Tumbaga - Wikipedia
Tumbaga is a gold alloy known to have been used by various cultures in Central and South America, many of whom used it for objects of religious veneration.
Does your work mention anything about it?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Peter: "Well some years later, what do you know, a scientist/archeologist finds gold plates in Central America and to his utter surprise there was writing on them. And many more have been found since that first discovery. Huh, was JS was right in 1830? Was science wrong in 1830?"
Do you have a source for this? I've never heard of it. The encyclopedia says that the Aztecs wrote on paper. Yes, we know they made some inscriptions in stone. I have never heard of any significant amount of writing by Aztecs/Mayans/Toltecs etc being done on gold. Incidentally, I have a book, Archaeological Mexico, published by the Mexican government, that would mention something like that.
Tumbaga - Wikipedia
Tumbaga is a gold alloy known to have been used by various cultures in Central and South America, many of whom used it for objects of religious veneration.
Does your work mention anything about it?
So you are saying that God is immaterial? I believe God has a form:Well that's about the silliest most contradictory statement I've ever heard. He created all things. He created all the planets and stars and everything on them. And He did not require anything to be there first. Your God needs stuff to have already been in existence. Ours does not. You claim that matter has always existed---is matter God? Does it have intelligence? God is spirit, we have no idea what they (God)are made of so your statement is totally irrelevant. That statement has ben made 100's of times and never gains in intelligence.
So you are saying that God is immaterial? I believe God has a form:
(Old Testament | Genesis 1:26 - 27)
26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. ;
Well, I am not changing my beliefs.You can believe whatever you want. The bible does not say anything definitive, Jesus said He is spirit.
I do not claim to have the knowledge of what God is and how He was out there before there was any planets or anything in the vast universe. We are made in His image. Like I've pointed out---a corncob doll is made in our image so is Barbie. They are, however, not made clones of ourselves. There are things said about His hands and back parts and eyes, but what kind of eyes? We can not see certain things, have no capacity for it, such as UV lights, our ears can not hear like a dogs, our noses can not smell like a dogs -- nobody as yet understands a thing about Him really, least of all JS.
He is all that is male and all that is female, that is what the Jewish language has described Him. Not as a separate male or female. You can say He is whatever your puny little brain can come up with, our brains do not have the capacity to comprehend what He truly is, He is light and fire, so bright that angels stand in front of Him with wings outstretched to block His light even from other angels. No sinful man can look upon Him in His full glory and live and neither could JS. He never saw Him. Even Moses, God was always veiled though He spoke to Him face to face---which means, not in dreams or visions, but even he could not see Him unveiled and live. Sin can not live in His presence. So lease do not even try to tell me you know what He is, that is laughable.
Well, I am not changing my beliefs.
Peter: "Well some years later, what do you know, a scientist/archeologist finds gold plates in Central America and to his utter surprise there was writing on them. And many more have been found since that first discovery. Huh, was JS was right in 1830? Was science wrong in 1830?"
Do you have a source for this? I've never heard of it. The encyclopedia says that the Aztecs wrote on paper. Yes, we know they made some inscriptions in stone. I have never heard of any significant amount of writing by Aztecs/Mayans/Toltecs etc being done on gold. Incidentally, I have a book, Archaeological Mexico, published by the Mexican government, that would mention something like that.
Taking side bets that he cannot come up with a legitimate, non-Mormon source...
This was encased under my post therefore I c ould not just hit the reply button and have it as a quote--so I copied and paste.
"Yes, we believe the fall had to happen. Again you did not answer why God allowed satan into His perfect garden? Did God know that the fall had to happen?
Our ceremony is pretty much right out of the bible as to the Adam and Eve story. It is not exactly the same but pretty close."
