Which religion has love?

[savagewind]

Let's examine that passage since you brought it up from verse 34-37.

"“Again you heard that it was said to those of ancient times: ‘You must not swear without performing, but you must pay your vows to Jehovah.’ 34 However, I say to you: Do not swear at all, neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 nor by earth, for it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 Do not swear by your head, since you cannot turn one hair white or black. 37 Just let your word ‘Yes’ mean yes, your ‘No,’ no, for what goes beyond these is from the wicked one."


"Instances in which oaths were required of certain persons under the Mosaic Law were: of a wife in the trial of jealousy (Num 5:21, 22), of a bailee when property left in his care was missing (Ex 22:10, 11), of the older men of a city in the case of an unsolved murder (Deut 21:1-9). Voluntary oaths of abstinence were allowed. (Num 30:3, 4, 10, 11) Servants of God were sometimes adjured by one in authority, and they told the truth. Likewise a Christian under oath would not lie but would tell the whole truth called for, or he may refuse to answer if it jeopardizes the righteous interests of God or of fellow Christians, in which case he must be ready to suffer any consequences that might result from his refusal to testify.—1Kings 22:15-18; Matt 26:63, 64; 27:11-14.

Vows were regarded in Israel as having the strength of an oath, as sacred and to be fulfilled even though they resulted in loss to the vower. God was viewed as watching to see that vows were carried out, and as bringing punishment for failure. (Num 30:2; Deut 23:21-23; Judg 11:30, 31, 35, 36, 39; Eccl 5:4-6) The vows of wives and unmarried daughters were subject to affirmation or cancellation by the husband or father, but widows and divorced women were bound by their vows.—Num 30:3-15.

Jesus Christ, in his Sermon on the Mount, corrected the Jews in their practice of light, loose, and indiscriminate making of oaths. It had become common among them to swear by heaven, by the earth, by Jerusalem, and even by their own heads. But since heaven was “God’s throne,” earth his “footstool,” Jerusalem his kingly city, and one’s head (or life) was dependent on God, making such oaths was the same as taking oaths in the name of God. It was not to be treated lightly. So Jesus said: “Just let your word Yes mean Yes, your No, No; for what is in excess of these is from the wicked one.”—Matt 5:33-37." (Insight Volumes WTBTS)


When Jesus said "do not swear at all" he was saying 'if you have no intention of keeping your word, don't swear by God to do something when you don't mean it'. He said, "Just let your word ‘Yes’ mean yes, your ‘No,’ no" or in other words, when you make an agreement with someone, mean what you say.

It is so easy to take things out of context and put your own slant on them.

If we know our Bible....we should know all of it, not just words taken out of context to 'prove' our own point of view and to justify not doing what Jesus said we should do.

We don't want to be like.... :ignore:

Jesus absolutely did not come to make Jews out of the Gentiles. Jehovah's Witnesses use the laws of the Jews as a pattern.

In the last days there will come mockers mocking proceeding according to their own desire [not that of Jesus Christ]. Some Christian churches are mocking Israel by their adopting the law of Israel.

 

[JayJayDee]

This is why it baffles me that some Christians orgs think it is acceptable for a child to be baptised at 11,12,13 years old! How can they think that is an informed decision? I doubt a child of that age really understands what they are agreeing to. And then they have to face being shunned later on when they realise they made a wrong decision and face consequences for an agreement they made as a child. I think that is very wrong and Jesus would not approve. He got baptised when he was 30 years old.

I tend to agree with you here. Even though dedication to Jehovah is not impossible for some very spiritually minded youth, when you have not faced the challenges of life it can be a bit of a gamble encouraging a child to be baptized. Making a vow before God is an extremely serious step, more important than a marriage vow, which we would not encourage children to make.
Dedication however, is the official symbol of dedication, but not the dedication itself, which takes place beforehand. I believe that Jehovah takes more notice of the heart motivation behind the act of baptism, rather than just the act itself. My own children were over 18 when they made their dedication.

We remember too, that we can only be freed from our marriage vows (in God's eyes) if our mate has been unfaithful.
When we become spiritually unfaithful, God has every right as the other party in the relationship to 'divorce' us.

Having said that, if children are of age to make their own decisions, and they choose to go against what Jehovah commands, the end result is the same. No one, baptized or not, will get through Armageddon unless they are obedient to God's teachings through Christ via the scriptures.

