LDS What is the reward?

[Peter1000]

Again, Paul was accepted by the people at the time. He has been accepted by the groups that have debated, argued, discussed and agreed as to what is Canon.

I do not, in any way shape or form, hold Joseph Smith in the same light as any of the people who wrote the scriptures of the Canon.
The Bible is accepted, world wide, by far greater theologians than myself, to be the word of God.

So, to be clear, the Bible is accepted as the valid word of God. Nothing written since then is necessary to complete the word of God. Nothing written since can add to content of the Bible and be considered the word of God.
No man is going to convince me otherwise. I will hold no book in comparison to the Bible and certainly not words written by a man who is a self proclaimed chosen one and had a man, turned angel, back from the dead, thousands of years later, to give information that God left out.

God is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow. He has nothing "new" to tell us. We have all the information that we need. I need no more words than what I have.

God is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow. He has nothing "new" to tell us. We have all the information that we need. I need no more words than what I have.

You understand that you are working yourself into a corner by stating that God is the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow?

For example, if Jesus chose living Apostles and Prophets to be the foundation of His church in the 1st century, why would he not have living Apostles and Prophets that are still the foundation of His church in the 21st century?

It makes sense to me if Jesus is the same, today, yesterday, and tomorrow, He would have living Apostles and Prophets in His true church today.

If not, then He is not the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow. Can you explain this conundrum?

 

[JacksBratt]

You understand that you are working yourself into a corner by stating that God is the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow?

For example, if Jesus chose living Apostles and Prophets to be the foundation of His church in the 1st century, why would he not have living Apostles and Prophets that are still the foundation of His church in the 21st century?

It makes sense to me if Jesus is the same, today, yesterday, and tomorrow, He would have living Apostles and Prophets in His true church today.

If not then He is not the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow. Can you explain this conundrum?

If my father is a stern man, a man of his word, follows the laws of he land, his handshake is as good as a signature on a piece of paper, he puts himself last and makes sure his family are looked after, exercises every day, eats healthy and doesn't drink. He prays at least twice a day and always councils with the Lord and the elders at his church when making important decisions......

If I say, this is my dad and he is never going to change.

Has he changed if he moves to a smaller house when the kids move out? Has he changed if he buys a Ford when he always bought Chrysler? Has he changed if my mother passes away and he is a widower? Has he changed if cuts his hair shorter now that he is losing some?

No, the concept of God being the same "yesterday, today and tomorrow is about His concepts, His Character, His attributes, what He considers sin, acceptable, not acceptable.

It does not mean that we are going to have a perpetual line of apostles on the earth. Nor, prophets or NEW scripture.

That is not God changing. That is the methods of the age.

Before Noah, how were people determined worthy of Heaven? How about after the Flood, after Abraham, After the Exodus and the giving of the ten commandments. How about when Christ was giving His ministry? And, finally after His death and resurrection

All these different times and ages had different methods of God speaking with and to His creation.

You cannot say that God MUST continue to give us apostles or He has changed. There were no apostles before the ministry of Christ. There have been no prophets since.

The curtain that separated the Holy of Holy's from the world, was ripped in two from top to bottom at the time of Christ's crucifixion when He said "it is finished".

This is when we entered the age of grace. We don't need anyone to intermediate for us. We can go directly to Christ in prayer for our sins, guidance, worship, comfort and any other part of a close relationship with Him.

Is this not a much larger "change" in the concepts of God, Christ and the sinners on earth. Yet, God has not changed. Just the methods of the relationship with Him...

I am in no corner. God has not changed. We just live in a different age and there is no need for any more prophets, apostles or new scripture. Christ gave us everything we need.

 

[Peter1000]

In any validation, one person stating something and calling it a "fact" will have to endure some scrutiny in order to be deemed truthful.

This will mean 1/further observations of the "claimed fact" by others. 2/ investigation of the validity by accredited experts in the field. 3/ agreement by councils of accredited experts in the field with due processes to validate the "claimed fact".

This is different than a whole town believing that one man is a prophet of God and an outsider being told that they cannot question it due to the simple fact of democracy.

The men that agonized over what should and shouldn't be considered canon have been accepted for hundreds of years as being men of God and their descision has been anything but self serving, but has been to ensure that the Holy Bible contains the true word of God based on the translation of the Holy Scriptures.
They did not make up new words, new books, new information. They translated existing text and discerned on which ones should be accepted and which ones should not.

