Meaning of being born of the Spirit of God

[wmitty]

Would some of the believers here be willing to post their understanding of what our Lord was telling Nicodemas in John 3:5 when he stated that it was necessary to be born both of water and the Spirit of God in order to enter the kingdom of God?

[Ickisrulz]

A person is who they are because of their experiences and what they have learned from their birth onward. A man's values, thoughts and motivations are shaped as they progress through life. "You must be born again" means that you must be able to start over (like being born a second time) in order to have the values, thoughts and motivations that will please God. This is no easy task and man cannot do it alone.

I am not able to read Greek, but it is my understanding that the word "again" in the phrase "you must be born again" is a play on words that can be translated either "again" or "from above." Taking the word to mean "again" emphasizes the need for a new start. Taking the word to mean "from above" emphasizes God's action in the process.

The first half of the phrase "born of water and the spirit" is debated. "Born of water" has been explained three ways: physical birth, baptism, and cleansing by God as described in Ezekiel. The third option seems like the best fit. Physical birth would be redundant and baptism is not strictly necessary to be saved. What is required is that God cleanse his people of their sins.

"Being born again" is God supernaturally transforming a person's heart to be inclined to please him. This means a man's outlook, motivation, values and (hopefully) behaviors are changed from self-pleasing to God-pleasing. An essential part of the process is being forgiven for sin and having the sinful nature purged (i.e., cleansed of sins).

[1hole]

I have no fixed understanding of "born of water" either but I suspect it's something the Jews of Jesus' day knew and understood from their heritage. We know synagogs (usually) had several hollow stone wash "tubs" for dirty folk to baptise themselves clean before entering for worship.

Baptise is just an untranslated Greek word meaning to wash. They washed things to make them clean and that's clearly at least a part of "born of water" means. I think.

WE know there's no spiritual magic in water baptisms and we know the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives is what cleanses (baptises) us from all unrighteousness and clean water often refers to His works so it follows that believer's water baptism is a public demonstration of what the Holy Spirit has already done for our spirits. I think.

I KNOW N.T. water baptism has no direct connection to the work of John the baptizer; before Pentecost there was no Christian baptism. And the lack of Biblical clarity about how it was done in appolistic times leads me to believe the public method and depth of the water has little or nothing to do with it's spiritual value. I think.

[a danl]

Would some of the believers here be willing to post their understanding of what our Lord was telling Nicodemas in John 3:5 when he stated that it was necessary to be born both of water and the Spirit of God in order to enter the kingdom of God?

being baptized is a reference to being cleansed from sin or a washing away and being born of the spirit is a reference to loving god more and to be turning away from the tares of the world

[exile]

Being born again entails being indwelt by God's Holy Spirit and thus being sealed until the day of redemption.

This is not accomplished by human decision, human effort or man's will, but rather, by the will of God.

It occurs only once in the life of a believer (when God does something, He does it right the first time).

To be born again means we have acknowledged that we are sinners (don't take it so hard, God is perfect, we are not); that we are in need of redemption; and that God's solution to the problem of our sin nature was taken care of once and for all through Jesus' substitutionary death for us on the cross.

Ultimately, it means that we believe that Jesus was (and is) the Christ, co-equal with the Father, and thus a fully acceptable sacrifice for our sins.



(Sorry, I did not completely answer the OP' s question.)

To me, the water part would be one's initial birth in the womb. I do not believe it refers to baptism, since both Jesus and the apostle Paul publicly stated that they baptised very few people, if any.

We are given no example in Scripture of either Jesus or the apostle Paul baptizing anyone. If this were necessary for salvation, would they both not have been baptizing everyone they met? Jesus himself was baptized, so it is obviously obedience to the will of God, but not necessary for salvation.

The "born of water" part of this passage is certainly a mystery, one that none of us fully understand. Perhaps if we were first century Jews, we would understand this passage more fully, but that did not seem to help Nicodemus.

My question is, did Nicodemus ever fully acknowledge that Jesus was the Christ, and thus, be born again?

How about you?

exile

[a danl]

Being born again entails being indwelt by God's Holy Spirit and thus being sealed until the day of redemption.

This is not accomplished by human decision, human effort or man's will, but rather, by the will of God.

It occurs only once in the life of a believer (when God does something, He does it right the first time).

To be born again means we have acknowledged that we are sinners (don't take it so hard, God is perfect, we are not); that we are in need of redemption; and that God's solution to the problem of our sin nature was taken care of once and for all through Jesus' substitutionary death for us on the cross.

Ultimately, it means that we believe that Jesus was (and is) the Christ, co-equal with the Father, and thus a fully acceptable sacrifice for our sins.



(Sorry, I did not completely answer the OP' s question.)

To me, the water part would be one's initial birth in the womb. I do not believe it refers to baptism, since both Jesus and the apostle Paul publicly stated that they baptised very few people, if any.

