LDS and JW's

[dj_dave]

The theology of their religion and the doctrines that they teach are false in its entirety, and they have no authorization from God, Jehovah, or Jesus Christ to teach or preach it.[/B] It is not Their doctrines, but purely a JW invention. I also believe that the Watchtower society is a dangerous, fraudulent, and manipulative organization whose purpose is simply to gain control of the lives and minds of their adherents, and to manipulate them to their own ends.

AND this from someone who believes we should have lots of childern so other life forms can inhabit our Bodys? And this from someone who believes Another book wasd necessary to teach the truth–one that contradics the Bible?

And this from someone that… According to a prophecy in the Book of Mormon, who believe that the dark skin of the Indians was a curse God put on their ancestors, which would be lifted if they became Mormons.where in 1978, Spencer Kimball, the church president, “announced a revelation from God,” and the church “scrapped a racial doctrine that prevented blacks from holding the priesthood,” So now, in a new edition of the Book of Mormon, the passage in question reads “pure and delightsome” instead. …that “the word ‘white’ was an editing error and that Mr.*[Joseph] Smith intended to have the prophecy use the word ‘pure.”’??

…and this from someone who believes John the Baptizer
appeared on earth as a resurrected being as recently as 1829.” During this ‘appearance’ he is claimed by the church to have visited with its founder, Joseph Smith, and an associate. But from where could this “John” have come? The Bible says that John the Baptizer did not go to heaven.—Matt. 11:11.

and this from someone who believes “God Himself, was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens.” that, God is a glorified, perfected man. He has a body of flesh and bone, but not of blood, in which dwells an eternal spirit.
“All men and women are ... literally the sons and daughters of Deity,” … “Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal body.”

and this from someone who to support such a theology, much more than the Bible is needed. Thus the eighth of the Mormon Articles of Faith declares: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.” On the other hand, the Book of Mormon is said by Joseph Smith to be “the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” Yet the Book of Mormon itself is a translation. Joseph Smith claimed to have translated it from “Reformed Egyptian” inscriptions on golden plates (long since disappeared), delivered to him by the angel Moroni, by using “the Urim and Thummin,” a special pair of spectacles. Interestingly, this “most correct of any book on earth” has had over 2,000 textual changes since first published in 1830, and it contains about 27,000 words—a tenth of the book—quoted verbatim or slightly modified from the King James Version of the Bible, including some of its translation errors.

And this from someone who believes Two other books Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price contain further “revelations” and translations, Wherein Smith worked out the elaborate system of Mormon theology, including doctrines not found in the Book of Mormon, such as plurality of gods, polygamy, curse of the black race, baptism for the dead and a host of others.

And this from someone who believes in continuing revelation—that the heavens are not closed to them. that the president of the church, as prophet, seer and revelator, receives communications or answers to current questions direct from God. A recent “revelation” was proclaimed by President SpencerW. Kimball on June9, 1978, that “all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color.” which put an end to the mounting racial tension within the church because blacks, barred from the priesthood up to that time, could never attain the celestial kingdom, according to Mormon teaching.

Truly, you ‘yappy’ little thing the reason you don’t understand our teachings is as the Bible foretold… "Dan. 12:9, 10–And he went on to say: “Go, Daniel, because the words are made secret and sealed up until the time of [the] end. 10Many will cleanse themselves and whiten themselves and will be refined. And the wicked ones will certainly act wickedly, and no wicked ones at all will understand; but the ones having insight will understand.

Oh and as “for they have no authorization from God, Jehovah, or Jesus Christ to teach or preach it”…(2 Corinthians 3:1-3) Are we starting again to recommend ourselves? Or do we, perhaps, like some men, need letters of recommendation to YOU or from YOU? 2 YOU yourselves (Those who become JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES) are our letter, inscribed on our hearts and known and being read by all mankind. 3 For YOU (JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES) are shown to be a letter of Christ written by us as ministers, inscribed not with ink but with spirit of a living God, not on stone tablets, but on fleshly tablets, on hearts. Dan, I am through with Zerinus from Mars why? Matt 7:6

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Truly, you ‘yappy’ little thing the reason you don’t understand our teachings is as the Bible foretold… "Dan. 12:9, 10–And he went on to say: “Go, Daniel, because the words are made secret and sealed up until the time of [the] end. 10Many will cleanse themselves and whiten themselves and will be refined. And the wicked ones will certainly act wickedly, and no wicked ones at all will understand; but the ones having insight will understand.