It's not the shunning by man that we have to fear....it's the shunning by God himself that most people fail to take into consideration.

If you are old enough to know right from wrong, God expects you to obey him.

He has already told us what will happen to all who treat his laws with disrespect.
The children who treated his prophet with such disrespect were punished. They were obviously old enough to know better.

 

[JayJayDee]

Jesus absolutely did not come to make Jews out of the Gentiles. Jehovah's Witnesses use the laws of the Jews as a pattern.

Since the "pattern" was instituted by God in the first place, that is a strange statement. Jesus didn't come to start a new religion...he came to correct the old one that had fallen into the trap of following human tradition instead of the word of God.

In the last days there will come mockers mocking proceeding according to their own desire [not that of Jesus Christ]. Some Christian churches are mocking Israel by their adopting the law of Israel.

The whole of that law was summed up in the law of love. (Rom 13:8-10; Matt 22:37-40)
Jesus did not come to nullify a law that his Father gave as a pattern for life. He fulfilled much of the law by his sacrifice, which meant that Christians no longer needed to follow that portion of the law pertaining to animal sacrifice.

They were not under a tithing system either, (2 Cor 9:6, 7) nor required to observe the sabbath. (Col 2:16, 17)
The basics of the law (as recounted in the Ten Commandments) all still apply in principle. We still cannot kill, commit adultery, steal or lie. It is still against God's law to slander and to treat God's rules with disrespect. All that was required of Christians was clearly stated by Jesus and the apostles. What laws given to the Jews do you wish to disobey?

 

[Katzpur]

I find that a little strange, since this is what Jesus has already done by his sacrifice.

Huh? It's not the same thing at all. No Mormon would ever claim that temple work is done for the purpose of enabling someone to have eternal life. That's utter nonsense.

 

[JayJayDee]

Huh? It's not the same thing at all. No Mormon would ever claim that temple work is done for the purpose of enabling someone to have eternal life. That's utter nonsense.

Can you shed some more light on this comment then Katzpur?

Mormons don't condemn anyone to hell, instead we do temple work for people who have died so that everyone can have the same opportunities and blessings

How can the dead be given opportunities by the living that Christ has not already provided?

If one is "acquitted" or "justified from sin" by their own death and Jesus promises to resurrect both the "righteous" (faithful ones) and the "unrighteous" (those who expressed no faith out of ignorance perhaps) in the coming "new earth", how does "temple work" (can you provide a definition of this work please) benefit the dead at all?

 

[idea]

Can you shed some more light on this comment then Katzpur?


How can the dead be given opportunities by the living that Christ has not already provided?

JW's believe in essential ordinances like baptism, right? That's one of the things we do in temples.

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 15:29)
29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

 

[JayJayDee]

JW's believe in essential ordinances like baptism, right? That's one of the things we do in temples.

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 15:29)
29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

"Many different interpretations have been offered for this verse. The most common interpretation is that Paul was referring to the custom of vicarious baptism in water, that is, baptizing living persons in behalf of dead ones in a substitutionary way in order to benefit the dead. The existence of such a practice in Paul’s day cannot be proven.

A Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott, includes “for,” “on behalf of,” and “for the sake of” among its definitions of the Greek preposition hy·per′, which is used with the genitive case in 1 Corinthians 15:29.

Where an expression can grammatically be translated in more than one way, the correct rendering is one that agrees with the context. In the context, 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4 shows that what is principally under discussion is belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The following verses then present evidence of the soundness of that belief (vss 5-11); they discuss the serious implications of denying belief in the resurrection (vss 12-19), the fact that the resurrection of Christ gives assurance that others will be raised from the dead (vss 20-23), and how all of this works toward the unification of all intelligent creation with God (vss 24-28). Verse 29 obviously is an integral part of this discussion. But whose resurrection is at issue in verse 29? Is it the resurrection of the ones whose baptism is referred to there? Or is it that of someone who died before that baptism took place? What do the following verses indicate? Verses 30 to 34 clearly show that the future life prospects of living Christians are there being discussed, and verses 35 to 58 state that those were faithful Christians who had the hope of heavenly life.

That agrees with Romans 6:3, which says: “Do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” As this scripture makes plain, that is not a baptism that a Christian undergoes on behalf of someone already dead but is, instead, something that affects the person’s own future.