We are given no example in Scripture of either Jesus or the apostle Paul baptizing anyone. If this were necessary for salvation, would they both not have been baptizing everyone they met? Jesus himself was baptized, so it is obviously obedience to the will of God, but not necessary for salvation.

The "born of water" part of this passage is certainly a mystery, one that none of us fully understand. Perhaps if we were first century Jews, we would understand this passage more fully, but that did not seem to help Nicodemus.

My question is, did Nicodemus ever fully acknowledge that Jesus was the Christ, and thus, be born again?

How about you?

exile

baptism is not necessary but an open acknowledgement of Christ in ones life, look at the thief on the cross he was not baptised , however his good works came from his mouth when he publicly announced who Christ was. believing in faith that Christ was who he said he was will save. p. s. john the baptist did most of the baptising.

[1hole]

p. s. john the baptist did most of the baptising.

There was no "John the baptist"; he was John the baptizer but not "the baptist."

John and his work had no connection to Christianity in general (and certainly not to the Baptist denomination as we know it). In fact, Christianity, as we recognise it, didn't exist until the glorious Day of Pentecost (in Acts) when the Holy Spirit came to permanently indwell every born again believer.

John never Christian baptised anyone in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (nor did Jesus), and neither did anyone else until 2-3 years after John's death by beheading.

[flyingmonkey35]

Lds church goes with this.

Being born of water= baptized
Born of spirit = to receive the blessing of the holy ghost.





Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[1hole]

Lds church goes with this.

Being born of water= baptized
Born of spirit = to receive the blessing of the holy ghost.

LDS (Mormons) go with a LOT of silly stuff. I know because I have their four major books and my mother, father, sister plus a few others in my family tree followed that decidedly un-Christian cult. (Putting "Church of Jesus Christ" in their label does not make it so!)

By the grace of God - and the many prayers of my devout Christian paternal grandmother for me - I did not follow that spiritually lethal path.

[Rizzo]

There was no "John the baptist"; he was John the baptizer but not "the baptist."


Hmmm,.....yet the Bible does talk about John the Baptist.

Here is one example in Mathew 17:

9 As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, “Don’t tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.”
10 The disciples asked him, “Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?”
11 Jesus replied, “To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things.
12 But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.”
13 Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.

But then, you already KNEW that didn't you.
Trolling?

[1hole]

Hmmm,.....yet the Bible does talk about John the Baptist.

13 Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.

But then, you already KNEW that didn't you.

Yeah, I knew the term is in the Book but not trolling. I was running short of time when I posted and didn't make myself clear that John was the baptizer but not the founder of the Baptist denomination.

I attended Southern Baptist churches from about 1955 until about 20 years later. I must have heard a hundred times that "John the Baptist" was the first "Baptist" (and therefore, in effect, the SBC must have come straight from the hand of Jesus!) and they believe we should "follow Jesus' example and be dunked". That isn't true as stated and, if you read what I did say, you should understand THAT common error was the driving force behind my too brief post.

I did not mean there is literally no reference to "John the baptist" in the Bible, just that many misunderstand who/what John was.

To be even more focused, John's river washing baptisms may or may not have been dunking but it certainly was an Old Testament symbolic washing of repentance for that moment; that's not at all the Christian "once and done" symbolism of a spiritual act of the Holy Spirit that eternally cleans and seals believers into the body of Christ.

[wmitty]

Is it possible that Jesus was saying a man in his spiritual state before being born of the Spirit of God is spiritually blind, and incapable of discerning spiritual matters?

[Ickisrulz]

Is it possible that Jesus was saying a man in his spiritual state before being born of the Spirit of God is spiritually blind, and incapable of discerning spiritual matters?

Yes, that is the context. Nicodemus had reached the conclusion that Jesus was a teacher, but he was much more. Nicodemus could not see who Jesus really was.

[popper]

We are all born of water from the womb. John was Jesus cousin, preached repentance for 'there is one coming after me that has the power to condemn' in eternity. Water was very important to early culture as a cleanser. Therefore the washing away of sins was an important representation of forgiveness. Jews were very involved in 'cleansing' for every ritual event. External cleansing! Jesus was implying internal LASTING cleansing that only comes from the Holy Spirit. Scripture often refers to this as 'Chosen'. Or, from scripture - APPROVED.

[wmitty]

If a man is blind to his spiritual condition unless he is born of God thru His Spirit; then man is incapable of coming to Christ unless he is enabled by the Father. This is exactly what Jesus told the Jews in John 6 : 65 .... do you see that the decision as to who will be given the gift of eternal life is God’s? A believer can request of the Father that an unbeliever be allowed to come to Christ for spiritual healing, but the decision lies solely with God the Father.

[flyingmonkey35]

LDS (Mormons) go with a LOT of silly stuff. I know because I have their four major books and my mother, father, sister plus a few others in my family tree followed that decidedly un-Christian cult. (Putting "Church of Jesus Christ" in their label does not make it so!)

By the grace of God - and the many prayers of my devout Christian paternal grandmother for me - I did not follow that spiritually lethal path.Btw I dont call your faith silly.
nor is it a cult. Its Like saying a Baptist is a cult.


