LDS The Claim

[mmksparbud]

trans•late
(trænsˈleɪt, trænz-, ˈtræns leɪt, ˈtrænz-)

v. -lat•ed, -lat•ing. v.t.
1. to turn from one language into another or from a foreign language into one's own.
2. to change the form, condition, or nature of; convert: to translate thought into action.
3. to explain in terms that can be more easily understood; interpret.
4. to bear, carry, or move from one place or position to another; transfer.
5. to cause (a body) to move without rotation or angular displacement.
6. to retransmit or forward (a telegraphic message), as by a relay.
7. to move (a bishop) from one see to another.
8. to convey or remove to heaven without natural death.
9. to exalt in spiritual or emotional ecstasy.
10. to cause to undergo genetic translation.
v.i.
11. to provide or make a translation; act as translator.
12. to admit of translation.

From: translated

Yes! To go to heaven withut seeing death! Hoiw can john be called a translated being when he is still walking the earth. Doesn't make sense.

 

[Hrairoo]

It seems to me that there are not that many people willing to give their will to God. They would rather do as they please.

Are you serious? What about all the prophets in the Bible who ran away and hid from God? Jonah? Balaam? And yet he stayed with them as His chosen men, even when he had to convince them. In 1,800 years He couldn't find one man willing to do His will and bring souls to Christ?

 

[Hrairoo]

There is something grossly contradictory about the Great Apostasy and Restoration in Mormonism.

• Several scriptures get referenced as pointing to a Great Apostasy foretold or currently happening at the time these documents and letters were written, which we have copies of. So...this agent of Satan went to all of this trouble to eliminate every trace of the TRUE gospel of Christ right out of the hands of the Apostles themselves but he left in all these clues that point to this message being tainted or tampered with? Could it be that the Great Apostasy hasn't happened yet? Or possibly these scriptures weren't referencing a big event but apostasy in general?

• If it's a Restoration, then that means putting things back to how they originally were. Yet there is no evidence put forth by the LDS church that Jesus Christ's church was run the way the Mormon church is. Even if we go with just how the church was set up while JS was alive, there is no evidence that Christ organized things in that manner or taught these uniquely Mormon doctrines. There is no evidence that the Apostles set up a First Presidency with a Prophet at the head; there is no evidence that the Apostles built sacred temples and preached about genealogy; there is no evidence that the Apostles preached about spirits existing before birth nor is there evidence of the different kingdoms of glory after death. There are a lot of very unique and specific doctrines that a lot of evidence would have to be destroyed to eradicate any trace of. Which do you think would be easier? Going in and editing a document or destroying all of the papers that preach of Christ? If the editing was going to be so thorough, why leave any trace of Christianity being taught at all?

If we don't have any examples of the twelve Apostles staying together to call a Prophet and set up a firm leadership of the church, then couldn't we say that the Great Apostasy actually occurred right when Christ ascended? I mean, if the directive was to keep his church on the earth exactly as he organized it, then weren't the Apostles a part of the corruption by splitting up and going to preach as teachers and missionaries instead? Couldn't it be said that the reason we have no examples of Christ establishing this organization is because the Apostles left out those details or edited them out themselves? *gasp* All twelve were Judas!!!

• There's a huge flaw in this because most people understand that Christ signalled an end to the way things were done before. No longer did folks need to follow the Law of Moses because Christ made this ultimate sacrifice for us. If we're going by that metric that we no longer need to sacrifice animals and crops, then why do they assume we need another prophet after Christ's death? Why would we assume that apostles were still needed when the first we heard of them was as the counsel and lead disciples for Christ himself? If you called a prophet and put him in that middle position, with apostles around him...wouldn't that seem like you're trying to replace Christ?

• Mormons try to point to Ephesians 4:11-14 to say "See? Christ's church was organized the exact same way the Mormon church set it up." First of all, the list of offices and priests in those verses is not ranked in the order that the LDS church ranks them; prophet is supposed to be above apostle. Second, the LDS church doesn't use all of those names for offices(evangelists) and they have inserted new office ranks in there(Patriarch).