They were immersed into a course of life that was to lead them as integrity-keepers to death, as was the case with Christ, and with the hope of a resurrection like his to immortal spirit life. (Ro 6:4, 5; Php 3:10, 11)" (excerpt Insight Volumes WTBTS)

It is not the act of baptism that saves a person; it is what the baptism symbolizes to God that matters. Why would God command a substitutionary baptism for someone who has died? They are already assured of a resurrection. (John 5:28, 29)

Baptism is the outward sign of a heartfelt inward dedication to God. It comes after taking in knowledge from the scriptures, voluntarily turning around from a sinful course and repenting, and accepting Christ as their savior. If someone has not made an inward dedication, then any baptism is an outward sham. No one can make a dedication to God for you.

I cannot find any such substitutionary baptisms performed in the Bible...can you?

 

[Windwalker]

The only way one can truly know is by--learning all of Jesus' truths, applying Jesus' truths-- That's what I did. It clearly showed who the teachers he is with are.

What I gather from what you are saying can be simply restated as this. "I have found something that works for me where I am at, and therefore it is the truth for all people. I know who the true teachers are, because they see things the way I do. Since what I believe is true, everything else is a lie."

Correct?

Do you honestly believe you have reached the end of your path now to judge all others on theirs? I would say you have barely begun your path and have not applied, or understood all of Jesus' teachings, based on this type of thinking.

 

[metis]

One simply cannot say they're following the Law if they pick and choose only certain Laws to follow. There are 613 Laws (actually a better word for "Law" in this context is "Teachings"), and they can be found here: Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

 

[Katzpur]

"I cannot find any such substitutionary baptisms performed in the Bible...can you?

Yeah, the ones Paul was referring to that you simply dismiss as you scramble to come up with a bunch of alternate interpretations. I don't have the time to debate you on this, JayJay, and quite frankly I don't have much of an inclination to debate you on anything again in the future, but I do have some information I could post later in the day or tomorrow if the thread hasn't changed directions by then. I won't get into an ongoing discussion with you on the matter, though. Been there, done thank. Thank you very much.

 

[Katzpur]

JW's believe in essential ordinances like baptism, right? That's one of the things we do in temples.

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 15:29)
29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

JayJayDee doesn't believe the human spirit lives on after death, idea. So the whole concept of the spirit world is simply not part of her belief system. If a person died without hearing the gospel or without having the opportunity to fulfill the commandment to be baptised, too bad. You won't get anywhere discussing this because there is no common ground between us concerning the state of the spirit after death. From her perspective, baptisms for the dead would be entirely pointless.

 

[kjw47]

What I gather from what you are saying can be simply restated as this. "I have found something that works for me where I am at, and therefore it is the truth for all people. I know who the true teachers are, because they see things the way I do. Since what I believe is true, everything else is a lie."

Correct?

Do you honestly believe you have reached the end of your path now to judge all others on theirs? I would say you have barely begun your path and have not applied, or understood all of Jesus' teachings, based on this type of thinking.

I understand them very well. One finds the true teachers not by something that works for them but because they teach Jesus' truths--there is only 1 truth, not many. One religion, one faith, one truth--it has always been that way--- not many religions--its the same today as in the ot 1 true religion--99% false religionsssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

 

[JayJayDee]

JayJayDee doesn't believe the human spirit lives on after death, idea.

That is correct. I would be happy if any member of the LDS church could provide Biblical evidence of an immortal part of man that lives on after death. That would of course include a definition of the words "soul" and "spirit" from the original language words.

So the whole concept of the spirit world is simply not part of her belief system.

On the contrary, I have a Biblical concept of the spirit world and there are few formerly dead people in it. The spirit realm is inhabited by spirit beings, which includes angels, the Word, and Jehovah himself. Only those "chosen" to rule with Christ in his kingdom will experience a death and resurrection like Christ's. These are resurrected "first" before the general resurrection of the rest of mankind. (Rev 20:6) So the only ones in heaven who have been humans on earth, are those anointed by God and transformed by him for heavenly life. They are a finite number and have a clearly defined role. (Rev 14:1-5)

The Bible has no teaching that we have lived in heaven before being born on earth and return there after death. The concept of an immortal soul is Platonic, not Biblical.
The LDS concept of spirit world is not based on the Bible at all.

If a person died without hearing the gospel or without having the opportunity to fulfill the commandment to be baptised, too bad.

