S
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
SirThomasMore
Guest
Intelectual honesty SirThomasmore!
Yes, what I have presented is intellectual honesty
Your arguments are childish! Actually, they are not even considered arguments! You completely ignored what I presented here! I even lost interest in responding your “rebuttal”. Very flimsy!
Not true. YOU made a claim that your organization resembles the early Church more than any other Church. I showed you how wrong you are. You cannot respond, so you get upset. There is no reason to do that.
Mormons claim, for example, that no Cardinals are talked about in the Bible. They also claim that there is nothing to support the idea that our Bishops are the same as the early Apostles. I have argued that things changed as the Church grew and spread. I was told by Mormons how wrong I was. Yet, you use those same arguments to justify using terms like “president”, “mission president”, “Patriarch”, etc.
The bottom line, your Church resembles nothing like the early Church. Slapping titles like Apostle on some folks does not make you resemble anything. The Catholic Church resembles the early Church. The Catholic Mass resembles the gatherings by the Apostles and their descendants much more than your Sac Meeting does. You get frustrated because I am right and you have no good response. That is ok. It is a normal reaction.
Have a Blessed Day
S
SirThomasMore
Guest
Trinity means 3. So we use it. That is not a good respopnse to why you use “presdidency”Is “Trinity” a biblical term?..of couse not! … And yet the majority of Christians believe in a “Trinity.”
S
SirThomasMore
Guest
I have seen none of your prophets in sack cloth. So your point is not validLax,
If that is the case, then why would the Book of Revelation talks about prophecy and prophets and new teaching in the Latter Days?
*“And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.” Rev 11:3
“And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.” Rev11:10*
C
Caprica
Guest
His point is that Revelation tells of two prophets to come, yet it is claimed that prophets are no longer necessary because Jesus revealed everything.I have seen none of your prophets in sack cloth. So your point is not valid
S
SirThomasMore
Guest
then my point is still valid. The verse he usus says HOW they will prophesyHis point is that Revelation tells of two prophets to come, yet it is claimed that prophets are no longer necessary because Jesus revealed everything.
no sack cloth. so it fails
K
Kdesiel
Guest
evanfaust;6677156:
Your arguments are childish! Actually, they are not even considered arguments! You completely ignored what I presented here! I even lost interest in responding your “rebuttal”. Very flimsy!Intelectual honesty SirThomasmore!
Yes, what I have presented is intellectual honesty
Not true. YOU made a claim that your organization resembles the early Church more than any other Church. I showed you how wrong you are. You cannot respond, so you get upset. There is no reason to do that.
Mormons claim, for example, that no Cardinals are talked about in the Bible. They also claim that there is nothing to support the idea that our Bishops are the same as the early Apostles. I have argued that things changed as the Church grew and spread. I was told by Mormons how wrong I was. Yet, you use those same arguments to justify using terms like “president”, “mission president”, “Patriarch”, etc.
The bottom line, your Church resembles nothing like the early Church. Slapping titles like Apostle on some folks does not make you resemble anything. The Catholic Church resembles the early Church. The Catholic Mass resembles the gatherings by the Apostles and their descendants much more than your Sac Meeting does. You get frustrated because I am right and you have no good response. That is ok. It is a normal reaction.
Have a Blessed Day
Mormons Apostles are all wealthy and successful Business men, former Attorney’s, former Judges. You have to be wealthy to be a Mormon Apostle. The Apostles called in the NT were they all wealthy men? When they dedicated their lives to the work of the Lord as he called them, did they get to keep their worldly possessions?
How do Mormon Apostles Resemble NT Apostles again?
Just asking.
C
Caprica
Guest
His point is that he was criticized for using an “LDS title” and not a biblical word. In both cases, whether “Trinity” or “Presidency”, Catholics and LDS believe that they are ascribing an extra-biblical word to a concept that they believe is Biblical.Trinity means 3. So we use it. That is not a good respopnse to why you use “presdidency”
C
Caprica
Guest
No it doesn’t, because “sack cloth” is referring to these two specific prophets (the verse is talking about them, not all prophets that ever existed). They will be clothed in sack cloth.then my point is still valid. The verse he usus says HOW they will prophesy
no sack cloth. so it fails
S
SirThomasMore
Guest
ah…so you find a vewrse that supports prophesy then limit the verse to the words you like.No it doesn’t, because “sack cloth” is referring to these two specific prophets (the verse is talking about them, not all prophets that ever existed). They will be clothed in sack cloth.