Third, those offices such as deacon and teacher were meant for adult men. Even in the Mormon scriptures in D&C describe the duties for these offices as stuff you couldn't reasonably expect 12 and 15 year old young men to do. So, when you then give these offices to twelve year olds, as the modern church does, to say that this is how Christ dictated it should be set up is ignoring all the changes that have been made in just the past 130 years. Fourth, this comes across as a casual reference to these stations, to encompass those who might speak Christ's word. It's not a manual or an outline for how Christ's church should be run.

• And it's not just that these four disciples of Christ failed but the premise that Christ himself failed.

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Really? So, right after he died, all the truths he laid down and the work he did...it got corrupted and destroyed almost immediately? He might as well have never come, then.

LDS: Make it make sense.

(I'm going to get told to pray about the book of Mormon again, aren't I?)

 

[He is the way]

Yes! To go to heaven withut seeing death! Hoiw can john be called a translated being when he is still walking the earth. Doesn't make sense.

It does not say they could not stay on earth after being translated or even return to the earth after going to heaven.

 

[He is the way]

Are you serious? What about all the prophets in the Bible who ran away and hid from God? Jonah? Balaam? And yet he stayed with them as His chosen men, even when he had to convince them. In 1,800 years He couldn't find one man willing to do His will and bring souls to Christ?

Yes I am serious. How many people devote their lives to seeking God and praying with unwavering faith? How many devote their entire existence to serving God? How many are seeking His lost sheep? How many are loving their enemies and doing good to those spitefully use them. How many are fearing God and keeping His commandments?

 

[dzheremi]

Yes I am serious. How many people devote their lives to seeking God and praying with unwavering faith? How many devote their entire existence to serving God? How many are seeking His lost sheep? How many are loving their enemies and doing good to those spitefully use them. How many are fearing God and keeping His commandments?

These are all things that Christians do. The only reason you or any Mormon thinks otherwise is because that's what Mormonism tells you to make you feel like you're in the only 'true' Church, when in reality you aren't in a church at all (churches being places of worship/communities of worshipers in Christianity, and Mormonism not being a kind of Christianity). It's another of Mormonism's lies. You are being lied to. Your religion is taking all these good impulses that you also have, but misdirecting them towards the Mormon organization itself. Hence Mormon testimonies read like ecclesiological statements, rather than statements of faith, because what is apparently of paramount importance is the Mormon claims to authority, rather than having any solid theology that might undergird all of the things you mention above. "I know the (Mormon) church is true"; "I know that Joseph Smith is a true prophet", etc.

It shouldn't be surprising at all to anyone who is paying attention that, just for instance, while Mormons talk a good game of dedicating themselves completely to God and such, it's never expressed in any way that is relatable to anything in historically-rooted Christianity. There are no Mormon monastics, for instance. (Not to present monasticism as the only way to dedicate oneself to God, as it definitely isn't; it is, however, the most instantly-recognizable form that such deep dedication has taken across the Christian world since the founding of Christian monasticism in the third century, and is present in all Catholic, Orthodox, and 'high church' Protestant traditions.)

To the extent that Mormons fast, it is on one Sunday a month, which is very anomalous relative to historically attested fasts in Christianity, such as the Wednesday/Friday weekly fast that is attested to in Christianity since the first century (it's in the Didache, c. 95 AD). This fast is kept by Orthodox Christians (and I think Eastern Catholics), in addition to the other fasts throughout the year, which will vary according to the particular Church you're looking at (right now in the Coptic Orthodox Church, for instance, we are not fasting today because we celebrate the Feast of the Cross from September 27 through the 29th, but throughout the whole year we fast for somewhere north of 210 days, taking only one small meal with the end of the liturgical day, which ends with sundown/the 11th hour of the daily prayers -- another thing Mormonism doesn't have and Christian historically has/still does, dating in their present form in my own tradition to about the fifth century AD).