I thought I answered. But I guess I was vague. God knew when He created all His angels that the freedom to choose meant that there would at some point be rebellion. That is why He made provision for that long before it happened. Love is not love if there is no freedom to walk away from it. God did not make robots. Yes, when Lucifer rebelled he and his angels had access to every unfallen world---we are the only fallen one. They were therefore not wanted in those worlds where Satan failed to lead them away from God, this was the only one left. That is evident with Job and Satan going into a heavenly conclave among the sons of God which were the leaders of the other unfallen worlds, Satan went as the leader of this world.
God did not put Him here, He did allow him to be here and yes, He did allow the temptation. Adam and Eve did not have to fail, but they did. God could not, in all fairness, allow Satan on the other worlds and not allow him on this one. God allowed the temptation and He had already made provision for that outcome---No---it did not have to happen and no matter how much you argue against it---the fall was not needed in order for man to have children. We owe no debt of gratitude to Satan for the fall nor for children.
You will insist that children are from God, yet, when you insist that Adam and Eve could not have children until the fall, you make Satan the giver of children. I don't think I need to post the quotes of your prophets saying that without the fall we would not be here because Adam and Eve could not conceive until after the fall. That is baloney. They did not conceive until after the fall is true---in no way does that mean they could not---they were told by God to be fruitful and multiply and that should put an end to it as they would have had to obey that command. We do not know how long after creation they were tempted and it could not have been very long at all for indeed, they had not gotten around to it yet and had no children yet so it was within a year at most. Satan wasted no time in getting to them. Your ceremony is a glorification of Satan and if I put it up, along with the words spoken, anyone can see that it is just plain blasphemous. You can not se it for you are blinded by your total submission to the word of JS and your thinking that what he says is more accurate than the bible and has to be true. You can not yet see the lies, I hope one day you will.
Peter: "I am surprised you did not ask for a scripture about Peter and the 12 as to why they are sitting on 12 thrones judging the House of Israel. (Luke 22:30)"
And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred
one on me, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and
sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Luke 22:29-20 NIV
You are misquoting Luke in your post. Jesus doesn't say how many thrones His Apostles will sit on. He does say that there are twelve Tribes of Israel, but that's non-controversial. I became aware of this point when I heard a woman tell a Methodist minister that Judas is in heaven on a throne, citing this passage. The minister quickly pointed out that Luke doesn't, and Jesus didn't, say "twelve thrones." We are told only that the Apostles will be on thrones.
Of course, Judas was actually replaced by Matthias as an Apostle in the first chapter of Acts.
Peter: "What roll is Jesus describing here in the judgment process for these men?"
We don't know. It is my understanding that this has nothing to do with the Final Judgment. That is reserved for Christ alone.
Well then she should have written: your interpretation of Luke 22:30 is not needed, and I reject all of it.What an uncharitable reading of mmksparbud's post. It is far more reasonable to assume that any "not needing" of any scriptures is written in the context of rejecting the Mormon religion's interpretation of them, in the sense of "I don't need to be told what those scriptures mean by Mormons, since I don't agree with your Mormon interpretation anyway."
\Yes, and it is your faith that insists that the fall had to happen in order for there to be children. You have a ceremony with that very idea in mind---need I post that who ceremony again and all the words that has been written by your prophets about it? Why are you now saying something so contradictory to what your prophets have all said? I will post all the needed quotes if you insist, but then you turn around and get upset when we do.
All questions will be answered then--in other words--it is then that His justice is fully seen by us. He doesn't need the records kept for Himself for He knows all. But we need to see why our sainted aunt did not make it and some creepy old guy did.The 1000 years is when we, the saved will go through the books of the lost and will see why they are lost.
---they saw at the cross the real heart of Satan and of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.It is God that has ben on trial all this time by the rest of the unfallen worlds and unfallen angels
Satan is the accuser and as such has he talked all those angels into believing God was not the loving God He is. This battle had left those unfallen with a hint of doubt---what if Lucifer was right? Lucifer did not win those other angels by telling the truth of God, he lied through his teeth about Him and some believed him instead. The cross showed the truth.
