- Dec 12, 2002
- 36,178
- 6,767
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
No, a spirit isn't physical. He was using the term metaphorically.
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.
LDS What is the reward?
- Thread starter Rescued One
- Start date
Again, you're falling back on the popular vote of sinners as you ruler. Did the popular vote of sinners make Paul a spokesmen of God? No! God made him that! Not scruintiy of sinners, not discernment of sinner, not validation of sinners, or any other process of sinners-- those are all completely irrelevant. We (you and I) are both Christian-- disciples of Christ! Not disciples of sinners-- look up to Him, not down to them.
I have given you a name repeatedly: Paul. Apostle chosen of God after Christ's life, received scripture and lead the church. Credentials = God picked him.
Upvote
0
Do you view the Gospel of Mark to be incomplete, flawed, or lacking?
If it is not flawed, then why do you not reject the books of Luke, Matthew, and John because you "have no need of anything more"?
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2015
- 3,592
- 510
- 72
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
"....the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake..." Acts 9
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2015
- 3,592
- 510
- 72
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
The Gospel of Mark is unfinished, it literally has three different endings. You can read about it here;
Ending of Mark
I love the fact that Mark 16:16 is in there;
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Drives the grace only people crazy.
Upvote
0
Show me scripture, from the Holy Bible, that states that Moses looked into the face of God. From what I remember, God covered Moses with His hand, so that Moses would not be destroyed by the infinite power of Gods Holiness.
Exodus 33:20-23King James Version (KJV)
20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
21 And the Lord said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.
So, if Moses did see God's face, and live, then, it is God who lied, not Moses. We also get this explanation as we can look at the word used for "face" and understand it's varied applications.
(from: Did Moses See the Face of God? – Focus Online )
We must first understand one of the terms that Scripture uses. The word that is translated “face” in Exodus 33:20 is the Hebrew word panim. While this word can have a specific, literal, and anatomical sense in reference to the front of a person’s head (Exod. 10:28), it can also refer to the surface of something – “the face (panim) of the earth” (Exod. 33:16), the front of something – “the forefront (panim) of the tent” (Exod. 26:9), it can mean to be before someone – “your males shall appear before (panim) the Lord GOD” (Exod. 23:17), or it can even refer to the presence of someone – “they were driven out from Pharaoh’s presence (panim)” (Exod. 10:11).
So, I can believe you and say God lied and the Bible is flawed. This would mean that I have to toss it all out as it is either all truth and worthy of my belief in it's contents or it cannot be believed at all. I would have to spend my life deciding what is the truth and what is not.
Or,
I can believe that it is truth and that the word "face" is used differently in different places. Then the fact that God's Holiness is too much for us to face as humans and nobody has ever saw the face of God and lived. Thus, when Moses states that he met with God "face to face" it would mean one on one, in His presence but did not see His face.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
So, since you can give me no other name than Paul, and you insist that God gave him his accreditation to be an apostle, that there has been and will be nobody else since that time...
Correct?
Then, we can dismiss Joseph Smith as being an apostle or prophet and any writings of his can be dismissed as well.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I can name more people chosen by God, but before we talk about more, it's best to first talk about one. Would you acknowledge that God choose Paul to be His spokesman and give scripture- the same pattern He always has, including post-ascension?
Upvote
0
It is not the "popular vote" of sinners. Popular vote is an election. We vote in our electorates by a democratic process. That is the concept of "majority rules".
If a council of educated, accredited, worthy members, sat in a room for months and argued and debated and poured over the candidates and prospective people until they found the best one for the position... that is not "popular vote". Also, I am sure, you would not have Trump for a president and probably not Clinton either...
And, one more time... these "sinners" were not writing new scripture. They were translating existing scripture and debating on which scripts were to be considered canon and which did not pass the stringent criteria to decide such an outcome.
JS has no accreditation that would even place him in the same category as any of the members of the council that decided these things, let alone the accreditation or authority to pen new words that should be considered to be from God or even close to being canon.
His words are the words of a man and a man only. For him to claim that they are from God... is reason to dismiss all of it as apostate.
Many men and women write words based on the canon. They write them to teach, guide and council others. However, none have the gall to claim that their books and essays are at par with the canonized scripture, or new words from God, to be considered as such... that would be beneath them and blasphemy.
Upvote
0
I think you misunderstood me. I consider the Holy Bible, from Genesis to the Revelation, all the books of the KJV as complete and we need nothing more and nothing less.