Is it too early to declare a winner? So far, I say LDS has one up on JW, if only because the JW rep. was the first to degenerate into name-calling.

In other words, I would probably feel more comfortable having a theological discussion with a Mormon than a JW. Granted, I am a bit biased, having been stopped on my street yesterday while walking with my 2 year-old, and 9-month pregnant wife, and having had copies of “Watchtower” and “Awake” thrust into my hand. I mean, I don’t go cruising neighborhoods flinging Catechisms at folks trying to go about their business.

But nothing about the LDS screams “creepy cult” to me, and if they’re willing to let us in to the 2nd or 3rd heaven, I think it’s not too much to ask to extend to them the same courtesy. The theology may be different, but we’re all Christians.

So, if I can ask 2 questions of my own, posed to the LDS posters in the crowd:

(1) Summarize the Book of Mormon in 50 words or less; and
(2) What role does the Book of Mormon play in the theology, liturgy, and philosophy of the Church of LDS?

I’m genuinely curious; I’m not setting up for a polemic or waiting to amass scriptural citations, it’s just that I’ve heard everything from “Word of God” to “made up by some guy” about this book, and I’d like to get the adherent’s-eye-view.

 

[zerinus]

zerinus:
Actually I do! I think that a charitable non-Christian will receive a greater reward in heaven than an uncharitable Christian will.

Dan:
This response really surprises me! Are you LDS? I was not aware that LDS did not believe that one must believe in Jesus to be saved.

According to Jesus one must enter by him to be saved:

NRS John 10:9 I am the gate. Whoever enters by me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture.

This is not an isolated interpretation:
NRS Acts 4:11 This **Jesus **is 'the stone that was rejected by you, the builders; it has become the cornerstone.'12 There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved."

Could you please identify your denomination and affirm that you view the bible as your source of true doctrine?

Dan

LOL! I am LDS, and I acknowledge the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price collectively as the source of true Christian doctrine.

As for the comments I made, consider the following passages:

Matthew 7:

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

There are many non-Christians who do the will of God better than many Christians do. They will receive a greater reward in heaven than the Christians will. Here is another passage to consider:

Romans 2:

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

Did you get that? There are many Gentiles (read non-Christians) who do the works of the law even though they don’t have the law. These are “a law unto themselves,” because they have the law “written in their hearts”. And they receive a greater reward in heaven than many Christians will.

Remember what Jesus told the Pharisees: “the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you” (Matthew 21:31). Likewise, there are many non-Christians who will go to the kingdom of God before many a Christian will.

 

[zerinus]

Is it too early to declare a winner? So far, I say LDS has one up on JW, if only because the JW rep. was the first to degenerate into name-calling.

In other words, I would probably feel more comfortable having a theological discussion with a Mormon than a JW. Granted, I am a bit biased, having been stopped on my street yesterday while walking with my 2 year-old, and 9-month pregnant wife, and having had copies of “Watchtower” and “Awake” thrust into my hand. I mean, I don’t go cruising neighborhoods flinging Catechisms at folks trying to go about their business.

But nothing about the LDS screams “creepy cult” to me, and if they’re willing to let us in to the 2nd or 3rd heaven, I think it’s not too much to ask to extend to them the same courtesy. The theology may be different, but we’re all Christians.

Thanks for your comments and kind words.