Please be sensitive to other people Faith's when they choose to share. Or you come out as bigoted.



Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[1hole]

Btw I dont call your faith silly.
nor is it a cult. Its Like saying a Baptist is a cult.


Please be sensitive to other people Faith's when they choose to share. Or you come out as bigoted

Excuse me. You didn't say you're LDS and I assumed you were not, no personal offense was intended.

I'm very sensitive to denominational error BUT I've known a lot of LDS theology from childhood. My mother, father, sister, one grandmother, several aunts, uncles and cousins I have loved dearly were/are LDS. We always got along fine because it was hopeless for me to lead them to Christian truth but I've sadly had to bite my tongue a thousand times over.

Finally, I obviously don't know how you define a "cult" but I define cults as very good and religious people who follow a different Jesus and different way of salvation that isn't even close to orthodox Christianity. (And Baptists are quite orthodox.)

Cults always follow a special "priest" of some sort, plus stacks of extra-Biblical writings, to support their positions. Mormons do all that and more, therefore ....

Again, no offense was intended but no amount of pretense or tiptoeing around it as if it isn't so will change a thing. I pray the God of the Bible will shine his light on you and yours. (And mine.)

[dtknowles]

Excuse me. You didn't say you're LDS and I assumed you were not, no personal offense was intended.

I'm very sensitive to denominational error BUT I've known a lot of LDS theology from childhood. My mother, father, sister, one grandmother, several aunts, uncles and cousins I have loved dearly were/are LDS. We always got along fine because it was hopeless for me to lead them to Christian truth but I've sadly had to bite my tongue a thousand times over.

Finally, I obviously don't know how you define a "cult" but I define cults as very good and religious people who follow a different Jesus and different way of salvation that isn't even close to orthodox Christianity. (And Baptists are quite orthodox.)

Cults always follow a special "priest" of some sort, plus stacks of extra-Biblical writings, to support their positions. Mormons do all that and more, therefore ....

Again, no offense was intended but no amount of pretense or tiptoeing around it as if it isn't so will change a thing. I pray the God of the Bible will shine his light on you and yours. (And mine.)

It might be helpful if we think about what the words really means.

bigot
[ˈbiɡət]

NOUN
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

synonyms:
narrow-minded · small-minded · parochial · provincial · insular · blinkered · illiberal · inflexible · dogmatic · rigid · uncompromising · unforgiving · unsympathetic · prejudiced · biased · partial · partisan · one-sided · sectarian · discriminatory · unfair · unjust


cult
[kəlt]

NOUN
a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.

It would seem that all religions are cults so it is not offensive to call a religion a cult except that some religions feel it is an insult because they think all religions but theirs are a cult.

Tim

[wmitty]

Guys, what our Creator is saying here (John 3:3) is profound! No one makes the decision to come to God unless God the Father enables that individual by spiritual birth thru His Spirit. Millions of people are physically “alive” but are dead in a spiritual sense. This is why there are men involved in discussions here who laugh at the idea of what we know to be true. We are created spiritual beings living for a short time in a physical body. By grace, some of us are redeemed and some of us are destroyed. But none of us- nobody- is shown or receives injustice.

[1hole]

Timmy, I suppose by your badly unfocused concept of bigots you think we should give credibility to the beliefs of flat earthers, those who stoutly insist we never went to the moon, believe Billy and Hillary may be honest, O.J. didn't do it and firmly believe 9-11 was a U.S. Government plot, etc.

Naw. Being "open minded" doesn't require we have holes in our heads. :)

[a danl]

is it possible that jesus was saying a man in his spiritual state before being born of the spirit of god is spiritually blind, and incapable of discerning spiritual matters?

yes, man is born spiritual blind

[flyingmonkey35]

Despite the deffention of the word "cult"

It has a significantly different meaning in modern society.

When use the word cult. We normally associate it with fanatics. Ie doomsday cults. Where a leader uses his /her power over others for pure greed.

The sheep just follow or are promised more power over the others.

I am not after converting anyone.









Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[1hole]

Airborne primate, "modern society" has never gotten much of anything right about religion in general and Christianity in particular.
--------------------------------------------

Setting your personal focus aside, the life blood of the LDS has always been centered around pulling others into the ranks - i.e., "converting" them. I have a beautiful great niece along with her two very bright brothers immersed in that program right now. It's a large and well organized program of sending out teenage "elders" as missionaries who are themselves trying to earn their way into becoming heavenly "gods" like Joe Smith and Brigham Young are said to have done.

Having a totally different God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, a multilayered heaven, a vastly different "bible" and a totally earned salvation makes the LDS a cult religion much different from Christianity. I wish it were not true but all of THAT makes it a religious group disconnected from Christianity in all but a convoluted name. And past LDS "popes" have publicly admitted so.

** Jehovah Witness, Christian Scientists, Universalists (and a few other groups) claiming to be "Christian" are also, and by the same criteria, religious cults. Seventh Day Adventists appear to straddle the fence between Biblically sound and cultish doctrines (according to Ellen White).