Joseph Smith, made up stuff and presented it as God's word.

End of story.


Give me an example of something "God said" that is not a biblical scripture.

The biblical scripture is all we have that is what "God said".

He may speak to you personally, and does this all the time. However, He does not and has not told someone, something that needs to be written down, printed and distributed to the entire world as "new" information from the mouth of God.

If this were not the case, we would have a massive amount of "new" words of God as men and women claim that they have something to say that God told them He wanted the world to hear..




Ya, I did.

I said that you cannot prove a negative. I said the burden of proof is not on me but on you.



Your conclusion of " Therefore, He should still be appointing spokesmen today." Is unfounded and flawed. You cannot just quote some random scripture, then say "therefore" paste in some fabricated conclusion and state that it is backed by scripture....

Your conclusion of " Therefore, He should still be appointing spokesmen today." Is unfounded and flawed. You cannot just quote some random scripture, then say "therefore" paste in some fabricated conclusion and state that it is backed by scripture....

Excuse me. Is there such a thing as a 'random scripture'? Or is every word that is in the scriptures sacred? To me there are no 'random scriptures' or 'controversial scriptures' etc. They are all the words of God.

Is our conculsion fabricated? No, since it is what Jesus did, it follows that (unless he said to the contrary, which you have not proven) JS's position is solid and not fabricated.

In fact your position is the fabrication. When Martin Luther attacked and broke from the Catholic church, he set up a church that did not include biblical offices, such as Apostles and Prophets, and he set up the state or the worldly prince, to oversee this new church. Talk about unscriptural.

So you are following a man (and believe me you do follow Luther) that did not set up the new church according to scripture. We are following a man that did set up the church of Jesus Christ according to what Jesus Christ told him, confirmed by scripture.

So an interesting Protestant dilemma.[/QUOTE]

 

[JacksBratt]

......

can you edit your quotes so that I can read this more easily?

 

[Jane_Doe]

Everything we have, that is considered to be the word of God, was written down by men. Everything.

The tablet that contains the ten commandments was written by the finger of God, in stone. But, we don't have them.

The rest of the accepted scriptures, are penned by me and solidly believed to be God Breathed, inspired words of God.

The difference between the canon, along with how it has been validated and Joseph Smith and his book is obvious.

Like I said, it was obtained by means that are not scriptural, and it contains truths combined with contradictions of the word of God.

The canon was verification of transcripts that already existed from the time of Christ. Joseph Smith made up his own transcripts.

If every Tom Dick and Harry who decided that they have had a new revelation from God, wrote a book, and we believed that it was true, we would be in a spaghetti bowl of scriptural folly.

You have failed to validate the point you make about " point C" in your previous post, stating something "God Said"

Give me a source for something "God Said" without using accepted scriptures.

JacksBratt: I was pointing out that your claims (re-posted below) are NOT in scripture. Why then do you believe them?

The biblical scripture is all we have that is what "God said".

He may speak to you personally, and does this all the time. However, He does not and has not told someone, something that needs to be written down, printed and distributed to the entire world as "new" information from the mouth of God.

If this were not the case, we would have a massive amount of "new" words of God as men and women claim that they have something to say that God told them He wanted the world to hear..

 

[Rescued One]

...So you are following a man (and believe me you do follow Luther) that did not set up the new church according to scripture. We are following a man that did set up the church of Jesus Christ according to what Jesus Christ told him, confirmed by scripture.

So an interesting Protestant dilemma.

Mormons are putting men(false prohets, false bishops, stake presidents and teachers) between you and God. God brought me out of Mormonism for that very reason.

Proverbs 3
5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

John 10
24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. 25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. 26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Mormons are putting men(false prohets, false bishops, stake presidents and teachers) between you and God. God brought me out of Mormonism for that very reason.

This coming from a disciple of Calvin?
You're simultaneously condemning your own beliefs and misrepresenting LDS beliefs.

 

[Peter1000]

If my father is a stern man, a man of his word, follows the laws of he land, his handshake is as good as a signature on a piece of paper, he puts himself last and makes sure his family are looked after, exercises every day, eats healthy and doesn't drink. He prays at least twice a day and always councils with the Lord and the elders at his church when making important decisions......

If I say, this is my dad and he is never going to change.