So, if I can ask 2 questions of my own, posed to the LDS posters in the crowd:

(1) Summarize the Book of Mormon in 50 words or less; and

The Book of Mormon is a book of scripture on a par with the Bible. The Bible is a sacred history of the Israelites (mainly tribe of Judah) who lived in Palestine. The Book of Mormon is a sacred history of a group of Israelites (mainly of the tribe of Joseph) who emigrated to the Americas in approximately 600 BC, where they developed as a homogenous society, had their prophets and holy men as in the Bible, and were even favored with a visit by Jesus Christ after His resurrection in the Holy Land. It spans a period of approximately 1,000 years, from 600 BC to 400 AD.

(2) What role does the Book of Mormon play in the theology, liturgy, and philosophy of the Church of LDS?

Exactly as the Bible does in your religion—and ours. To us the Book of Mormon is just another book of scripture like the Bible. You have the Bible, and we have more of the same.

I’m genuinely curious; I’m not setting up for a polemic or waiting to amass scriptural citations, it’s just that I’ve heard everything from “Word of God” to “made up by some guy” about this book, and I’d like to get the adherent’s-eye-view.

To us it is the “Word of God;” to our enemies it is “made up by some guy”! Take your pick. You have to make up your own mind about it—hopefully after you have read it, not before!

 

[Nyarlathotep]

The Book of Mormon is a book of scripture on a par with the Bible. The Bible is a sacred history of the Israelites (mainly tribe of Judah) who lived in Palestine. The Book of Mormon is a sacred history of a group of Israelites (mainly of the tribe of Joseph) who emigrated to the Americas in approximately 600 BC, where they developed as a homogenous society, had their prophets and holy men as in the Bible, and were even favored with a visit by Jesus Christ after His resurrection in the Holy Land. It spans a period of approximately 1,000 years, from 600 BC to 400 AD.

One of the ten “Lost Tribes”, then? Fascinating. Were they among the Central Asian tribes that traversed the Bearing Strait, or were they the Central Asian tribe that traversed the Bearing Strait? Did they make it to Central America? If so, I suppose that might shed some light on the peculiar springing up of stone pyramids, temples, and advanced calendars and mathematics and such among the Inca & Maya. Maybe I’m straying too far into “history” and away from “sacred”, tho.

Exactly as the Bible does in your religion—and ours. To us the Book of Mormon is just another book of scripture like the Bible. You have the Bible, and we have more of the same.

I get that much. But what about hierarchy? What I mean is, (Orthodox) Jews have the OT (written law), and then they have the Mishnah (oral law), which is no less authoritative, coming, as it did, directly from God to Moses at Mt. Sinai, to Moses’ student, to his student… to the Rabbis who compiled it. So where there’s an apparent “conflict” between the two, it is necessary to somehow reconcile them, which is where you get the Gemarah (together, the Talmud). So, OT and Mishnah – equally authoritative, in the event of conflict, read your Gemarah or ask your Rabbi.

Catholics have the OT and the NT. OT says keep kosher; NT says enjoy your cheesburger, we rely on Tradition and Magesterium to sort it out. So, NT is more authoritative than OT, but Tradition and Magesterium are equal in authority to the Bible as a whole.

So, for a Mormon theologian, you have OT, NT, and B/M. Let’s say that OT says “x”, NT says “-x”, and B/M says “-x unless y”. What’s the decision procedure?

To us it is the “Word of God;” to our enemies it is “made up by some guy”! Take your pick. You have to make up your own mind about it—hopefully after you have read it, not before!

I’m a lawyer – I never make up my mind about anything until I’ve read it. . I just might pick up a copy. Any particular edition you’d recommend? (Catholics, relax, I’m not converting; you should see my collection of Judaica!)

Anyway, thanks for indulging my curiosity; not many Mormons in Western Pennsylvania, you see.

 

[dj_dave]

Can you tell me if the imperative tense is used in Scripture any where else besides the “Great” (not “Greatest”) Commission?

It should be a pretty easy question for you to answer.

Maybe this…I don’t really understand what you guys are talking about.

The imperative mood is the mood of intention. It is the mood furthest removed from certainty. Ontologically, as one of the potential or oblique moods, the imperative moves into the realm of volition (involving the imposition of one’s will upon another) and possibility.