Not sure I agree with your method, but it IS a handy way to find things that support your argument
C
Caprica
Guest
We are not limiting the verse at all. This verse was referenced because it clearly shows prophesy post-Jesus Christ. It has been claimed that prophets are unnecessary because all was revealed by Jesus Christ. The Book of Revelation shows that there will be two prophets that will prophesy at some point. These two prophets (that the verse is talking about) will be clothed in sack cloth (it makes no sense to say that all prophets must wear sack cloth because the verse says that these two specific prophets will be).ah…so you find a vewrse that supports prophesy then limit the verse to the words you like.
Not sure I agree with your method, but it IS a handy way to find things that support your argument
S
SirThomasMore
Guest
Actually, you are. You take a verse that says people will prphesy in sackcloth, but chop of how they will be dressed to show that, in future, people will prophesy.
Like I said…very handy way to find verse that support you
Like I said…very handy way to find verse that support you
C
Caprica
Guest
Sorry, if you actually read the verses, you will see that it doesn’t just say that “people” will prophesy in the future, but that it is talking about two specific prophets. Those two prophets will be clothed in sack cloth. The overarching point is that, if prophets are unnecessary because of Jesus, then what about these two prophets in Revelation. This is all without reference to LDS prophets. No one is ascribing the verse to all LDS prophets, but addressing the claim that prophets are unnecessary after Jesus, and this verse shows prophesy post-Jesus, with these two specific prophets dressed in sack cloth. This is very simple.Actually, you are. You take a verse that says people will prphesy in sackcloth, but chop of how they will be dressed to show that, in future, people will prophesy.
Like I said…very handy way to find verse that support you
**
“And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.” Rev 11:3**
S
SirThomasMore
Guest
Yes…and that verse was used to show how there should be a prophet in the future.Sorry, if you actually read the verses, you will see that it doesn’t just say that “people” will prophesy in the future, but that it is talking about two specific prophets. Those two prophets will be clothed in sack cloth. The overarching point is that, if prophets are unnecessary because of Jesus, then what about these two prophets in Revelation. This is all without reference to LDS prophets. No one is ascribing the verse to all LDS prophets, but addressing the claim that prophets are unnecessary after Jesus, and this verse shows prophesy post-Jesus, with these two specific prophets dressed in sack cloth. This is very simple.
**
“And I will give power unto my two witnesses**, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.” Rev 11:3
You can’t have it both ways
C
Caprica
Guest
Sorry, there isn’t any “both ways”. The verse shows that there will be prophesy in the future by these two prophets. This verse was used to address the claim that prophets are unnecessary after Jesus. The verse shows that there will be two specific witnesses, clothed in sack cloth, that will prophesy, post-Jesus. How could they exist if prophets are unnecessary after Jesus? That is what is being addressed, and has nothing to do with LDS prophets wearing or not wearing sack cloth, since these two specific prophets are described as wearing sack cloth. Very simple.Yes…and that verse was used to show how there should be a prophet in the future.
You can’t have it both ways
S
SirThomasMore
Guest
lol. 8Like I said…it is very handy to chop up verses how you want them to prove a point.Sorry, there isn’t any “both ways”. The verse shows that there will be prophesy in the future by these two prophets. This verse was used to address the claim that prophets are unnecessary after Jesus. The verse shows that there will be two specific witnesses, clothed in sack cloth, that will prophesy, post-Jesus. How could they exist if prophets are unnecessary after Jesus? That is what is being addressed, and has nothing to do with LDS prophets wearing or not wearing sack cloth, since these two specific prophets are described as wearing sack cloth. Very simple.
C
Caprica
Guest
Fortunately, there is no chopping up of verses here. The verse says that these two prophets will be clothed in sack cloth, and will prophesy. I have repeatedly agreed with that statement.lol. 8Like I said…it is very handy to chop up verses how you want them to prove a point.
S
SirThomasMore
Guest
fine. Then the verse does NOT support the notion of a need for a prophet in the future.Fortunately, there is no chopping up of verses here. The verse says that these two prophets will be clothed in sack cloth, and will prophesy. I have repeatedly agreed with that statement.
Then we agree
C
Caprica
Guest
What the verse supports is the existence of two prophets, prophesying, after Jesus.fine. Then the verse does NOT support the notion of a need for a prophet in the future.
Then we agree
S
SirThomasMore
Guest
yep. in sackcloth
when you see them, let me know
when you see them, let me know
- Status
- Not open for further replies.