So please, by all means, continue to harangue us with all of these lovely loving love posts about loving and keeping the commandments which you absolutely don't do because Mormonism rejects all of this as being of the apostate, corrupted Christian Church.

 

[He is the way]

There is something grossly contradictory about the Great Apostasy and Restoration in Mormonism.

• Several scriptures get referenced as pointing to a Great Apostasy foretold or currently happening at the time these documents and letters were written, which we have copies of. So...this agent of Satan went to all of this trouble to eliminate every trace of the TRUE gospel of Christ right out of the hands of the Apostles themselves but he left in all these clues that point to this message being tainted or tampered with? Could it be that the Great Apostasy hasn't happened yet? Or possibly these scriptures weren't referencing a big event but apostasy in general?

• If it's a Restoration, then that means putting things back to how they originally were. Yet there is no evidence put forth by the LDS church that Jesus Christ's church was run the way the Mormon church is. Even if we go with just how the church was set up while JS was alive, there is no evidence that Christ organized things in that manner or taught these uniquely Mormon doctrines. There is no evidence that the Apostles set up a First Presidency with a Prophet at the head; there is no evidence that the Apostles built sacred temples and preached about genealogy; there is no evidence that the Apostles preached about spirits existing before birth nor is there evidence of the different kingdoms of glory after death. There are a lot of very unique and specific doctrines that a lot of evidence would have to be destroyed to eradicate any trace of. Which do you think would be easier? Going in and editing a document or destroying all of the papers that preach of Christ? If the editing was going to be so thorough, why leave any trace of Christianity being taught at all?

If we don't have any examples of the twelve Apostles staying together to call a Prophet and set up a firm leadership of the church, then couldn't we say that the Great Apostasy actually occurred right when Christ ascended? I mean, if the directive was to keep his church on the earth exactly as he organized it, then weren't the Apostles a part of the corruption by splitting up and going to preach as teachers and missionaries instead? Couldn't it be said that the reason we have no examples of Christ establishing this organization is because the Apostles left out those details or edited them out themselves? *gasp* All twelve were Judas!!!

• There's a huge flaw in this because most people understand that Christ signalled an end to the way things were done before. No longer did folks need to follow the Law of Moses because Christ made this ultimate sacrifice for us. If we're going by that metric that we no longer need to sacrifice animals and crops, then why do they assume we need another prophet after Christ's death? Why would we assume that apostles were still needed when the first we heard of them was as the counsel and lead disciples for Christ himself? If you called a prophet and put him in that middle position, with apostles around him...wouldn't that seem like you're trying to replace Christ?

• Mormons try to point to Ephesians 4:11-14 to say "See? Christ's church was organized the exact same way the Mormon church set it up." First of all, the list of offices and priests in those verses is not ranked in the order that the LDS church ranks them; prophet is supposed to be above apostle. Second, the LDS church doesn't use all of those names for offices(evangelists) and they have inserted new office ranks in there(Patriarch).

Third, those offices such as deacon and teacher were meant for adult men. Even in the Mormon scriptures in D&C describe the duties for these offices as stuff you couldn't reasonably expect 12 and 15 year old young men to do. So, when you then give these offices to twelve year olds, as the modern church does, to say that this is how Christ dictated it should be set up is ignoring all the changes that have been made in just the past 130 years. Fourth, this comes across as a casual reference to these stations, to encompass those who might speak Christ's word. It's not a manual or an outline for how Christ's church should be run.

• And it's not just that these four disciples of Christ failed but the premise that Christ himself failed.

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Really? So, right after he died, all the truths he laid down and the work he did...it got corrupted and destroyed almost immediately? He might as well have never come, then.

LDS: Make it make sense.

(I'm going to get told to pray about the book of Mormon again, aren't I?)