1. Command

The imperative is most commonly used for commands, outnumbering prohibitive imperatives about five to one. The basic force of the imperative of command involves somewhat different nuances with each tense. With the aorist, the force generally is to command the action as a whole, without focussing on duration, repetition, etc. In keeping with its aspectual force, the aorist puts forth a summary command. With the present, the force generally is to command the action as an ongoing process. This is in keeping with the present’s aspect, which portrays an internal perspective.

Mark 2:14 Follow me!

Mark 6:37 Give them [something] to eat.

 

[dj_dave]

Is it too early to declare a winner? So far, I say LDS has one up on JW, if only because the JW rep. was the first to degenerate into name-calling.

Name calling?

At least I didn’t go as far as Jesus! (Matthew 16:22-23) ...” 23*But, turning his back, he said to Peter: “Get behind me, Satan! …)

If you go back and read all of the terrible accusations she or he–I don’t know–threw at me you would see many areas were “name calling” was in the mix.

…I apologize,there is a breaking point) (Acts 15:39) I just thought that those cruel accusations were thoughtless.and unfounded.

(Proverbs 12:18) I did not deserve it. I have been quite accommodating toward her or him.

Anyway I am through with Zerinus.

 

[zerinus]

One of the ten “Lost Tribes”, then? Fascinating. Were they among the Central Asian tribes that traversed the Bearing Strait, or were they the Central Asian tribe that traversed the Bearing Strait? Did they make it to Central America? If so, I suppose that might shed some light on the peculiar springing up of stone pyramids, temples, and advanced calendars and mathematics and such among the Inca & Maya. Maybe I’m straying too far into “history” and away from “sacred”, tho.

You could describe them as part of the “lost tribes”. But they did not go across the Bering Strait. They journeyed from Jerusalem at the commandment of the Lord, travelled along the coastline of Arabia, and then build a ship and crossed the sea as God had commanded them.

I get that much. But what about hierarchy? What I mean is, (Orthodox) Jews have the OT (written law), and then they have the Mishnah (oral law), which is no less authoritative, coming, as it did, directly from God to Moses at Mt. Sinai, to Moses’ student, to his student… to the Rabbis who compiled it. So where there’s an apparent “conflict” between the two, it is necessary to somehow reconcile them, which is where you get the Gemarah (together, the Talmud). So, OT and Mishnah – equally authoritative, in the event of conflict, read your Gemarah or ask your Rabbi.

Catholics have the OT and the NT. OT says keep kosher; NT says enjoy your cheesburger, we rely on Tradition and Magesterium to sort it out. So, NT is more authoritative than OT, but Tradition and Magesterium are equal in authority to the Bible as a whole.

So, for a Mormon theologian, you have OT, NT, and B/M. Let’s say that OT says “x”, NT says “-x”, and B/M says “-x unless y”. What’s the decision procedure?

Good questions. Sounds like you are a lawyer! We have two other volumes of scripture in addition to the Bible and the Book of Mormon, they are called the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearly of Great Price. Collectively we call them the standard works of the Church. They are the scriptural canon of our Church. Usually if a doctrinal “conflict” or ambiguity arises, it is possible to find a solution to it between those four volumes. If that doesn’t help, and it is necessary to resolve it, recourse can be made to the top leadership of the Church, which are equivalent to your Magisterium, who have the necessary authority to resolve it, by direct revelation from the Lord if need be.

I’m a lawyer – I never make up my mind about anything until I’ve read it. . I just might pick up a copy. Any particular edition you’d recommend? (Catholics, relax, I’m not converting; you should see my collection of Judaica!)

Anyway, thanks for indulging my curiosity; not many Mormons in Western Pennsylvania, you see.

