Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

[Katzpur]

To endure to the end faithful means what please?

I'm not sure I can simplify any more than that, except to say that I don't believe that a single moment of exuberant faith in Christ means much to Him. He wants to see our faith manifest, not just upon our conversion but for as long as we live. He wants to know that we believe in His power to save us enough that we will do our best throughout our lives to live as He would have us live.

 

[Serenity7855]

And which version was the one God compiled?

The original transcripts, authorised by Constantine, was God's compilation. The inspired translation from the original language, and previously translated bibles, namely the Geneva Bible, is, of course, the King James Version. Compiled by God then translated by his divine inspiration. Everything thing in those scriptures is exactly what God wanted it to contain. It is not corrupt and it has no errors in compilation or translation. It is a perfect book of commandments and the reader can get closer to God by reading it's pages then by any other book in existence. Even the Book of Mormon is almost a carbon copy of all of the precepts, principles and commandments that are there, in the Bible, to keep us on that straight and narrow road that leads to life eternal, exaltation. It has changed countless numbers of lives and has brought mankind closer to their makers. Of course atheists will not see the Divine inspiration of its pages because their lives are not in keeping with it's commandments, their lives are not in harmony with God's plan of redemption. But we know better then they do, don't we?

 

[Serenity7855]

As read (red) the books are not from God. As compiled they are. Looking behind what we have ie The Bible (it doesn't matter which one), which God compiled we can see why God compiled them.
What we have is a bad forgery. But the original, all of it, was compiled by God. Might YHVH have wanted more? Maybe.
To endure to the end faithful means what please?

This is what it means

Ephesians 6:10-18King James Version (KJV)

10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.

11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;

15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

To do this, with equally zest, until your life ceases.

 

[savagewind]

We wrestle against principles of darkness and you say none of the principles of darkness did creep into what God had compiled. Do you have proof of this?

The original transcripts, authorised by Constantine, was God's compilation. The inspired translation from the original language, and previously translated bibles, namely the Geneva Bible, is, of course, the King James Version. Compiled by God then translated by his divine inspiration. Everything thing in those scriptures is exactly what God wanted it to contain. It is not corrupt and it has no errors in compilation or translation. It is a perfect book of commandments and the reader can get closer to God by reading it's pages then by any other book in existence.

Please don't say 1 Timothy 3:16. All there does not mean every but means the compilation which I believe God did compile.

Does no one understand the difference?

 

[savagewind]

Can I please help you to see the difference between all scripture is inspired of God and beneficial and every scripture is inspired of God and beneficial?

I have a book. Every word in it is a good word rightly placed OR it is just a good book. See?

This is a good book and every word in it is perfect. Is this possible? How can you get people to read it telling them it is perfect? Can a book be a good book but have something in it that isn't just right? I think so.

In case there is danger in it, believng it is just right as it is will make the danger remain. If there is something in it that disagrees with the content that is God inspired that something is worthless. Does anyone know what idol means? Doesn't it mean worthless?

 

[Twilight Hue]

You're right Nowhere Man, I have no desire to see God coming out of any woodwork. Experiencing God, as I do, is most rewarding and comforting. I'm already quite satisfied with what God has already given to me. There is no need for me to try to coax Him into doing anything.

It's because you can't.

It's completely impossible for a person to demonstrate something like that. Nor any Christian or body of Christians to demonstrate the same whatsoever because there is no tangible basis there with exceptions to the physical processes of the brain that are responsible and give rise to a persons sense of belief and convictions. It's just a matter of determining what the actual limitations are in face of unlimited unfettered belief.

 

[Katzpur]

The original transcripts, authorised by Constantine, was God's compilation. The inspired translation from the original language, and previously translated bibles, namely the Geneva Bible, is, of course, the King James Version. Compiled by God then translated by his divine inspiration. Everything thing in those scriptures is exactly what God wanted it to contain. It is not corrupt and it has no errors in compilation or translation. It is a perfect book of commandments and the reader can get closer to God by reading it's pages then by any other book in existence.

Whatever you say. I'm sure nothing I could say is going to change your mind, but I'll say it anyway... Any time human beings are involved in a process, even when they are guided by God, there is always a chance for error. That's not to say that the Bible is not a wonderful book, but the fact is, you apparently are unaware of how many changes have been made to the canon over the centuries.

