I think as you see in these verses the steady decent from Bad to worst . Yes what they believed was critical to their salvation . As it is today . God is not mocked .
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"What Jesus REALLY meant was ...."
- Thread starter John1.12
- Start date
That completely does not address the question. Please actually address my question and explain your beliefs, or acknowledge that you are unable to do so.
That explains quite clearly, what we believe about God, is important and necessary, Its the difference between heaven and hell .
So you are going to defend a non-Biblical statement written 500AD as being essential to salvation?
I don't follow creeds , Isms, Organisations , groups , denominations, vicars , Priests , Modern day Prophets ( so called ) which don't exist .
And yet you are complaining about LDS Christians not following a Creed....
I haven't quoted anything from 500Ad ?
What creed are you talking about ? So far I've given scripture not creeds .
Have you NOT been listening at all?
The difference LDS Christians and Creedal Christians is not over any statement in the Bible, but over statements made in the Athanasian Creed written 500 AD over consubstantiality. That's where actual difference lie.
Let's pretend creeds don't exist . I couldn't care less about any creeds .Why have you brought ' creeds ' up ? I didn't? strange?
So you want to pretend that the place where the actual differences are don't exist, while saying how important those differences are?
That is totally illogical.
The differences are what Joseph Smith taught and a burning in the bosom being the qualifier that what he said and the genuineness of the BOM being true . This is why Mormons are Mormons. You think that the BOM and the bible are compatible. Just another update . Its similar to Catholicism with tradition added to the bible. You believe ( but correct me if I'm wrong ) That the two sticks in Ezekiel are referring to the BOM and the bible? what Lds teaches about how to be saved , about Jesus ,the Father, the Holy Spirit, ect is drastically not the same .
Once again, you fail to address my actual questions, fail to explain your beliefs, try to deflect to red herrings, demonstrate how you're totally not listening, and bear false witness to me about what "Mormons" believe.
I said correct me if I'm wrong ?
Barry: the major difference between LDS Christian view of the God and Creedal Christian's veil of God relates to the Athanasian's Creeds statements about consubstainailty (totally not essential to salvation). Not the Bible itself -- statements about Christ's divinity, His sacrifice, His resurrection, the necessity of faith, etc. Those are mutually believed.
I've never met a Mormon that believed the same as what Christians believe on Jesus, The Father , The Holy Spirit , the nature of God ,how to be saved, on grace , on works , on faith ,on hell , on heaven ,before creation , on the spirit , and on and on . You seem to be in the dark on this. I should invite you to our next meeting with Mormon missionaries .
You've never heard it because you don't remotely listen, and instead cling to "anti-cult" falsehoods about what "Mormons" believe. I''m sorry, but at this point you're just being willfully ignorant.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Google can be your friend.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I didn't say "simply", but readability is something that all translators must consider, especially since going from one language to another is often fraught with difficulty.
Based on what? Are you an expert in Hebrew and Koine Greek?
Anyhow, maybe consider this:
The New Revised Standard Version is the version most commonly preferred by biblical scholars.[1] -- Modern English Bible translations - Wikipedia
BTW, I use the RSV on-line through the University of Michigan, which can also be used as a search engine, and it can be found here: Bible: Revised Standard Version
Soapy
Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
But Barry, why do you say that ‘God’ came in the flesh when the Father is God?
It is true that Jesus is not the Father but if you are saying that God is Father son and Holy Spirit and that it was God that came in the flesh but that God is Jesus then there is a huge conundrum which is, as you said yourself, modal!!
So you are all at once endorsing moralism while denying it... it seems you really do not know anything about what you are talking about but just squirming and lurching from one idea to another.
Check it out:
- You say that the verse says it was God who came in the flesh
- You agree that it was Jesus, the son
- You define God as Father, son and Holy Spirit
- ‘Father, son, and Holy Spirit’ came in the flesh
- Jesus is ‘Father, son, and Holy Spirit’
- Jesus is God
- Gid is ‘Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’
It’s no wonder you can’t understand your errors of scriptures since you don’t even know who your god is?