You are very welcome. Nothing can be found more easily in the United States than a copy of the Book of Mormon! If you come across any Mormon missionary, they can give you one for free. Alternatively, you can contact your local LDS Church to obtain a copy. If you look up “Mormon” or “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” in the telephone directory, your nearest church or mission office should be listed. Alternatively you can order a free copy of the Book of Mormon (as well as other materials) from this page on the Church’s website. There is one standard edition of the book that the Church uses, and that is the one you are most likely to get if you contact the Church for a copy.

 

[dj_dave]

been stopped on my street yesterday while walking with my 2 year-old, and 9-month pregnant wife,

and having had copies of “Watchtower” and “Awake” thrust into my hand. I mean, I don’t go cruising neighborhoods flinging Catechisms at folks trying to go about their business.
I mean, I don’t go cruising neighborhoods flinging Catechisms at folks trying to go about their business.

END QUOTE

compare: (Acts 17:16-17) …Now while Paul was waiting for them in Athens, his spirit within him came to be irritated at beholding that the city was full of idols. 17Consequently he began to reason in the synagogue with the Jews and the other people who worshiped [God] and every day in the marketplace with those who happened to be on hand. *

(Proverbs 1:20-33) 20True wisdom* itself keeps crying aloud in the very street. In the public squares it keeps giving forth its voice. 21 At the upper end of the noisy streets it calls out. At the entrances of the gates into the city it says its own sayings: 22 “How long will YOU inexperienced ones keep loving inexperience, and [how long] must YOU ridiculers desire for yourselves outright ridicule, and [how long] will YOU stupid ones keep hating knowledge? 23 Turn back at my reproof. Then to YOU I will cause my spirit to bubble forth; I will make my words known to YOU. 24 Because I have called out but YOU keep refusing, I have stretched out my hand but there is no one paying attention, 25 and YOU keep neglecting all my counsel, and my reproof YOU have not accepted, 26 I also, for my part, shall laugh at YOUR own disaster, I shall mock when what YOU dread comes, 27 when what YOU dread comes just like a storm, and YOUR own disaster gets here just like a storm wind, when distress and hard times come upon YOU. 28 At that time they will keep calling me, but I shall not answer; they will keep looking for me, but they will not find me, 29 for the reason that they hated knowledge, and the fear of Jehovah they did not choose.** 30 They did not consent to my counsel; they disrespected all my reproof. 31 So they will eat from the fruitage of their way, and they will be glutted with their own counsels. 32 For the renegading of the inexperienced ones is what will kill them, and the easygoingness of the stupid is what will destroy them. 33 As for the one listening to me, he will reside in security and be undisturbed from dread of calamity.”

(Acts 5:42) And every day in the temple and from house to house they continued without letup teaching and declaring the good news about the Christ, Jesus.

Sound familiar?

 

[Dan_Parker]

LOL! I am LDS, and I acknowledge the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price collectively as the source of true Christian doctrine.

As for the comments I made, consider the following passages:

Matthew 7:

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

There are many non-Christians who do the will of God better than many Christians do. They will receive a greater reward in heaven than the Christians will. Here is another passage to consider:

Romans 2:

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

Did you get that? There are many Gentiles (read non-Christians) who do the works of the law even though they don’t have the law. These are “a law unto themselves,” because they have the law “written in their hearts”. And they receive a greater reward in heaven than many Christians will.

Remember what Jesus told the Pharisees: “the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you” (Matthew 21:31). Likewise, there are many non-Christians who will go to the kingdom of God before many a Christian will.

Dan:
I agree that not everyone who claims to be Christian really has the truth or will be saved. That has no bearing on whether or not one must have faith in Christ and accept him as savior in order to be saved.

As for your second point, you read way to much into what Paul says here. Paul does not say that these ones do not need to become Christian to be saved. He is telling Jews that they have no reason to feel superior to Gentiles. He certainly does not say they will go to heaven without becoming Christian.

What you have attempted to do is to pit scripture against scripture. In my view both the passages I quoted and your quote of Paul are true. Harmonizing them does not cause any difficulty at all.

Do you deny the verses I quoted which say that there is no salvation apart from Christ and that one must accept him to be saved?