Consider what Stephen E. Robinson (PhD. in Biblical Studies at Duke University) has to say about the development of the Christian canon:

"Historically, there has not been one Christian canon or one Christian Bible, but many. For example, just before A.D. 200 someone in the Christian church at Rome wrote a list of the books that were accepted as canonical by the Roman church at that time. A copy of this canon list was discovered in 1740 by Lodovico Muratori in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, and for this reason it is called the Muratorian Canon. According to it, the Roman church at the end of the second century did not consider Hebrews, James, 1 Peter or 2 Peter to be scripture, and they accepted only two of the letters of John, although we cannot be sure which two. They did accept as canonical, however, two works now considered to be outside the New Testament, the Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon. Clearly their canon of scripture was different from that of modern Christians...

The famous church historian Eusebius of Caesarea, writing about A.D. 300 proposed another canon. He listed only twenty-one books as 'recognized,' and listed Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation as questionable or spurious...

Saint Gregory of Nazianzus rejected the book of Revelation in his fourth-century canon list, which was ratified three centuries later in 692 by the Trullan Synod...

The first indication of a canon like that of modern Christians does not come until well into the fourth century, when Saint Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria, recommended a list of acceptable books to his churches in his Thirty-ninth Festal Letter (A.D. 367). But Athanaisus' canon did not become official until over a thousand years afterward..."

Why is what was authorized by Constantine any more valid than any other authorized versions?

 

[Serenity7855]

We wrestle against principles of darkness and you say none of the principles of darkness did creep into what God had compiled. Do you have proof of this?

I am not sure what you want me to prove. Are you saying that the bible contains discrepancies. Are you suggesting that somehow Satan's evil ways have found themselves in scripture. I genuinely have no clue so could you elaborate for me please.

Please don't say 1 Timothy 3:16. All there does not mean every but means the compilation which I believe God did compile.

Does no one understand the difference?

Again, I am being honest in saying that I cannot recognise a point in what you are saying. Please be blunt if necessary so that I know exactly what your point is.

 

[Serenity7855]

Whatever you say. I'm sure nothing I could say is going to change your mind, but I'll say it anyway... Any time human beings are involved in a process, even when they are guided by God, there is always a chance for error. That's not to say that the Bible is not a wonderful book, but the fact is, you apparently are unaware of how many changes have been made to the canon over the centuries.

I was a Mormon for twenty five years. My wife still is and has been for thirty five years. I know that they claim that the book of Mormon is the direct word of God, the most accurate words of God every written, and as Era Taft Benson said "It is that most correct book which, if men will abide by its precepts, will get them closer to God than any other book", yet Joseph Smith did the translating using the Urim and Thumim along with the sear stone and Oliver Cowdrey wrote down what he said. Do you believe that there are errors because man was involved?

God knows his children. Any mistake they made would only results in exactly what God wanted to be written. What was not there in the original writing would have been rectified in the various translations. God would never expect us to follow a book with errors, especially if those errors could effect their eternal exaltation.

The only changes that have been made in the Bible are predominantly punctuations. Since it's first print in 1830 there have been 3,913 corrections made to the Book of Mormon. Does that make the Book of Mormon inaccurate. No, of course not, and the same logic applies to the bible.

It is not that I am stubborn in refusing to change my mind it is that there is no evidence to suggest that I should. The Bible is as accurate and true as the Book of Mormon.

 

[savagewind]

I am not sure what you want me to prove. Are you saying that the bible contains discrepancies. Are you suggesting that somehow Satan's evil ways have found themselves in scripture. I genuinely have no clue so could you elaborate for me please.

Not dscrepancies. I can't say it is Satan's evil ways. I have to say it is human, and presumptuous. Are humans satan? Is presumption evil?

Again, I am being honest in saying that I cannot recognise a point in what you are saying. Please be blunt if necessary so that I know exactly what your point is.

Blunt. I am sure I can be blunt. Some of the ideas that were true have been changed and now are not true. Have you ever played the telephone game? It is a game that proves the Bible can't be perfect. It is not possible. Some people say God made it possible. But think about that. Think about Almighty God concerned with perfection.

 

[Sapiens]

I was a Mormon for twenty five years. My wife still is and has been for thirty five years. I know that they claim that the book of Mormon is the direct word of God, the most accurate words of God every written, yet Joseph Smith did the translating using the Urim and Thumim along with the sear stone and Oliver Cowdrey wrote down what he said. Do you believe that there are errors because man was involved?...

No. It takes a woman to loose 116 pages, it takes a man to make up the tall tales and engage in the hand-waiving to explain why he could not reproduce what he had been passing off as the original "inspired" translation. Once a con man, always a con man.