[dtknowles]

Timmy, I suppose by your badly unfocused concept of bigots you think we should give credibility to the beliefs of flat earthers, those who stoutly insist we never went to the moon, believe Billy and Hillary may be honest, O.J. didn't do it and firmly believe 9-11 was a U.S. Government plot, etc.

Naw. Being "open minded" doesn't require we have holes in our heads. :)

You don't have to agree with them or even listen to them but you have to tolerate them not berate them or belittle them. Otherwise you are a bigot.

Tim

[dtknowles]

Despite the deffention of the word "cult"

It has a significantly different meaning in modern society.

When use the word cult. We normally associate it with fanatics. Ie doomsday cults. Where a leader uses his /her power over others for pure greed.

The sheep just follow or are promised more power over the others.

I am not after converting anyone.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

"Where a leader uses his /her power over others for pure greed." You mean like Evangelical Christian Mega Church leaders? Maybe you mean the local Protestant Community or Congregational Church where the Pastor is supported by the contributions of his flock. I think the definition is better than the common usage. The common usage is derogatory and has been weaponized to allow it to be used as an insult against groups like the LDS or Unitarian Universalists or Islamists.

It is shame on us if we associate Cult with Fanatics. It is improper over reaching association. Not smart thinking. Fanatics are fanatics not by definition Cultists.

Yes, you are correct about common usage I am not being critical just trying to be informative and educational.

Tim

[dtknowles]

Airborne primate, "modern society" has never gotten much of anything right about religion in general and Christianity in particular.
--------------------------------------------

Setting your personal focus aside, the life blood of the LDS has always been centered around pulling others into the ranks - i.e., "converting" them. I have a beautiful great niece along with her two very bright brothers immersed in that program right now. It's a large and well organized program of sending out teenage "elders" as missionaries who are themselves trying to earn their way into becoming heavenly "gods" like Joe Smith and Brigham Young are said to have done.

Having a totally different God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, a multilayered heaven, a vastly different "bible" and a totally earned salvation makes the LDS a cult religion much different from Christianity. I wish it were not true but all of THAT makes it a religious group disconnected from Christianity in all but a convoluted name. And past LDS "popes" have publicly admitted so.

** Jehovah Witness, Christian Scientists, Universalists (and a few other groups) claiming to be "Christian" are also, and by the same criteria, religious cults. Seventh Day Adventists appear to straddle the fence between Biblically sound and cultish doctrines (according to Ellen White).

In your mind what makes a religion a "Cult Religion." Is Islam a Cult, Buddhist, Shinto, Hindu? Are they not cults because they make no claim of Christianity but if a religions claims to be Christian but does not meet some test of yours then they are a Cult? What about Roman Catholic?

Tim

[flyingmonkey35]

First this is done on my phone so forgive me for spelling or grammar mistakes.

I made some comments.



Setting your personal focus aside,

I was born and raised in the lds faith. I'm 45 years old. I am non active member. But faithful.

These are my opinions based on my life experiences.

-
As with all things there are zealots out thier that take things WAY to far.
-

the life blood of the LDS has always been centered around pulling others into the ranks - i.e., "converting" them. I have a beautiful great niece along with her two very bright brothers immersed in that program right now.

Program? Okay interesting word choice.

-
It's a large and well organized program of sending out teenage "elders" as missionaries.

Not just 19 year olds we have retired folk as well.

The catholic church has missions as well. That use young priests to go forth and spread the word. Do they not?

-
who are themselves trying to earn their way into becoming heavenly "gods" like Joe Smith and Brigham Young are said to have done.

"If anyone ever asks if your a god. You say Yes" Ghostbusters.

Food for thought. If when you go in to the next life and you are able to gain all the knowledge in heaven would you not become unto like a god yourself?

The lds faith dose not state that you become the God. Just godlike.
Are the angels in heaven not god like?

-


Having a totally different God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit,

Yes we believe there is God the father. Jesus the son. And the holy spirit the mother. Completely separate beings.

-
a multilayered heaven,
Yup. We also dont have a hell. Just the lowest level of heaven.

And outerdarkness where the light of heaven dose not reach. But you can still move upwards In heaven if you choose.

Not stuck in damintion for all eternity. That God would be cruel.

In my personal opinion I think earth is hell or heaven depending on how you make it.

-
a vastly different "bible"
not really.
But there's a few other catholic versions as well that change the wording to match the current agenda of the time.

Suffer not a witch to live lead to the deaths and torture of thousands of innocent souls all because some ****** got his panties in a twist.

The bible was written by man from a religion that persecuted the educated. As a tool to make others fear the religous leaders as only they could save your soul. So you better give them money. Not until the past hundred years has the masses become educated that they were forced to move to different tactics.

-
and a totally earned salvation makes the LDS a cult religion much different from Christianity.

You mean it's free. I dont have to be a decent human being? I just have to say a few hail Mary's and all will be forgiven?