NRS John 10:9 I am the gate. Whoever enters by me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture.

Add to that, the following:

NRS John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they may** know you**, the only true God, **and Jesus Christ **whom you have sent.

Eternal life can only be obtained by knowing the Father and the Son Jesus Christ who God sent.

Dan

 

[ricko]

dj dave
But from where could this “John” have come? The Bible says that John the Baptizer did not go to heaven.—Matt. 11:11.

I read Matt 11:11 and it does not say that John did not go to heaven. How did you determine from that verse that St. John is not in heaven?

 

[zerinus]

If you go back and read all of the terrible accusations she or he–I don’t know–threw at me you would see many areas were “name calling” was in the mix.

…I apologize,there is a breaking point) (Acts 15:39) I just thought that those cruel accusations were thoughtless.and unfounded.

(Proverbs 12:18) I did not deserve it. I have been quite accommodating toward her or him.

Anyway I am through with Zerinus.

I don’t recall directing any accusations at you personally. Now I agree that people are usually fond of their religions, and so find it hurtful if somebody speaks evil of it. And as a rule I try not to. But sometimes an organization that masquerades as a religion is so blatantly fraudulent and deceitful that being silent about it amounts to complicity. The Watchtower unfortunately is such an organization.

 

[dj_dave]

I read Matt 11:11 and it does not say that John did not go to heaven. How did you determine from that verse that St. John is not in heaven?

Why was that? Because the hope of being part of the Kingdom arrangement was not fully opened up to faithful ones until holy spirit was poured out at Pentecost 33*C.E. By that time, John the Baptist had died.—Acts 2:1-4. *

Notice also, (Acts 2:29) . . .“Men, brothers, it is allowable to speak with freeness of speech to YOU concerning the family head David, that he both deceased and was buried and his tomb is among us to this day.*
(Acts 2:34-36) 34* Actually David did not ascend to the heavens, but he himself says, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, 35 until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”*’ 36

Matt. 11:11: *“Truly I say to you people, Among those born of women there has not been raised up a greater than John the Baptist; but a person that is a lesser one in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he is.” *(THINK ABOUT this…what is Jesus saying? Why would he say this at all?

 

[zerinus]

Dan:
I agree that not everyone who claims to be Christian really has the truth or will be saved. That has no bearing on whether or not one must have faith in Christ and accept him as savior in order to be saved.

As for your second point, you read way to much into what Paul says here. Paul does not say that these ones do not need to become Christian to be saved. He is telling Jews that they have no reason to feel superior to Gentiles. He certainly does not say they will go to heaven without becoming Christian.

What you have attempted to do is to pit scripture against scripture. In my view both the passages I quoted and your quote of Paul are true. Harmonizing them does not cause any difficulty at all.

Do you deny the verses I quoted which say that there is no salvation apart from Christ and that one must accept him to be saved?

Add to that, the following:

Eternal life can only be obtained by knowing the Father and the Son Jesus Christ who God sent.

Dan

It is possible to look at it the other way—you are the one who is pitting scripture against scripture. I don’t have any arguments against the scriptures you have cited. But what about the scriptures that I had cited?

If you want more theological analysis, consider this: Those verses you quoted were spoken by Jesus to those who were positively and actively rejecting Him; whereas those verses I had quoted were spoken of (or likened to by me) those Gentiles or non-Christians who had not positively and actively rejected Him.

 

[ricko]

Why was that? Because the hope of being part of the Kingdom arrangement was not fully opened up to faithful ones until holy spirit was poured out at Pentecost 33*C.E. By that time, John the Baptist had died.—Acts 2:1-4. *

Notice also, (Acts 2:29) . . .“Men, brothers, it is allowable to speak with freeness of speech to YOU concerning the family head David, that he both deceased and was buried and his tomb is among us to this day.*
(Acts 2:34-36) 34* Actually David did not ascend to the heavens, but he himself says, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, 35 until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”*’ 36

I’m a little fuzzy about your teaching here. The gates of heaven were closed until Jesus died on the cross. He then went to tell the good news (heaven was open) to the spirits in prison. Those souls who died with grace went to heaven, including John the Baptist. If he is not now in heaven, where is he?