 

[savagewind]

I was a Mormon for twenty five years. My wife still is and has been for thirty five years. I know that they claim that the book of Mormon is the direct word of God, the most accurate words of God every written, and as Era Taft Benson said "It is that most correct book which, if men will abide by its precepts, will get them closer to God than any other book", yet Joseph Smith did the translating using the Urim and Thumim along with the sear stone and Oliver Cowdrey wrote down what he said. Do you believe that there are errors because man was involved?
.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

God knows his children. Any mistake they made would only results in exactly what God wanted to be written. What was not there in the original writing would have been rectified in the various translations. God would never expect us to follow a book with errors, especially if those errors could effect their eternal exaltation.

God does not command us to follow a book. Any book. We are to follow the living God. Yes?

 

[savagewind]

The cloud of witnesses who followed The Living God did not have a book. I consider them all more righteous that I am and I have a world of help more than they had. How did they do it?

 

[Sonofason]

You may go on all you like, it just reveals you as a foolish sophist, but then that's a redundant, though applicable, title.

I do intend to continue stating the facts as they are, and if it should be that the facts seem foolish to you, then by all means let what I say seem foolish to you. And if it should be that my reasoning seems captious and fallacious to you, then by all means let it be that my reasoning seems captious and fallacious to you. What I seem to you means absolutely nothing at all to me.

 

[Sonofason]

It's because you can't.

It's completely impossible for a person to demonstrate something like that. Nor any Christian or body of Christians to demonstrate the same whatsoever because there is no tangible basis there with exceptions to the physical processes of the brain that are responsible and give rise to a persons sense of belief and convictions. It's just a matter of determining what the actual limitations are in face of unlimited unfettered belief.

All perceptions take place in the brain. You see a tree, it is perceived in the brain. If you experience God, it is perceived in the brain. A person's experience of God is no less valid than another person's experience of a tree.

 

[Serenity7855]

Not dscrepancies. I can't say it is Satan's evil ways. I have to say it is human, and presumptuous. Are humans satan? Is presumption evil?

But by saying this you underestimate the power of God. He would use an error by man to produce a truth. We cannot be promised that by following the teaching of the Saviour as contain in the Holy Bible, that we can obtain exaltation if that bible has errors which may cause us to fail. To correct punctuations is fine, provided the meaning remains. Likewise with spelling mistakes, however, you cannot have incorrect gospel principle, inaccurate parables and allegories, and inconceivable precepts and principles. They are essential to our eternal progression. Atheists are clueless to how important it is for us to get it right. This is serious stuff. These decisions we make are more important then any other decisions that we will ever make. Christianity is not to be taken lightly by Christians. That is why we must be our brothers keeper and to support each other. Mortality is a time in which we prepare to meet God.

Blunt. I am sure I can be blunt. Some of the ideas that were true have been changed and now are not true. Have you ever played the telephone game? It is a game that proves the Bible can't be perfect. It is not possible. Some people say God made it possible. But think about that. Think about Almighty God concerned with perfection.

No, I have never played that game but I have also not been able to falsify it either. Every word is there for a reason.

 

[Sapiens]

All perceptions take place in the brain. You see a tree, it is perceived in the brain. If you experience God, it is perceived in the brain. A person's experience of God is no less valid than another person's experience of a tree.

What you are missing is that you and I can simultaneously see the same tree and we can both photograph it and then we can compare both our recollections and our documentation. No two people can do that when it comes to any form of invisible friend. That difference renders your analogy false. But we can all rest assured that you will find some tortuous way for your god to use your error to produce a "truth," right?

 

[savagewind]

But by saying this you underestimate the power of God. He would use an error by man to produce a truth. We cannot be promised that by following the teaching of the Saviour as contain in the Holy Bible, that we can obtain exaltation if that bible has errors which may cause us to fail. To correct punctuations is fine, provided the meaning remains. Likewise with spelling mistakes, however, you cannot have incorrect gospel principle, inaccurate parables and allegories, and inconceivable precepts and principles. They are essential to our eternal progression. Atheists are clueless to how important it is for us to get it right. This is serious stuff. These decisions we make are more important then any other decisions that we will ever make. Christianity is not to be taken lightly by Christians. That is why we must be our brothers keeper and to support each other.

The errors won't make you fall unless you love the errors.
The teachings of Jesus are very few. Aren't they? And the one error which I see that they say he said but I'm sure he didn't say is to make discples. It is not a bad thing to want to make a disciple. It is not possible though. To believe it is possible makes some people extra anxious when they try and it doesn't work. One true saying of Jesus is why be anxious. You cannot turn one hair black to grey. How is it possible to turn one person to Jesus? Why does Jesus tell us to do the impossible? The answer is....................................................................................................................He doesn't. But The Bible says he says it. Is it right? How do you know it is right? It has worked OK. Why did Jesus say the Israelites of his day will sin like their forefathers sinned? Isn't it because they were wrong about something and He knew their chldren would carry it forward?