Wow. We mean Earned as in live a righteous fruitful life.
-

I wish it were not true but all of THAT makes it a religious group disconnected from Christianity in all but a convoluted name.

Christian. = the belief that christ walked the earth. And died for our sins. Is that not the core foundation of all christianity? And dont forget he was a Jewish rabbi. That did not like the way things were being run. So voiced his opinion and was killed for it by religious leaders who afraid of loosing their power of thier flock.

-

And past LDS "popes" have publicly admitted so.

Popes? We call them prophets. Yes and others have said we are at our core Christian's.
-
In your op how big dose a religion need to be to stop being called a cult?

Millions or billions?

-

** Jehovah Witness, Christian Scientists, Universalists (and a few other groups) claiming to be "Christian" are also, and by the same criteria, religious cults. Seventh Day Adventists appear to straddle the fence between Biblically sound and cultish doctrines (according to Ellen White).[/QUOTE]

You forget sincetology. They dont claim to be Christian. But are definitely a religous cult.

Niels

Ps flyingmonkey. Is a wizard of oz reference.

[Ickisrulz]

The Kingdom of the Cults is a book by Walter Martin. It has been around since the 1960's and been updated as needed. It is a standard work used by mainstream Christians when studying religions other than Christianity as well as groups that have doctrine with some basis in the Bible, but have teachings that fall outside of the Bible's teaching.

The book defines a cult as: "a group of people gathered about a specific person—or person's misinterpretation of the Bible."

The reason I wrote all that is to explain why you may hear Christians refer to certain groups as cults even though the majority of people do not refer to them as such. If you adhered to the above definition, the Roman Catholic Church would even be considered a cult.

[flyingmonkey35]

If you take a college sociology class that is what is taught about the words cult.


"Jonestown", was a remote settlement established by the Peoples Temple, a cult under the leadership of Jim Jones.

And David Koresh. Charles Manson etc...

Horrific examples

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[1hole]

If you take a college sociology class that is what is taught about the words cult.

"Jonestown", was a remote settlement established by the Peoples Temple, a cult under the leadership of Jim Jones.

And David Koresh. Charles Manson etc...

Horrific examples

They are indeed horrific examples of cults gone bad. But they do not, by that fact, properly define what a cult is. There is no reason to say all religious cults are full of evil people and, as I mentioned before, some cults (most?) have as nice a people as anyone could ask.

Four major ways showing how the LDS have corrupted Christianity are (1) the idea of the Holy Spirit being a "holy mother"; (2) multiple layers of God's heaven (with Jesus and the Father being in charge of the lower division and Joe Smith and B. Young in charge of the upper division), effectively making themselves gods; (3) our God is eternal and not procreated as the LDS "gods" are; (4) LDS people who jump through the hoops of temple rites and pay the costs of doing secret things in the right temple(s) and are approved by Joe Smith may be allowed to become gods of their own universe where, with a vast collection of wives, will get to procreate a new world full of baby souls; that's some weird stuff right there and none of it is Christian doctrine. Any group with a different god and alternate way(s) of salvation is a cult.

Finally, I gave a short list of common cults as examples; it wasn't intended to be all inclusive. I don't know anything about Scientology except the name but I don't think they make any false claim to be Christian so, like Hindus and Muslims, they don't matter in this discussion.

[flyingmonkey35]

[QUOTE=1hole;4848232]They are indeed horrific examples of cults gone bad. But they do not, by that fact, properly define what a cult is. There is no reason to say all religious cults are full of evil people and, as I mentioned before, some cults (most?) have as nice a people as anyone could ask.

Four major ways showing how the LDS have corrupted Christianity are (1) the idea of the Holy Spirit being a "holy mother"; (2) multiple layers of God's heaven (with Jesus and the Father being in charge of the lower division and Joe Smith and B. Young in charge of the upper division), effectively making themselves gods; (3) our God is eternal and not procreated as the LDS "gods" are; (4) LDS people who jump through the hoops of temple rites and pay the costs of doing secret things in the right temple(s) and are approved by Joe Smith may be allowed to become gods of their own universe where, with a vast collection of wives, will get to procreate a new world full of baby souls; that's some weird stuff right there and none of it is Christian doctrine. Any group with a different god and alternate way(s) of salvation is a cult.


---
1. We agree to disagree on that. I just personally find it to make more sense.

2. Say what now? So the lds church teachs we can achieve god hood status and serve god in the way he sees fit if we so choose.

3. So is ours we just believe he at one time had a physical form.


4. Buahhahaha. I find that is the biggest joke some one made up about LDS temple rights.

I've been through the lds temple.

Nothing is secret. Just sacred.
And we take a vow not to discuss it with outsiders like a ton of other religious ordenceces.

You can watch YouTube videos of it if you want.

Sure lots of symbolism in it. But I guarantee you the catholic church has rights that are odd when you get higher up as well.


But in all honesty it's just the story of Adam and eve being tempted out of the garden.