You said: "No longer did folks need to follow the Law of Moses because Christ made this ultimate sacrifice for us. If we're going by that metric that we no longer need to sacrifice animals and crops, then why do they assume we need another prophet after Christ's death?"

Christ did not come to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill the law of sacrifice. He said:

(New Testament | Matthew 5:17 - 20)

17 ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Then He went on to give the higher law. There will be more prophets:

(New Testament | Revelation 11:9 - 11)

9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
10 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.
11 And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.

You said: "they have inserted new office ranks in there(Patriarch)."

Patriarch is not new.

(New Testament | Hebrews 7:4)

4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

Patriarchs were also called evangelists:

(New Testament | Ephesians 4:11 - 15)

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

 

[He is the way]

These are all things that Christians do. The only reason you or any Mormon thinks otherwise is because that's what Mormonism tells you to make you feel like you're in the only 'true' Church, when in reality you aren't in a church at all (churches being places of worship/communities of worshipers in Christianity, and Mormonism not being a kind of Christianity). It's another of Mormonism's lies. You are being lied to. Your religion is taking all these good impulses that you also have, but misdirecting them towards the Mormon organization itself. Hence Mormon testimonies read like ecclesiological statements, rather than statements of faith, because what is apparently of paramount importance is the Mormon claims to authority, rather than having any solid theology that might undergird all of the things you mention above. "I know the (Mormon) church is true"; "I know that Joseph Smith is a true prophet", etc.

It shouldn't be surprising at all to anyone who is paying attention that, just for instance, while Mormons talk a good game of dedicating themselves completely to God and such, it's never expressed in any way that is relatable to anything in historically-rooted Christianity. There are no Mormon monastics, for instance. (Not to present monasticism as the only way to dedicate oneself to God, as it definitely isn't; it is, however, the most instantly-recognizable form that such deep dedication has taken across the Christian world since the founding of Christian monasticism in the third century, and is present in all Catholic, Orthodox, and 'high church' Protestant traditions.)

To the extent that Mormons fast, it is on one Sunday a month, which is very anomalous relative to historically attested fasts in Christianity, such as the Wednesday/Friday weekly fast that is attested to in Christianity since the first century (it's in the Didache, c. 95 AD). This fast is kept by Orthodox Christians (and I think Eastern Catholics), in addition to the other fasts throughout the year, which will vary according to the particular Church you're looking at (right now in the Coptic Orthodox Church, for instance, we are not fasting today because we celebrate the Feast of the Cross from September 27 through the 29th, but throughout the whole year we fast for somewhere north of 210 days, taking only one small meal with the end of the liturgical day, which ends with sundown/the 11th hour of the daily prayers -- another thing Mormonism doesn't have and Christian historically has/still does, dating in their present form in my own tradition to about the fifth century AD).

So please, by all means, continue to harangue us with all of these lovely loving love posts about loving and keeping the commandments which you absolutely don't do because Mormonism rejects all of this as being of the apostate, corrupted Christian Church.

So how are we to become?:

(New Testament | Ephesians 4:13)

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Christ was perfect because He kept the commandments.

 

[dzheremi]

So how are we to become?:

(New Testament | Ephesians 4:13)

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Christ was perfect because He kept the commandments.

Christ is perfect because He is God. He doesn't need any commandments to make Him so.

 

[He is the way]

Christ is perfect because He is God. He doesn't need any commandments to make Him so.

Yes Jesus Christ did keep the commandments. That is why He is perfect.

 

[mmksparbud]

It does not say they could not stay on earth after being translated or even return to the earth after going to heaven.

It is what the name means----taken to heaven without death---this guy never went to heaven. Again, if he is going to stay on earth---then why change him? God could have just kept him alive, without aging, as long as He wanted him to. It's ony if you are to be in heaven that your body needs to be changed. Again, if he had not died, there would not be even one tomb---there are several. And John did a lousy job of protecting the word of God for you claim it has been corrupted during his watch! But, not even God could protect His word, much less a man, so why bother with keeping John alive and on earth at all? So even with God and John protecting His word---neither were able to protect it. A far different story than what scripture says. No record of anyone that has ben translated has also come back down. Moses and Elijah did not touch this earth.