What if I am right? If I am right then I prove it is possible to know the truth that isn't written. You didn't answer the question.

How did the former saints serve God without a book?

No, I have never played that game but I have also not been able to falsify it either. Every word is there for a reason.

Yes. The Bible is that important but everything is there for a good or a bad reason

 

[Katzpur]

I was a Mormon for twenty five years. My wife still is and has been for thirty five years.

Well, I have you beat by 41 years. Big deal.

I know that they claim that the book of Mormon is the direct word of God, the most accurate words of God every written, and as Era Taft Benson said "It is that most correct book which, if men will abide by its precepts, will get them closer to God than any other book", yet Joseph Smith did the translating using the Urim and Thumim along with the sear stone and Oliver Cowdrey wrote down what he said. Do you believe that there are errors because man was involved?

I believe it's entirely possible. As a matter of fact, Joseph Smith himself acknowledged that possibility on the title page.

God knows his children. Any mistake they made would only results in exactly what God wanted to be written. What was not there in the original writing would have been rectified in the various translations. God would never expect us to follow a book with errors, especially if those errors could effect their eternal exaltation.

I don't believe any book is going to impact our eternal salvation all that much.

The only changes that have been made in the Bible are predominantly punctuations. Since it's first print in 1830 there have been 3,913 corrections made to the Book of Mormon.

As as I'm sure you know, those 3913 corrections to the Book of Mormon are also primarily in punctuation and spelling.

Does that make the Book of Mormon inaccurate. No, of course not, and the same logic applies to the bible.

My point was not to try to discredit the Bible. I don't believe either the Bible or the Book of Mormon to be absolutely infallible.

It is not that I am stubborn in refusing to change my mind it is that there is no evidence to suggest that I should. The Bible is as accurate and true as the Book of Mormon.

My only issue with the Bible is that I don't believe it is a record of everything that God has ever told mankind, and many people insist that it is. I don't believe that about the Book of Mormon either. I was merely saying that the biblical canon has changed extensively over the years, with books being included and excluded over time. I provided enough evidence in my last post to prove that, and yet it seems to be totally a non-issue with you.

 

[Ingledsva]

A prime example of someone who knows the words but is clueless to what they mean. Let's start off with what a child is, prior to the age of accountability, in the eyes of God. There were those in the pre-existence who were so valiant, so morally perfect, that it was unnecessary for them to be tried and tested in the flesh. The conclusion was a forgone conclusion. All that was needed of them was to gain a mortal body. God knew these spirits as well as he knew any of his spirit children, so they were used to fulfil special roles. One such role was as a punishment for the heinous sins committed by David. But that is not the end of the story. There is a law, irrevocable decreed in heaven, that there is a consequence to every sin that is committed, if not repented for. David had no remorse about committing adultery. His punishment served two purposes. 1, a just reward for his atrocious sins, and 2. To give passage to one of the valiant spirits to receive celestial glory in heaven with the father. This is a precept that is known and preached by all denominations. Why didn't you know that and make the connection. Is it because your mind didn't want to see that.

This is what study on its own does.

Noah's ark is a parable that could be an actuality. There was not one soul, save it to be Noah, who was without sin. They were all sinners. They had been warned what the consequences of their actions would eventually result in. Like an apple falling to the ground demonstrate a universal law of nature, so does a point in unrepentant sin lead to complete annihilation of the perpetrators. They knew that yet they persisted, as atheists persist today whilst knowing the consequences, like them they to will be punished accordingly. They were responsible for their own deaths. God could not prevent it.

You read, but you do not understand what is being said because you lacked faith in the unconditional love of our father in heaven, and eventually your camel will be enjoying the luxury of your tent whilst you are enduring the storm outside. You have been duped by Satan who smiles upon your failure. The plan of salvation is perfect. There are no discrepancies. There is a perfect reason for every atrocity that you believe took place in the old Testament. You just did not want to see it enough. You failed the test, miserably.

Did you also know that in order to be tried and tested there must be opposition in all things. Without evil one would not know good. It was essential for Noah's extended family to sin otherwise we could not be tested in the flesh. It takes but a little lateral thinking.

Dude! This was about YOU, and what YOU are saying to people, as several others have also told YOU!

*