Then a quick thing for the dead. A lot of people find that one strange. Then meditation and prayer.

4.5 As for the second thing it sure sounds better then a eternity in hell with no chance of escape?

But again taken way out of context.

We believe eternal marriage between a man and a woman. And that your family is your family for all time.

As for the multiple wife thing.

Pologymy is not a unknown thing in every religion.

However it was orginally used for men to be allowed to marry and take care of widowers and thier children.

As it was taught to always have a father I. The house.

And of course some people went crazy with it. Give em a inch and they'll take your hand.

The practice was abolished in 1890. And it's no crazier now with gay marriage being allowed.

-

So you are saying if your religion dose not line up exactly with Catholics in views of a different god and or alternate way(s) of salvation is a cult.

So muslims and Jews. Hindew , are a cult?

You are starting if your not Roman catholic or a branch of it your a cult?

Call it a church or religion.

I think the Roman catholic cult has a interesting ring to it as well.



Btw it's Joseph Smith. He never went by Joe.

And it's The Church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints. Not lds or mormons.

Mormon is just a book name.

Im Not offended by it just clarification.


It's like calling you a biblelite. As the bible is your book.

Or a thorahlight

Anyway good debate is good for soul.

Interesting fact whenever Joseph Smith lectured. He always used the unmodified king James version.


--
Next your going ask about the holy underwear that temple worthy lds members wear?

Thier is nothing holy about them. Unless they are in disrepair.

They are just modest and should be comfortable.

They do have symbols on them. That mean keep god in your heart. Stay true to your self. Hunger for the truth and kneel before god.

That's it. No magic powers.

Just somthing to think about when you put them on. If you remember.





Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[1hole]

... I guarantee you the catholic church has rights that are odd when you get higher up as well.

I fully agree with you about the RCC. I haven't said much about them because they haven't been part of this discussion.


Then a quick thing for the dead. A lot of people find that one strange.

I find it odd too but that's one of my least objections.


As for the second thing it sure sounds better then a eternity in hell with no chance of escape?

Sure, an eternity of oblivion would mean no real penalty for human evil and the punishment of Hitler would be no worse than the penalty for any morally good non-believer. But, soul oblivion is not what the Word says so Joe Smith's imaginative version of eternity in both heaven and hell is invalid.


We believe eternal marriage between a man and a woman. And that your family is your family for all time.

Yes but ... only if they have been "sealed" by special men in a specific Temple ceremony. I believe in eternal marriage for men and women who have been spiritually joined into "one flesh", at no cost, by an act of God.


Pologymy is not a unknown thing in every religion.

I know of no Christian group that now or ever has sanctioned polygamy by their members. If taking care of widows and children required being bed partners it would not have been sanctioned at first and forbidden later. That change was dictated by secular law, it was not and is not a "new doctrine" of LDS faith.


And of course some people went crazy with it. Give em a inch and they'll take your hand.

Sooo ... some went crazy with it! Tell me, how many "wives" did ol' Joe have, how many did Young have?


And it's no crazier now with gay marriage being allowed.
Christians agree and we have opposed it in every instance. That's a big part of why Democrats, as a group, dispise us so bad.


So muslims and Jews. Hindew , are a cult?

They would be cults if they claimed to be Christians but clung to their non-Christian teachings; they do not.


You are starting if your not Roman catholic or a branch of it your a cult?
Not if it was my dying breath.


Btw it's Joseph Smith. He never went by Joe. ... And it's The Church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints. Not lds or mormons.

Mr. Smith is quite dead and his soul is quite uncomfortable. I don't believe he is ever going to object to anyone calling him Joe.

My family sometimes tells me the long accepted names "LDS/Mormon" are out of style today but when you have heard them referring to themselves the old ways it's a mote point and using the whole new thing in every instance gets tiresome.


Im Not offended by it just clarification.

Me too. Seriously.


It's like calling you a biblelite. As the bible is your book.

The Bible is my favorite Book but it's not mine, it was given to and belongs to all mankind. And the Holy Bible needs no other stack of man-made books for a so-called "second witness."


Interesting fact whenever Joseph Smith lectured. He always used the unmodified king James version.

Well, in all fairness, the KJV was the only English Bible around in the early 1,700s so the fact Joe used it carries no special weight to me.


Next your going ask about the holy underwear that temple worthy lds members wear?

No, I'm not going to ask. They are weird but a trivial bit of cultish symbolism to me. And they sure don't look comfortable, especially in Florida where my family lives.


Just somthing to think about when you put them on. If you remember.

In my family, those baggy bloomers never come off, not even when bathing. (That's weird too.)

[dtknowles]

The early church fathers and men like Wycliffe, Tyndale, Martin Luther and John Knox (one of my personal favorites) defended sound doctrine with their blood, sweat and tears, and sometimes even their lives.

No, I don't have to tolerate bad doctrine and bad theology.