 

[mmksparbud]

So how are we to become?:

(New Testament | Ephesians 4:13)

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Christ was perfect because He kept the commandments.

It wss the finger of Jesus that wrote them. He was God before He came to earth. You guys reject that fact. And we do not become God by keeping the commandments. Jesus did not come to earth to becoime God!! Jesus is the creator of everything---He created us and then came down and also died for us so we could be forgiven and go to Him. He did not come to earth to be God---He was God--Toally one with the Father before He came to earth as a man. Jesus became a man in order to save us. He had io need to come to be God.

 

[He is the way]

It is what the name means----taken to heaven without death---this guy never went to heaven. Again, if he is going to stay on earth---then why change him? God could have just kept him alive, without aging, as long as He wanted him to. It's ony if you are to be in heaven that your body needs to be changed. Again, if he had not died, there would not be even one tomb---there are several. And John did a lousy job of protecting the word of God for you claim it has been corrupted during his watch! But, not even God could protect His word, much less a man, so why bother with keeping John alive and on earth at all? So even with God and John protecting His word---neither were able to protect it. A far different story than what scripture says. No record of anyone that has ben translated has also come back down. Moses and Elijah did not touch this earth.

Interesting you should mention this:

(New Testament | Mark 9:1 - 4)

1 AND he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
2 ¶ And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.
3 And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them.
4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.

They were talking with Jesus. Therefore they did come back down. Why does John have several tombs? I do not believe any of them are his. God did keep John alive, He translated him.

 

[mmksparbud]

Interesting you should mention this:

(New Testament | Mark 9:1 - 4)

1 AND he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
2 ¶ And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.
3 And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them.
4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.

They were talking with Jesus. Therefore they did come back down. Why does John have several tombs? I do not believe any of them are his. God did keep John alive, He translated him.

I said Moses and Elijah did not touch the earth. They were up, with Jesus, elevated above the disciples.
Nowhere does the bibloe say John was translated. Thast means tsaken to heaven without seeing death, it does not mean to be changed and left on earth. If John had never died, there woulkd be noi tomb. There are seveal tombs thst claim to house his body. Seversal different written accounts of him being buried --- no one is sure exactly which one is the real tomb---but there was a death. Scripture does not say John would not die.

Joh 21:21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
Joh 21:22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
Joh 21:23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

There is nothing in this that says John will not die---it says the opposite -- it clearly says Jesus did not say he would not die!! You guys are beyond comprehension, how badly you try to make the words of a false prophet true. You deny what is in plain sight.

 

[He is the way]

I said Moses and Elijah did not touch the earth. They were up, with Jesus, elevated above the disciples.
Nowhere does the bibloe say John was translated. Thast means tsaken to heaven without seeing death, it does not mean to be changed and left on earth. If John had never died, there woulkd be noi tomb. There are seveal tombs thst claim to house his body. Seversal different written accounts of him being buried --- no one is sure exactly which one is the real tomb---but there was a death. Scripture does not say John would not die.

Joh 21:21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
Joh 21:22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
Joh 21:23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

There is nothing in this that says John will not die---it says the opposite -- it clearly says Jesus did not say he would not die!! You guys are beyond comprehension, how badly you try to make the words of a false prophet true. You deny what is in plain sight.

Yes John will die, but he hasn't died yet, and he will tarry until the second coming of Jesus Christ. The Bible does not say that Moses and Elijah did not touch the earth, or that Jesus was above the earth. You made that up. Neither does the Bible say John died, or even how he died. Jesus said this:

(New Testament | Mark 9:1)

1 AND he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Jesus was never wrong.

 

[dzheremi]

Yes Jesus Christ did keep the commandments. That is why He is perfect.