\Yes, and it is your faith that insists that the fall had to happen in order for there to be children. You have a ceremony with that very idea in mind---need I post that who ceremony again and all the words that has been written by your prophets about it? Why are you now saying something so contradictory to what your prophets have all said? I will post all the needed quotes if you insist, but then you turn around and get upset when we do.
The 1000 years is when we, the saved will go through the books of the lost and will see why they are lost.
It is God that has ben on trial all this time by the rest of the unfallen worlds and unfallen angels
Satan is the accuser and as such has he talked all those angels into believing God was not the loving God He is. This battle had left those unfallen with a hint of doubt---what if Lucifer was right? Lucifer did not win those other angels by telling the truth of God, he lied through his teeth about Him and some believed him instead. The cross showed the truth.
Years ago, I looked into Tumbaga, but it has been a long time and so I would say no.Tumbaga - Wikipedia
Tumbaga is a gold alloy known to have been used by various cultures in Central and South America, many of whom used it for objects of religious veneration.
Does your work mention anything about it?
Our ceremony is a glorification of satan is so wrong, on so many levels it is laughable. In our ceremony, satan is meant to look evil, because he is evil, and in the end God humiliates him and tosses him out. Where is the glorification of satan when he is berated up and down by God, humiliated, and thrown out in disgrace? Again, tell me how this glorifies him, when in fact it achieves just the opposite.
Laughable is the word I would use, if you watched some film that someone lied and stole to get, and then came away with the idea that that ceremony glorified satan, you are so mixed up, I cannot help you further. We will just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.
God had made provision for sin from the foundation of the world, Jesus was to be the savior of His own creation. When Lucifer rebelled God did not wipe him out or his followers. Had He done so, the rest of the angels and other worlds would have served God out of fear. He has let Satan do as he must in order to show the universe what sin leads to---and it was shown at the cross for it was then that Satan was completely caste out of heaven. Before that he had access to the heavenly courts as seen in Job. It is not just a matter of us---it is a matter of the whole universe that is watching this battle between God and Satan play out.
Satan was defeated at the cross, it is a matter of time before Jesus is finished with His work as our High Priest and has determined who is lost and who is saved. The judgement of the wicked takes place later. All questions will be answered then--in other words--it is then that His justice is fully seen by us. He doesn't need the records kept for Himself for He knows all. But we need to see why our sainted aunt did not make it and some creepy old guy did.---they saw at the cross the real heart of Satan and of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
All I have ever maintained is that before the fall Adam and Eve had no children. That is exactly what the bible says. Now we both can speculate as to why they did not have children, we have our thoughts, and you have yours, but all of that doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is "they had no children before the fall" straight from the bible.
Reference please?
Reference please?
Reference please?
And still after all the years I've spent here so far discussing things with them, I can't understand why the best they can apparently shoot for in a mixed faith environment is to be considered equal with Christianity, a religion which they and their founding prophet believe to be corrupted beyond repair. Aiming pretty low there, aren't you guys?
I read the post, but am not including all of it for sake of brevity.
First off, what John Gill stated did not refute my point.
Secondly, John Gill is not a source of scripture. Therefore, anything he has to say on the topic is his opinion.
Third, if John Gill wants to show up and argue his points with me, then I will be happy to respond to his comments, but I am not going to debate the arguments of someone who is not on this forum.
Helium, oxygen, carbon, hydrogen are available all over the universe, and it would not take much for God to take these elements from X and transfer them to our sun. For God, that process would be elementary, assuming God wished the sun to last a little longer.
Could Kolob be in the 3rd heaven? You don't know and until I see it, I have to believe by faith.
If God and the angels don't need a star or planet, are they just drifiting in open space somewhere. Be reasonable. It would be far more reasonable that they are situated on a rather large planet, rather than just drifting out there in space, right?
Where will the New Jerusalem be, if not on a planet? Will we all be in the New Jerusalem, just drifting in open space somewhere? Think about it just for a few seconds and you will see your dilemma, and JS's concept may not seem so far fetched.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?