems to have nothing to do with the original train of thought.

Are you saying that there is one true definitive answer for the lessons in the bible? Then you have dismissed the whole discussion that is the Talmud, men who have spent thier ENTIRE LIVES STUDYING THE TORAH

as nonsense! :banghead3

 

[sojourner]

Let's start with the idea that forgiveness of sin started in the book of Genesis and was not a creation of the early church with the goal of attracting new converts. Just because one thinks of an idea does not make it either truthful or valid.

The notion of a God of forgiveness is an old testament idea ... but it was not propagated in order to bring converts to the faith. OT Judaism is not evangelistic in nature.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Are you saying that there is one true definitive answer for the lessons in the bible? Then you have dismissed the whole discussion that is the Talmud, men who have spent thier ENTIRE LIVES STUDYING THE TORAH

as nonsense! :banghead3

Your talking apples and oranges. let's review the thread. It was said that the New Testament church started the idea of salvation by faith and forgiveness of sins in order to attract converts. Salvation by faith and forgiveness of sins is an Old Testament idea. Interpretation of that is not up to personal interpretation. Application of interpretation is another story.

 

[Fluffy]

Let's start with the idea that forgiveness of sin started in the book of Genesis and was not a creation of the early church with the goal of attracting new converts. Just because one thinks of an idea does not make it either truthful or valid.

Good thing I never made any reference to the early church then eh? I'd certainly be the last person to suggest that Christianity had an array of original beliefs and teachings.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Good thing I never made any reference to the early church then eh? I'd certainly be the last person to suggest that Christianity had an array of original beliefs and teachings.

So what was the "fledgling church" that you refered to?

 

[Ody]

Salvation by faith and forgiveness of sins is an Old Testament idea. Interpretation of that is not up to personal interpretation. Application of interpretation is another story.

But in the OT the requirement to believe in G-d to attain salvation only applys to jews.

 

[Fluffy]

So what was the "fledgling church" that you refered to?

Go back and re-read the post. I said fledgling religon.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

But in the OT the requirement to believe in G-d to attain salvation only applys to jews.

So is it different for the Gentiles? Also in theOT wan't it possible for Gentiles to be saved, ie. Caleb?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Go back and re-read the post. I said fledgling religon.

Oh gee, good golly, my bad. This is like trying to get an answer from my 11 year old. five questions later. :bonk: Okaaaaaay then. What was this fledgling "RELIGION" you were refering to?