If that makes me a bigot, so be it. And if, by God's grace and mercy, this lack of tolerance should put me in the company of men such as those I have mentioned above, what a glorious day that would be!

exile

Not all bigotry is equal. If your intolerance just manifests as disassociation from those who express what you consider bad doctrine or bad theology, not so evil. If your intolerance goes to discrimination in hiring, customer service, renting a domicile or selling a house it is actually criminal. Of course you could consider that being punished for religious discrimination as being a martyr. There is a little leeway for religious exemptions for some customer services but you would be on thin ice if you refused to serve Muslims, Jews, LDS, and many others.

You seem to have tolerated my doctrine and theology. Tolerated at least to the point of participating in this discussion. You don't seem like an evil bigot.

Tim

[exile]

Not all bigotry is equal. If your intolerance just manifests as disassociation from those who express what you consider bad doctrine or bad theology, not so evil. If your intolerance goes to discrimination in hiring, customer service, renting a domicile or selling a house it is actually criminal. Of course you could consider that being punished for religious discrimination as being a martyr. There is a little leeway for religious exemptions for some customer services but you would be on thin ice if you refused to serve Muslims, Jews, LDS, and many others.

You seem to have tolerated my doctrine and theology. Tolerated at least to the point of participating in this discussion. You don't seem like an evil bigot.

Tim

I apologize for my rudeness, which is why I deleted my post. In my view, Christians should not discriminate against others who violate the tenants of the Christian faith, rather they should be willing to suffer for the faith themselves as Christ did. I know, easy to say, hard to do.

These things are very dear to me, which is why I sometimes respond as I do.

exile

[flyingmonkey35]

Not all bigotry is equal. If your intolerance just manifests as disassociation from those who express what you consider bad doctrine or bad theology, not so evil. If your intolerance goes to discrimination in hiring, customer service, renting a domicile or selling a house it is actually criminal. Of course you could consider that being punished for religious discrimination as being a martyr. There is a little leeway for religious exemptions for some customer services but you would be on thin ice if you refused to serve Muslims, Jews, LDS, and many others.

You seem to have tolerated my doctrine and theology. Tolerated at least to the point of participating in this discussion. You don't seem like an evil bigot.

TimIn my family, those baggy bloomers never come off, not even when bathing. (That's weird too.)

What in the heck?

No where anywhere dose it say that.

That's idoitic. As I said before some people have to take things one step to far.


As for the afterlife. I didn't say oblivion. I said outerdarkness.

Outside the light of all creation.

And that is only for those who actually meet God. Understand him and his plan. And reject it.

Joseph also stated if you were to glimpse the lowest level of heaven. You kill yourself to get thier.

Now let me go outside of lds teachings

I personally fully think there is work waiting for us when move to the next life. If you think you get to eat mana biscuits and drink ambrosia all day and sit on the couch watching football I think your in for a rude awaking.

Some one will have to run the prison computer system.

I'm going to be a sysadmin on the 9th tier of hell forever troubleshooting defunct buggy code.








Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[dtknowles]

….Well, in all fairness, the KJV was the only English Bible around in the early 1,700s so the fact Joe used it carries no special weight to me.....

Not so, where do you get your ideas?


The first Roman Catholic English translation was the Rheims-Douay, so named for the location of the Catholic college under the auspices of which it was produced. The seminary was founded at Douay, Spain, in 1568 “for the training of priests who were to win England back to the Catholic faith” (John Eadie, History of the English Bible, II, p. 114). In 1578, it was moved to Rheims, France, and it was here that the New Testament was completed in 1582. The school was moved back to Douay in 1593, where the Old Testament was completed some fifteen years later, in 1609-10.

https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/the_first_catholic_english_bible.html

These were published before the KJV.

There were Catholics in the American Colonies and you can be sure they were not using the KKV bible.

"Catholicism was introduced to the English colonies in 1634 with the founding of the Province of Maryland by Cecil Calvert, 2nd Baron Baltimore, based on a charter granted to his father George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore. The first settlers were accompanied by two Jesuit missionaries travelling as gentlemen adventurers."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_the_Thirteen_Colonies

Tim

[dtknowles]

I apologize for my rudeness, which is why I deleted my post. In my view, Christians should not discriminate against others who violate the tenants of the Christian faith, rather they should be willing to suffer for the faith themselves as Christ did. I know, easy to say, hard to do.

These things are very dear to me, which is why I sometimes respond as I do.

exile

You have my respect and admiration. I did not find your post rude but maybe so others did and it takes a big man to walk back a heartfelt response like yours. Modeling Jesus' modesty becomes you. Thanks.

I hope if I was in your situation, I would do as you did.

Tim

[exile]

Nice of you to say Tim, thank you. A teacher once told me that I needed to learn to be more diplomatic. Obviously, I am still working on that.

exile

[1hole]

Self righteous people who leap to chastise others for failure to be totally "tolerant" even of serious religious error and like to speak of Jesus' daydreamed sweetness and gentleness are delusional.