Has he changed if he moves to a smaller house when the kids move out? Has he changed if he buys a Ford when he always bought Chrysler? Has he changed if my mother passes away and he is a widower? Has he changed if cuts his hair shorter now that he is losing some?

No, the concept of God being the same "yesterday, today and tomorrow is about His concepts, His Character, His attributes, what He considers sin, acceptable, not acceptable.

It does not mean that we are going to have a perpetual line of apostles on the earth. Nor, prophets or NEW scripture.

That is not God changing. That is the methods of the age.

Before Noah, how were people determined worthy of Heaven? How about after the Flood, after Abraham, After the Exodus and the giving of the ten commandments. How about when Christ was giving His ministry? And, finally after His death and resurrection

All these different times and ages had different methods of God speaking with and to His creation.

You cannot say that God MUST continue to give us apostles or He has changed. There were no apostles before the ministry of Christ. There have been no prophets since.

The curtain that separated the Holy of Holy's from the world, was ripped in two from top to bottom at the time of Christ's crucifixion when He said "it is finished".

This is when we entered the age of grace. We don't need anyone to intermediate for us. We can go directly to Christ in prayer for our sins, guidance, worship, comfort and any other part of a close relationship with Him.

Is this not a much larger "change" in the concepts of God, Christ and the sinners on earth. Yet, God has not changed. Just the methods of the relationship with Him...

I am in no corner. God has not changed. We just live in a different age and there is no need for any more prophets, apostles or new scripture. Christ gave us everything we need.

No, the concept of God being the same "yesterday, today and tomorrow is about His concepts, His Character, His attributes, what He considers sin, acceptable, not acceptable.

It does not mean that we are going to have a perpetual line of apostles on the earth. Nor, prophets or NEW scripture.

That is not God changing. That is the methods of the age.

You seem to be willing to define how God can change without actually changing.

His very concepts which are cooberated by scripture is that he ordained Apostles and Prophets and set them as a perpetual living foundation of His church.
(See 1 Corinthians 12:28).

I suspect you have pastors in your church. You would say to me, we do because the scriptures tell us there were pastors. This office is only mentioned once in the NT, whereas the office of Apostles are mentioned many times and are a foundational part of the church that Jesus set up. (See Ephesians 2:20)

See also Ephesians 4:11-14, which tells us why Jesus chose the offices of the church and for how long He intended those offices to stay in existence, which is contrary to Luther's and hence, your beliefs. Find me a scripture that refutes the perpetual nature of the Apostles and Prophets.

You won't admit it, but you are definitely in a corner and there are 3 ways out:
1) Admit that because Jesus set up Apostles in his 1st century church, being the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow, he would have Apostles in his 20th century church.
2) Admit that Jesus is not the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow.
3) Redefine for Jesus what he meant when he said I am the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow according to what will fit your agenda.

As far as I can tell you have chosen 3. Good going, you think you got out of the corner.

If there was ever a time we need living Apostles and Prophets it is today, and it is because we are not any where near to being in a unity of the faith.
(See Ephesian 4:11-14 espcially verse 13).

 

[Peter1000]

Mormons are putting men(false prohets, false bishops, stake presidents and teachers) between you and God. God brought me out of Mormonism for that very reason.

The idea that there is an officer of the church between you and Christ and this is unbearable, is the Protestant war cry.

Luther had a point and he made it clearly. Because of the ignorance and arrogance and corruption and murder and adultery of the Catholic priests, Luther came out with a bad concept that priest etc. were unnecessary for salvation. He perfectly denied the priesthood, which he no longer had access to, having broke from the priesthood and deserted his cowl.
He preached that an individual can have access to Jesus without a priest in between you and Jesus. He was both right and wrong. But he started a concept that has gone wildly wrong.

When Paul was converted, who did the Lord send him too? Ananias, who was a man that held the authority to preach and teach and heal and baptize. A man of God, between Paul and Jesus. Now did Paul ever go to the Lord himself, yes. So that is why Luther is both right and wrong. A person may have a personal relationship with God and Jesus, but in order to be baptized or healed or be married or other ordinances necessary for salvation, you have to have a man of God, who has the authority to function as Christ taught his Apostles to function when he was taken from them.
Why do you think Jesus left a perpetual living foundation of Apostles and prophets etc.. It was so the church could function properly to assure salvation to its members. The Catholic church got so far off track that Luther was right to break from it. But he threw the baby out with the bathwater and left his people woefully short of what was needed for salvation, according to the scriptures.