Please don't put words in my mouth by saying "why do you not reject the books of Luke, Matthew, and John" when I never said such a thing.
Upvote
0
What you are describing is 100% popular vote of sinners. No amount of research makes a man not a sinner or gives him the right to declare the doctrine of God.
Relevance???
Aka, sinners decided what was/is the word go God? And you think this is a good things?
Do you think men give accreditation to be a spokesperson of God? Not God?
Do you believe God to be dead?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I did not put words in your mouth, I asked you a question: Do you view the Gospel of Mark to be incomplete, flawed, or lacking?
If it is not flawed, then why do you not reject the books of Luke, Matthew, and John because you "have no need of anything more"? They are largely redundant after all. How about the words of Paul, are they unnecessary because of the previous books?
My answer to this is that all the words of God are valuable, and should be cherished.
Upvote
0
So you agree that God continues to pick spokesmen and give scripture after Christ's mortal life?
Upvote
0
If we must call it "popular vote by sinners", as you suggest, how else are we to determine what is worthy of being called the words of God, canonized scripture, and what is not?
You want me to give references on my own concept and belief? This statement is just my own assumption, nothing more.
Yep, I believe that these groups of accredited men debilitated over the texts and were guided by God Himself in their translating and determining the scriptures meanings and what should be considered canon.
I, personally wold have liked them to include the Book of Enoch, but, even though it is an extraordinary book, it is not canon.
Men, who are in position, due to appointment by men, are still in these positions by the will of God.
Trump, elected by the people of the USA, may not be a man of God, may not have the desire to do the will of God, however, he would not be president if it was not allowed to be, by God.
The men who translated and gave validity to the scriptures which were to be considered canon, were trained by the ways of men, educated by men, schooled in the scriptures by men, accredited by the rules and regulations of men, chosen by men. These men, however, were fulfilling the will of God.
Where on earth, did this question come from? It almost doesn't warrant a response. I don't know where you are going with this..........but, I'll bite....
No. My answer is no.
Upvote
0
When someones asks "why do you not reject the books of Luke, Matthew, and John?" and I never said such a thing, that is putting words in my mouth.
I do not reject any of the books of the Bible due to the fact that they are all necessary. These books are not redundant. They are written by people of a different background, life style and character. They came from different walks of life and had different writing style. They wrote of the same events from a different perspective.
If you were to read about a certain tragedy, say a riot, a protest gone wrong. Would it not be beneficial to you to have many different views from a different people? Different reports about what happened, why it happened, how it unfolded. What was said and said by whom?
This is why the Bible is not complete without these "redundant" books.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2015
- 3,592
- 510
- 72
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Only quoting part of the passage does not help.
11 And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.
and then Moses asks ... I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.
20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
21 And the Lord said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt seemy back parts: but my face shall not be seen.
Your right no man can see the face of God in his full glory and live however He can appear not in his full glory and speak to man face to face as a man speaks to his friend.
If he met some sort of metaphysical face then why see his back parts?
Upvote
0
You are going to use the fact that Saul, a terror to Christians, who was blinded by Christ Himself, and thus, selected to be an apostle for the Gentiles, immediately after the time of Christ's ascension, who was then given back his sight, again by Christ, and turned his life 180 degrees and became one of the greatest apostles, and was eventually beheaded for his faith. A man who actually was spoken to by the resurrected Christ... and you will use this to justify that 1800 years later, JS is justified to write more scripture?
I hardly think that these two men play the same sport, let alone are even close to being in the same league.
Upvote
0
These are two separate occasions. Why would Moses ask to see His full glory if he had already say His face?
Look at it this way:
God is said to speak to Moses 'face to face' that is not from some distant position as in a dream, or vision but speaking audibly to him while under some visible form. In other words, God spoke to Moses like a person does who is having a conversation. God spoke out of a burning bush, out of a pillar of cloud, ect. and he spoke as in conversation between friends. That is Moses could ask questions, God would answer, the conversation would continue, ect. Speaking face to face was not the normal mode which God communicated with men, or later prophets.
Upvote
0
Peter1000
Well-Known Member
If you think about it, neither is Peter or James, or John or any of the simple or common, or uneducated folk that were apostles of Jesus Christ. They who wrote the scriptures would not be accredited enough to even decide if they should be included in the canon. That's kind of interesting.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