You are not reading carefully enough. I did not claim that He did not keep the commandments. As Mmksparbud rightly observed in post #132, He wrote the commandments.

It remains the case that He did not need to fulfill any commandments in order to be perfect. He is perfect because He is God, not because of any commandments.

Our Lord Jesus Christ is described in the synoptic Gospels as "Lord of the Sabbath", where He describes Himself as such. See, for instance, the Gospel of St. Mark (2:23-28):

One Sabbath, Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?" He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions." Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."​

+++

By insisting that He is made perfect by following commandments (i.e., not because He is God by nature), you are directly contradicting His words above, and making Him instead subservient to the very thing that He established for us, not for Himself (as He, being God, does not need such things). He is Lord of everyone and everything, including all commandments and all forms of sabbath keeping.

 

[mmksparbud]

You are not reading carefully enough. I did not claim that He did not keep the commandments. As Mmksparbud rightly observed in post #132, He wrote the commandments.

It remains the case that He did not need to fulfill any commandments in order to be perfect. He is perfect because He is God, not because of any commandments.

Our Lord Jesus Christ is described in the synoptic Gospels as "Lord of the Sabbath", where He describes Himself as such. See, for instance, the Gospel of St. Mark (2:23-28):

One Sabbath, Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?" He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions." Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."​

+++

By insisting that He is made perfect by following commandments (i.e., not because He is God by nature), you are directly contradicting His words above, and making Him instead subservient to the very thing that He established for us, not for Himself (as He, being God, does not need such things). He is Lord of everyone and everything, including all commandments and all forms of sabbath keeping.

Their version of Jesus is a very weak, innefectual Jesus. when I first came on here, they would not even agree that Jesus created everything. They sort of agreed after a while, mostly to shut us up about it! And then of course, that He did not create from nothing---and their arguement is still because God is something so He couldn't create from nothing!! And He could not even have His command to Adam and Eve that they be fruitful and multiply be followed by them---they had to sin before they could have children! And they are grateful for the fall because we could not have children without it!! And this pathetically weak God is going to make them Gods!!! Their Jesus was born of the Father and one of His wives--a spiritual child who had to come to earth to learn to be God! Just one of many sons! A brother to Satan! Ha! and they want us to celebrate this God with them! Heck no---that's not my Jesus! They strip Him of His power, His glory, His great gift to us of what He gave up in order to save the creatures He created! They totally diminish Him to the point that He can't even protect His word from being corrupted and then claim He is going to make them God's! Their God couldn't get Himself out of a paper bag! Not to mention that Jesus doesn't decide who gets to be with the Father---JS does (in this dispensation). They can't get in without his say so! Poor Jesus---He can only make them God's!
Thanks---but no thanks!

 

[mmksparbud]

Yes John will die, but he hasn't died yet, and he will tarry until the second coming of Jesus Christ. The Bible does not say that Moses and Elijah did not touch the earth, or that Jesus was above the earth. You made that up. Neither does the Bible say John died, or even how he died. Jesus said this:

(New Testament | Mark 9:1)

1 AND he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Jesus was never wrong.

Baloney! Your Jesus can't even get John to heaven after He changes Him?!! Leaves him on this earth in a changed version of him that no one can relate to, all alone, when not even Adam was left alone. Poor John, 1000's of years on earth with no one else like him. That is supposed to be some great gift??!! Nope---God is not cruel and that is cruel.

 

[He is the way]

Baloney! Your Jesus can't even get John to heaven after He changes Him?!! Leaves him on this earth in a changed version of him that no one can relate to, all alone, when not even Adam was left alone. Poor John, 1000's of years on earth with no one else like him. That is supposed to be some great gift??!! Nope---God is not cruel and that is cruel.

Jesus is not wrong. You can believe He was wrong, I know He was not wrong.

 

[mmksparbud]

Jesus is not wrong. You can believe He was wrong, I know He was not wrong.

Believe whatev er you want---scriopture says:

yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die;