Where did you get that idea? Christ died for all. His sacrifice gives everyone an opportunity to live forever in paradise on earth, just as God purposed in the beginning. The dead from Abel's time till now are just sleeping in their graves and await the time when "both the righteous and unrighteous" are resurrected in the "new earth". (John 5:28, 29; 2 Pet 3:13)

Death has 'paid sin's wages'. Death ends life and those who have never had an opportunity to know God or the savior he sent will not be disadvantaged. They are resurrected with a clean slate, forgiven of all past deeds and given every opportunity to learn about Jehovah's ways. Their choice to serve God will be theirs, not someone else's. Baptizing a dead person is pointless if they have had no say in it.

You won't get anywhere discussing this because there is no common ground between us concerning the state of the spirit after death. From her perspective, baptisms for the dead would be entirely pointless.

Yes, we have very different views, for all the reasons stated.

The "spirit" is our "breath". When we breathe our last, the brain is deprived of oxygen and every organ in the body stops functioning. All conscious thought ceases. (Psalm 146:4)

It is the spirit of life that keeps us breathing. When God created Adam, he did not "give" him a "soul". Adam "became a living soul" when God "breathed the breath of life" into him. A soul breathes and eats and sleeps. Souls die. (Ezekiel 18:4) "Soul" and "spirit" have completely different meanings.

The LDS concept of the spirit world is not supported by the Bible at all.

 

[Windwalker]

I understand them very well. One finds the true teachers not by something that works for them but because they teach Jesus' truths--there is only 1 truth, not many. One religion, one faith, one truth--it has always been that way--- not many religions--its the same today as in the ot 1 true religion--99% false religionsssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

So in other words, yes I am right. You are saying this, "I have found something that works for me where I am at, and therefore it is the truth for all people. I know who the true teachers are, because they see things the way I do. Since what I believe is true, everything else is a lie."

I will grant you this, you at least are honest about this. But humility seems to be lacking, so I'd say you have some growth yet ahead for you.

May I ask this question? Let's say there is only one truth. How do you know that they other guy who says exactly the same thing you do, just repeat every word of yours above except out of the mouth of the other guy, let's call him Jim, except that Jim says you are false. You are both looking at the same thing, and both having different understandings. Which one of you is correct? Either? Both?

Even though there may be an absolute Truth, how are you so assured you understand it where the other does not? Assuming he is equally as zealous to please God as you are. He's another you, just with a different point of view. Maybe you're both partially correct, and partially wrong? Is that a possibility?

 

[Ouroboros]

I understand them very well. One finds the true teachers not by something that works for them but because they teach Jesus' truths--there is only 1 truth, not many. One religion, one faith, one truth--it has always been that way--- not many religions--its the same today as in the ot 1 true religion--99% false religionsssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

Too bad that you don't know the one true religion then.

 

[Katzpur]

The LDS concept of the spirit world is not supported by the Bible at all.

It absolutely is. Not only it is far more biblical than your beliefs, but it can be proven to be what was commonly believed in the earliest days of Christianity (prior to the apostasy that we both agree took place). But, since I have a policy to debate only those people I have at least a minimal degree of respect for, I think I'll sit this one out.

 

[JayJayDee]

It absolutely is. Not only it is far more biblical than your beliefs, but it can be proven to be what was commonly believed in the earliest days of Christianity (prior to the apostasy that we both agree took place). But, since I have a policy to debate only those people I have at least a minimal degree of respect for, I think I'll sit this one out.

As you wish. Wouldn't want you to go against policy. But really, it was you who responded to me remember? Happy sitting.

Perhaps some other LDS believer would like to provide the proof of this practice of baptizing the living in behalf of the dead for us? Anyone?

If it is Biblical, then we should see it spoken about elsewhere in the Bible and it should be backed up by other passages in the Bible or advocated by Jesus himself....shouldn't it?

As has been previously mentioned, such a practice would make a mockery of the meaning of Christian baptism, like the baptizing of infants. You cannot baptize someone by proxy. They have not consented and they have expressed no faith in Christ's sacrifice, repented of their sins and offered their lives to God.

The resurrection makes it their choice, which is completely Biblical.

 

[savagewind]

As you wish. Wouldn't want you to go against policy. But really, it was you who responded to me remember? Happy sitting.

Perhaps some other LDS believer would like to provide the proof of this practice of baptizing the living in behalf of the dead for us? Anyone?