You don't need to gut the living functionaries of the church in order to have direct contact with God. Have your personal relationship with God and let the church continue to save souls, through the power of Jesus Christ.

 

[Rescued One]

The idea that there is an officer of the church between you and Christ and this is unbearable, is the Protestant war cry.

Luther had a point and he made it clearly. Because of the ignorance and arrogance and corruption and murder and adultery of the Catholic priests, Luther came out with a bad concept that priest etc. were unnecessary for salvation. He perfectly denied the priesthood, which he no longer had access to, having broke from the priesthood and deserted his cowl.
He preached that an individual can have access to Jesus without a priest in between you and Jesus. He was both right and wrong. But he started a concept that has gone wildly wrong.

That is LDS teaching.

When Paul was converted, who did the Lord send him too? Ananias, who was a man that held the authority to preach and teach and heal and baptize. A man of God, between Paul and Jesus.

Paul was given salvation the moment he believed, and that not of himself nor of any work he had done or would do.

Now did Paul ever go to the Lord himself, yes. So that is why Luther is both right and wrong. A person may have a personal relationship with God and Jesus, but in order to be baptized or healed or be married or other ordinances necessary for salvation, you have to have a man of God, who has the authority to function as Christ taught his Apostles to function when he was taken from them.

And Mormons say that they are the only ones who have men of God.

Why do you think Jesus left a perpetual living foundation of Apostles and prophets etc.. It was so the church could function properly to assure salvation to its members. The Catholic church got so far off track that Luther was right to break from it. But he threw the baby out with the bathwater and left his people woefully short of what was needed for salvation, according to the scriptures.

Mormons are confused about authority. The LDS church has no authority from the true God.

You don't need to gut the living functionaries of the church in order to have direct contact with God. Have your personal relationship with God and let the church continue to save souls, through the power of Jesus Christ.

That is the delusion of Mormonism. The church has it's own false doctrines, false teachings, false ordinances, lies about the necessity of temple ordinances, and temple marriages. and judgmental authorities who think they can determine another person's worthiness. Mormons can't save souls and don't worship the true God.

It is extremely sad.

 

[withwonderingawe]

yes, the soul of the Lord, Jesus, may be the next Heavenly Father - He is described as a heir of God the Father

Matthew 21:38 (NASB) "when the vine-growers saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir;",

Galatians 4:1 (NASB) "as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave although he is owner of everything",

Hebrews 1:2 (NASB) "His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world."

i believe in one God, the Heavenly Father, and in one Lord, Jesus Christ

1 Corinthians 8:4-6 "As concerning therefore the eating of(i.e. as for the act of following/practicing) those things(i.e. those spiritual/religious things) that are offered in sacrifice unto idols(or: that are unrighteous/heretical), we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords(also: and christs) many,) But to us(i.e. but actually the truth applying to all humans of the universe is such that) there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."

Blessings

First point, Our concept is more of a theory because details have never been revealed to us so when speaking to Mormons they will have different points of view on the subject.

My feeling is God the Father was a savior on another planet for his spirit brothers and sisters. As he inherited his Father's throne He was given all power. He then created his own galaxy with his own Firstborn Son/ Jesus who played the same role. It's been one eternal round going back into the eternities and filling the universe with life and truth.

 

[withwonderingawe]

The Lord Jesus is God. He is the creator. He does not have a soul. He is God. Only humans have a soul. Angels are beings of the other dimension, animals don't have souls. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the God Head and have no need of a soul. They are Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omnipotent. As soon as you give something a soul, it can no longer be Omnipresent or Omnipotent.

The Bible gives no clear definition of the word soul, you can put together any number of passages to define it anyway you want.

The Mormons define it this way

Gen 2
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The 'breath of life' is an idiom for the spirit.

Isa 42
....he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

Mark 12:30
30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

The soul means the whole being, the spirit and body combined.

Matthew 12:18
18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.

To us this is saying God has both a body and a spirit

 

[toLiJC]

First point, Our concept is more of a theory because details have never been revealed to us so when speaking to Mormons they will have different points of view on the subject.