 

[Dan_Parker]

It is possible to look at it the other way—you are the one who is pitting scripture against scripture. I don’t have any arguments against the scriptures you have cited. But what about the scriptures that I had cited?

If you want more theological analysis, consider this: Those verses you quoted were spoken by Jesus to those who were positively and actively rejecting Him; whereas those verses I had quoted were spoken of (or likened to by me) those Gentiles or non-Christians who had not positively and actively rejected Him.

It is possible to look at it your way **if **one reads between the lines of what Paul wrote. You assert Paul is saying these Gentiles are saved outside of faith in Jesus but Paul does not explicitly say that. That is what you need to prove. You are employing circular reasoning by assuming your meaning in the very text you are using for proof.

Dan

 

[dj_dave]

I’m a little fuzzy about your teaching here. The gates of heaven were closed until Jesus died on the cross. He then went to tell the good news (heaven was open) to the spirits in prison. Those souls who died with grace went to heaven, including John the Baptist. If he is not now in heaven, where is he?

Where did David go? Acts 2 was after Jesus went to heaven…

If Adam had not sinned, would he eventually have gone to heaven?

Notice? Gen. 1:26: “God went on to say: ‘Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth.’” (So, God’s purpose for Adam was that he be caretaker of the earth and of the animal life there. Nothing is said about his going to heaven.)

Gen. 2:16,17: “Jehovah God also laid this command upon the man: ‘From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.’” (It was not Jehovah’s original purpose for man someday to die. God’s command here quoted shows that he warned against the course that would lead to death. Death was to be punishment for disobedience, not the doorway to a better life in heaven. Obedience would have been rewarded by continued life, eternal life, in the Paradise that God had given to man. See also Isaiah 45:18.)

NOW, What does 1 Peter 3:19, 20 mean? “In this state [in the spirit, following his resurrection] also he [Jesus] went his way and preached to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient when the patience of God was waiting in Noah’s days, while the ark was being constructed, in which a few people, that is, eight souls “souls,” KJ, Dy; “people,” TEV, JB; “persons,” RS], were carried safely through the water.” (Were those “spirits in prison” the souls of the humans who had refused to take heed to Noah’s preaching before the Flood, and was the way now open for them to go to heaven?

**Comparison of 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 with Genesis 6:2-4 **shows that these spirits were angelic sons of God that had materialized and married in Noah’s day. At 1Peter 3:19,20 the Greek word for “spirits” is pneu′ma·sin, while the word*rendered “souls” is psy·khai′. The “spirits” were not disembodied souls but disobedient angels; the “souls” here referred to were living people, humans, Noah and his household. What was preached to “spirits in prison” must therefore have been a message of judgment.)

What is the meaning of 1*Peter 4:6? “In fact, for this purpose the good news was declared also to the dead, that they might be judged as to the flesh from the standpoint of men but might live as to the spirit from the standpoint of God.” (Were these “dead” the people who had died prior to the death of Christ? As already shown, the dead are not “the spirits in prison.” Those spirits were disobedient angels. And preaching would not have benefited physically dead humans because, as Ecclesiastes 9:5 says, they “are conscious of nothing at all,” and Psalm 146:4 adds that at death a person’s “thoughts do perish.” But Ephesians 2:1-7,17does refer to persons who were spiritually dead and who came to life spiritually as a result of accepting the good news. See also (Matthew 8:22)

I know that surprises you compared to what Staples, Madrid and others say. But why just those “*who had once been disobedient when the patience of God was waiting in Noah’s days” why not the faithful men of old spoken of in Hebrews11? Again **A comparison of 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 with Genesis 6:2-4 explains.

** see therain.org/appendixes/app23.html

God’s original purpose was to “fill the earth” (Gen 1:28) not Heaven. Only 144,000 go to heaven to “rule with Christ” --who are they going to rule over?