If it is Biblical, then we should see it spoken about elsewhere in the Bible and it should be backed up by other passages in the Bible or advocated by Jesus himself....shouldn't it?

As has been previously mentioned, such a practice would make a mockery of the meaning of Christian baptism, like the baptizing of infants. You cannot baptize someone by proxy. They have not consented and they have expressed no faith in Christ's sacrifice, repented of their sins and offered their lives to God.

The resurrection makes it their choice, which is completely Biblical.

I don't know what it is that LDS believe. I don't think it is baptising dead ones. I think it might be baptised for dead ones. That I understand. Perhaps it is similar to being baptised for one's family head. That is scriptural, isn't it?

Acts 16:31 They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household."

Acts 16:15 When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. "If you consider me a believer in the Lord," she said, "come and stay at my house." And she persuaded us.

I consider anyone who is with or was with the faith of Jesus Christ my brother, sister, and mother. I understand that someone might want to be baptized for dead family members. You do believe the dead will be resurrected. When they are resurrected the baptized one will welcome them back as a fellow baptized believer. Is there something wrong with that?

 

[Pegg]

If a person died without hearing the gospel or without having the opportunity to fulfill the commandment to be baptised, too bad.

We are distributing a leaflet worldwide this month...the question is "Can the Dead really Live Again?"

The opening page offers this scripture in answer:
Acts 24:15*and I have hope toward God, which hope these [men] themselves also entertain, that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.

The bible teaching is that both the good and bad will be brought back to life.

Think about the implications of a physical resurrection. The word 'resurrection' does mean a person comes back to life in the flesh. Every instance in the bible of a person who was brought back to life, came back in the flesh as a living person again.

If its true that the spirit lives on, then no one ever really dies and there is no need of a resurrection. But the bible promises that all mankind will receive a resurrection. There is no need to resurrect someone who is alive and in a better place...but the fact is, death is like being asleep... Jesus himself said it:
John 11:11*He said these things, and after this he said to them: “Laz′a·rus our friend has gone to rest, but I am journeying there to awaken him from sleep.” 12*Therefore the disciples said to him: “Lord, if he has gone to rest, he will get well.” 13*Jesus had spoken, however, about his death. But they imagined he was speaking about taking rest in sleep. 14*At that time, therefore, Jesus said to them outspokenly: “Laz′a·rus has died,

Would Jesus have restored his life if Lazarus was still alive and in a better place?

 

[Windwalker]

I don't know what it is that LDS believe. I don't think it is baptising dead ones. I think it might be baptised for dead ones. That I understand. Perhaps it is similar to being baptised for one's family head. That is scriptural, isn't it?

They practice a proxy baptism for those who have already died, so that in the afterlife they have a chance to convert to Mormonism in order to progress in the afterlife. This is why they have the most extensive genealogical archives in the world, scouring church records of the old country and creating vast trees so temple workers get baptized for the dead they find in those records. (This is of course a boon to us genealogical researchers who are reconstructing our personal family trees!).

The entire practice is based on a single, obscure verse of scripture in 1 Cor. 15:29, "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not?" There are many ways to understand this verse, such as he was referencing some errant practice of those in Corinth in a sort of ironic example that if there is no Resurrection than what is the point of them practicing it. He refers to them as "they", whereas in the rest of the passage he speaks of "we". Furthermore they were practicing many errant practices there which Paul sets out to correct. It is very unlikely if these people were literally performing a proxy-baptism, that he was sanctioning it. It is never referenced or taught anywhere else in his or anyone else's writings in the NT.

Another interpretation might be referencing those who get baptized because of their dead loved ones who have passed on, in order to reunite with them in the afterlife because of the Christian teachings of an afterlife. "What is the point then for those who are baptized, who become Christians in order to be with their loved ones in the afterlife, if they won't rise in the Resurrection," and so forth.

To say the least, it's an obscure passage on which to construct such massive structure such as temple work and massive genealogical archives. But, then again Protestant churches have always been about differentiating themselves from one another with their particular flavor of interpretation on equally obscure passages. That's never stopped anyone before. Add them to the long list of churches born in the mid-19th and early 20th centuries following the Great Disappointment. JW's are in that list as well, as well as the church I used to be part of, not to cause offense. It's really all part of the same movement of what was going on in America during this period, everyone differentiated themselves from each other with their various passages they seized upon.