My feeling is God the Father was a savior on another planet for his spirit brothers and sisters. As he inherited his Father's throne He was given all power. He then created his own galaxy with his own Firstborn Son/ Jesus who played the same role. It's been one eternal round going back into the eternities and filling the universe with life and truth.

if you mean a cosmic galaxy like those in our(this) cosmos (where our(this) planet is situated), then i can tell you that God the Father is hardly the God only of one of these galaxies without being the God of all others, and there is hardly a return to the past, though there is a full repeat of everything that has ever happened, because there is a full circle of existence and positions of the souls, but it(the repeat) is/will be in the future - God cannot afford to turn back time physically

Blessings

 

[withwonderingawe]

if you mean a cosmic galaxy like those in our(this) cosmos (where our(this) planet is situated), then i can tell you that God the Father is hardly the God only of one of these galaxies without being the God of all others, and there is hardly a return to the past, though there is a full repeat of everything that has ever happened, because there is a full circle of existence and positions of the souls, but it(the repeat) is/will be in the future - God cannot afford to turn back time physically

Blessings

The word God in Hebrew is Elohim and it is plural. My theory is that each galaxy is created by different families of Gods. They are all interrelated going back to the one supreme God who started creation.

Another theory in Mormonism is there is no beginning per se but one eternal round, no beginning and no end. That blows my finite mind.

 

[Rescued One]

Excuse me. Is there such a thing as a 'random scripture'? Or is every word that is in the scriptures sacred? To me there are no 'random scriptures' or 'controversial scriptures' etc. They are all the words of God.

Is our conculsion fabricated? No, since it is what Jesus did, it follows that (unless he said to the contrary, which you have not proven) JS's position is solid and not fabricated.

Isaiah 43
10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

11 I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.

Joseph Smith:

In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.

These ideas are incomprehensible to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.

I wish I had the trump of an archangel; I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease forever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, elder Rigdon!) Jesus said, "As the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power." To do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious--in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom, all the combined powers of earth and hell together, to refute it.

Here, then, is eternal life--to know the only wise and true God. And you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves--to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done--by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power...

The King Follett Sermon
Mormon Literature Sampler: The King Follett Discourse

 

[JacksBratt]

Excuse me. Is there such a thing as a 'random scripture'? Or is every word that is in the scriptures sacred? To me there are no 'random scriptures' or 'controversial scriptures' etc. They are all the words of God.

The reason I used the word "random" is due to the fact that on most occasions, when people use scripture and then form some conclusion that is out of context, the scripture is not even close to the point that they are fabricating.

They just choose some "random" bible verse and then make some preposterous "if/then" statement or state that after reading the quoted scripture "therefore" followed by some unbiblical apostate concept.

Is our conculsion fabricated? No, since it is what Jesus did, it follows that (unless he said to the contrary, which you have not proven) JS's position is solid and not fabricated.

In fact your position is the fabrication. When Martin Luther attacked and broke from the Catholic church, he set up a church that did not include biblical offices, such as Apostles and Prophets, and he set up the state or the worldly prince, to oversee this new church. Talk about unscriptural.

So you are following a man (and believe me you do follow Luther) that did not set up the new church according to scripture. We are following a man that did set up the church of Jesus Christ according to what Jesus Christ told him, confirmed by scripture.

So an interesting Protestant dilemma.

Tell me, who, then are these prophets and apostles of this time? Can you name anyone else, besides Joseph Smith and William Samuel Sadler who have had the audacity to tell the world that they are such chosen ones that they dare to present a new gospel, new book of scripture, new news from our creator, that overshadows, overwrites and changes the accepted, accredited, debated and confirmed canon and living word of our Lord and Savior?

It is this sort of thing the the enemy puts in place to corrupt the message of our creator to His creation.

The Bible does not say that Christ played any sport, liked plays and drama, was a practical joker, or any other things as such. We cannot prove or disprove these things.

You cannot prove a negative. However, if I make a statement as to the contrary, that Christ did do something, then the responsibility is on me to prove such a statement.

So, if you are going to come here and say "the bible doesn't say He didn't do something, say something, mean something..you must prove it.

The ownness is on you. Not me.

 

[JacksBratt]

JacksBratt: I was pointing out that your claims (re-posted below) are NOT in scripture. Why then do you believe them?

Again, when making claims about things that are not "contradicted" by scripture, it is still your responsibility to prove that they are supported by scripture.

If I say, "boxing is an unbiblical sport because people are hurting each other". It is not contradicted by scripture but since a claim is made by me about a scriptural concept, I MUST support it using scripture.