Jesus was indeed gentle ... with gentle people. But, we know that even in his "gentle sweetness" he literally whipped out the temple's money changers and in his supposed religious tolerance he called the religious establishment "whitewashed tombs" and "vipers" to their faces. (It's no wonder so many of them wanted to kill Jesus for his insufficient Christian tolerance! :))


A Note on the Mormon Joe Smith's KJV Bible Choice:

I doubt there were many Catholic Bibles lying on kitchen tables in rural western New York in Joe Smith's day (early 1,700s) but I'm quite sure there were many copies of the KJV and we know that's what he used, at least to the degree he used any Bible at all. Of course anyone who seriously wants to think Joe might have chosen to use a Catholic Rheims-Douay is welcome to that idea.

Either way, the real issue is, Joe chose to say the English speaking Bible was/is accurate only where he felt it was "rightly translated." That may not sound too bad until you realise what he meant; that being anything HE said was superior to scripture! Understand that; in plain words, Joe was saying the Bible is meaningless unless he agrees with it! I grew up under strong LDS influence but I did, and still do, find that idea abhorrent.

Joe Smith is said to have been illiterate. After finding his "golden plates" book buried under a tree stump he said it was written in Reformed Egyptian ... but there is no record of such a language! He also said no one but he could see the plates and only he had a magic "Seer Stone", that being a small rock which was said to help him find buried treasure. Only he could see and read the plates through the solid rock (kept inside his hat no less!) and the Stone magically translated the supposed Reformed Egyptian writing plates into English illeterate Joe could then "read". Joe dictated the looooong book to an assisting transcriber (who never saw the stack of golden plates himself, nor did anyone else) who carefully recorded Joe's words; then, voila, they had "the latter day Saints' holy book of Mormon" on paper!

I believe anyone wanting to be more like the real Jesus of the Bible may rightly choose to strongly disagree with ol' Joe. ??

[dtknowles]

Self righteous people who leap to chastise others for failure to be totally "tolerant" even of serious religious error and like to speak of Jesus' daydreamed sweetness and gentleness are delusional.

Jesus was indeed gentle ... with gentle people. But, we know that even in his "gentle sweetness" he literally whipped out the temple's money changers and in his supposed religious tolerance he called the religious establishment "whitewashed tombs" and "vipers" to their faces. (It's no wonder so many of them wanted to kill Jesus for his insufficient Christian tolerance! :))


A Note on the Mormon Joe Smith's KJV Bible Choice:

I doubt there were many Catholic Bibles lying on kitchen tables in rural western New York in Joe Smith's day (early 1,700s) but I'm quite sure there were many copies of the KJV and we know that's what he used, at least to the degree he used any Bible at all. Of course anyone who seriously wants to think Joe might have chosen to use a Catholic Rheims-Douay is welcome to that idea.

Either way, the real issue is, Joe chose to say the English speaking Bible was/is accurate only where he felt it was "rightly translated." That may not sound too bad until you realise what he meant; that being anything HE said was superior to scripture! Understand that; in plain words, Joe was saying the Bible is meaningless unless he agrees with it! I grew up under strong LDS influence but I did, and still do, find that idea abhorrent.

Joe Smith is said to have been illiterate. After finding his "golden plates" book buried under a tree stump he said it was written in Reformed Egyptian ... but there is no record of such a language! He also said no one but he could see the plates and only he had a magic "Seer Stone", that being a small rock which was said to help him find buried treasure. Only he could see and read the plates through the solid rock (kept inside his hat no less!) and the Stone magically translated the supposed Reformed Egyptian writing plates into English illeterate Joe could then "read". Joe dictated the looooong book to an assisting transcriber (who never saw the stack of golden plates himself, nor did anyone else) who carefully recorded Joe's words; then, voila, they had "the latter day Saints' holy book of Mormon" on paper!

I believe anyone wanting to be more like the real Jesus of the Bible may rightly choose to strongly disagree with ol' Joe. ??

I am going to stop being so literal when reading what you say and I am going to understand that you don't read my writing literally. You read and write for sentiment not precision.

This for instance "the KJV was the only English Bible around in the early 1,700s" it seems you did not mean "only" you meant almost only. Since I corrected you, replied I like I was disputing more that simple exaggeration.

Regarding Joseph Smith's teachings, It seems his followers have accepted much this seems to not be provable.

Many churches it would seem, depend on peer pressure to keep people from questioning their obviously weak doctrine of miracles.

Tim

[dtknowles]

Nice of you to say Tim, thank you. A teacher once told me that I needed to learn to be more diplomatic. Obviously, I am still working on that.

exile

Someone I respected once told me I was too literal. They were trying to tell me that I should not correct their lack of precision in the use of language and I should just understand what they meant not what they actually said. I explained that I understood what they meant but I was trying to teach them to say what they meant. He told me, good luck with that.

Obviously, I am still working on that. :-)

It is people's knee jerk reaction to criticism to be defensive or even offensive. A person, I hope I am one, who can accept criticism or who can walk back their talk when they are wrong, is a better person.

I feel it is right to praise you in the first place and now again for thanking me, thank you.

Tim