Luke 12:32: “Have no fear, little flock, because your Father has approved of giving you the kingdom.”

Rev. 14:1-3: “I saw, and, look! the Lamb [Jesus Christ] standing upon the Mount Zion [in heaven; see Hebrews 12:22-24], and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand having his name and the name of his Father written on their foreheads*. . . . And they are singing as if a new song . . . and **no one **was able to master that song but the hundred and forty-four thousand, who have been bought from the earth.”

Rev. 20:6: “They will be priests of God and of the Christ, and will rule as kings with him for the thousand years.” (“the” is said 3 times in chapter 20-- it does not mean just some amount of time)

Is the number 144,000 merely symbolic?

The answer is indicated by the fact that, after mention of the definite number 144,000, Revelation 7:9 refers to “a great crowd, which no man was able to number.” If the number 144,000 were not literal it would lack meaning as a contrast to the “great crowd.” Viewing the number as literal agrees with Jesus’ statement at Matthew 22:14 regarding the Kingdom of the heavens: “There are many invited, but few chosen.”*

 

[zerinus]

It is possible to look at it your way if one reads between the lines of what Paul wrote. You assert Paul is saying these Gentiles are saved outside of faith in Jesus but Paul does not explicitly say that. That is what you need to prove. You are employing circular reasoning by assuming your meaning in the very text you are using for proof.

Dan

Okay, let’s have closer look at the scripture in question:

Romans 2:

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

The terms “being just” or “justified” are legalistic terms that translate into being “saved” in Christian terms. I agree that strictly speaking it is talking in terms of Old Testament law; but he is speaking it in the Christian context, and the idea behind it carries over in terms of the Christian idea of salvation. What he is saying in essence is that one who does the will of God is saved, not one who professes belief in God. Those who do not have the “law” (be it Jewish or Christian law), but obey it anyway out of a good conscience will be saved; whereas those who have the law (i.e. believe) but do not obey it will not be saved. That is the message that those verses convey.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Okay, let’s have closer look at the scripture in question:

Romans 2:

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

The terms “being just” or “justified” are legalistic terms that translate into being “saved” in Christian terms. I agree that strictly speaking it is talking in terms of Old Testament law; but he is speaking it in the Christian context, and the idea behind it carries over in terms of the Christian idea of salvation. What he is saying in essence is that one who does the will of God is saved, not one who professes belief in God. Those who do not have the “law” (be it Jewish or Christian law), but obey it anyway out of a good conscience will be saved; whereas those who have the law (i.e. believe) but do not obey it will not be saved. That is the message that those verses convey.

Dan:
You have no smoking gun there. What you need is something that specifically says that Gentiles are justified because of doing something. What it actually says is that those who do something WILL (future) be justified.

When one harmonizes this verse with the ones I mentioned before it is clear that in addition to doing something they also need to know God and his Son (Jn 17:3) as well as entering by Jesus as a gate to be saved (Jn 10:9).

This is expressed more forcefully with:
NRS John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Dan

 

[zerinus]

Dan:
You have no smoking gun there. What you need is something that specifically says that Gentiles are justified because of doing something. What it actually says is that those who do something WILL (future) be justified.

No, I think you are being a bit pedantic with that one. “Will” here means all time, not just the future. In the Ten Commandments it also says “Thou shalt not kill”. By your logic that is talking about killing in the future, therefore it is okay to kill now!

When one harmonizes this verse with the ones I mentioned before it is clear that in addition to doing something they also need to know God and his Son (Jn 17:3) as well as entering by Jesus as a gate to be saved (Jn 10:9).

The “harmonization” works both ways. Just as you can harmonize the previous verse with this one, you can harmonize this verse with the previous one.

This is expressed more forcefully with:
NRS John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

And I again repeat that this was spoken by Jesus to those who were actively and positively rejecting Him. Those Gentiles, or non-Christians we are considering here had not actively, willfully, purposefully rejected Jesus Christ. That makes all the difference.