 

[JacksBratt]

You seem to be willing to define how God can change without actually changing.

His very concepts which are cooberated by scripture is that he ordained Apostles and Prophets and set them as a perpetual living foundation of His church.
(See 1 Corinthians 12:28).

I suspect you have pastors in your church. You would say to me, we do because the scriptures tell us there were pastors. This office is only mentioned once in the NT, whereas the office of Apostles are mentioned many times and are a foundational part of the church that Jesus set up. (See Ephesians 2:20)

See also Ephesians 4:11-14, which tells us why Jesus chose the offices of the church and for how long He intended those offices to stay in existence, which is contrary to Luther's and hence, your beliefs. Find me a scripture that refutes the perpetual nature of the Apostles and Prophets.

You won't admit it, but you are definitely in a corner and there are 3 ways out:
1) Admit that because Jesus set up Apostles in his 1st century church, being the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow, he would have Apostles in his 20th century church.
2) Admit that Jesus is not the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow.
3) Redefine for Jesus what he meant when he said I am the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow according to what will fit your agenda.

As far as I can tell you have chosen 3. Good going, you think you got out of the corner.

If there was ever a time we need living Apostles and Prophets it is today, and it is because we are not any where near to being in a unity of the faith.
(See Ephesian 4:11-14 espcially verse 13).

My point is, God has not changed and will not change. The ages change and with them the biblical realities change.

People before the time of Christ could not get on their knees and ask for Christ's forgiveness, become born again, receive the Holy Spirit and live a life as we do now since the temple curtain has been rent.

Does this mean God changed? Of course not. The time for animal sacrifices is no longer necessary. The time for the need of the Holy of Holy's is not necessary.

Also, since we have the word of God, the canon. The completion of the word was when Christ ascended to heaven. This seals and ends the scriptures, the time of apostles, the time of recording the teachings of Christ.

No man, or woman, will ever gain the necessary credentials which are necessary in order for a new book to be written that can be held in comparison to the living word of God.

Like I said, there may be excellent teachers, preachers, missionaries, speakers, men and women of God who can speak God's word and educate and council us in the ways and teachings of Christ.. but none... NONE will write more scripture that can be considered an addition to, alteration of, change in or follow up to the canonized, God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired, living word of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[JacksBratt]

it seems as if you get too far from the content, and what is the guarantee that the souls are created?!, why not indefinitely existing without a beginning and end?!, why must the souls necessarily be created?!,

One simple verse...
John 1:1-3King James Version (KJV)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


2 The same was in the beginning with God.


3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

All things were made by Him. Period. We have not existed for eternity past, as God has.

If you want to state that our souls, the souls of all mankind, the souls of everyone who has lived and will lived, existed for eternity past... you must prove such a statement.

People seem to think that they can make such claims and, since the bible doesn't, expressly, say it wasn't so... that it they can claim that it actually was so or is so.....Nope, prove it, using scripture.

and if the souls were created, then they would have a beginning, and what has a beginning must also have an end,

Really? Hmm can you show me where this is stated, backed up, confirmed?

This concept is an earthly, man made concept. Who said this?

but if something has an end, then that thing could not exist for ever and ever (i tell you this because maybe you read from the Bible that the soul can go either to paradise or to hell for ever and ever, but this would not be possible if the soul could not exist indefinitely throughout the time's infinity), or can you imagine God creating souls from some uncaused and primordial substance, and they go either to paradise or to hell, and that paradise and that hell are filled with those souls more and more with every new soul going to there, while the amount of that substance decreases more and more with every new soul that God creates, but neither are the paradise and the hell ever overfilled with souls, nor is that substance ever exhausted?! - it is written in the Bible that everything God created was created from "water"(some uncaused/primordial substance) (Genesis 1:2, 2 Peter 3:5-6), or how can one soul deserve to/why must one soul suffer in hell for all the coming time's infinity only because it had sinned for one earthly lifetime(100 years)?!

according as the true God made and still makes me understand, i believe the souls are "water" i.e. uncaused susceptive units that are indefinitely existing for the whole time's infinity, and i can't imagine the Lord Jesus Christ without a soul especially when He is described in the Bible as a person having feelings and sensations

Blessings

I cannot even follow the rest of your post... my apologies.

 

[JacksBratt]

My feeling is God the Father was a savior on another planet for his spirit brothers and sisters.

You are kidding...........right?