• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did Christ appear to other nations?

joeboonda

Well-Known Member
Popeyesays said:
I would point out that the quoted text does not mention Jesus at all. You are inserting your own contention with no support or argument. God made the universe. Not Jesus.

Regards,
Scott
Say what???

1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
(King James Bible, Colossians)

1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
1:8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

This clearly teaches that Jesus made everything, He was the Light that came into the world. He was in the beginning with God, He is the word, 'and God SAID...'

Scott, Every Christian, Bible-believing theologian would strongly disagree with you here, and I do too.
 

joeboonda

Well-Known Member
Katzpur said:
Thanks, Joe. I'm truly touched. Your love just overwhelms me.
Ok, I know you are being sarcastic, but I do love you in Christian love, I am not here to be mean, but to shed light and to learn. Believe it or not, I AM learning things. Anyway, I am not a monster, I promise. And I promise to pray for you and pray that you will pray for me, cuz I need prayer. I know you don't like my cutting and pasting, I will try to shorten it at least. I will listen to you and respond as best as I know how. You all are very precious to me, even if we disagree on some stuff, I suppose we all will as humans. I appreciate you and your devotion to this site and to your church. God bless you, and I really mean that.

In Christian Love, (the best I know how)
:present1:
Michael

P.S. What about my question in that post before the one you quoted from? I would like to hear your thoughts. (honestly)This is the post:

The Bible says, "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." (Isaiah 43:10) "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." (Isaiah 44:6) In simple terms God says there are no other gods.

How do you explain this verse? there was no God before God, nor any after him, He is the first and last and beside me there is no God? If he was once a man that attained Godhood through his own efforts, then there was a God or Gods and universes before him. This contradicts the Bible. God is God, he has always been, he has never changed, he is all knowing, all present, and He is the only God there is anywhere. He (Jesus) made the universe. He made the sun, moon, and stars on the 4th day. God is God and there are no other Gods. None before, none after. This is the Bible truth. Why change it? Why? Why don't you see the error here??? And again I ask this with my own typing fingers.
___________________________
Jesus loves you!:)
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
joeboonda said:
Say what???

1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
(King James Bible, Colossians).
We've discussed the Gospel of John before, so I won't bother again.

Let's look at this and apply the rules of English grammar.
". . . Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, . . ."

God is the referrant for the pronoun "him" underlined above.

Regards,
Scott
 

joeboonda

Well-Known Member
Popeyesays said:
We've discussed the Gospel of John before, so I won't bother again.

Let's look at this and apply the rules of English grammar.
". . . Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, . . ."

God is the referrant for the pronoun "him" underlined above.

Regards,
Scott
I will agree to disagree. And I am not alone. You are misusing the rules of grammar, not me. He is talking about his 'dear Son, the image of the invisible GOd, the firstborn of every creature, for by HIM were all things created. By Jesus who is God.

John came bearing witness of the Light--Jesus, and it says He (Jesus) was in the world and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own and his own received him not. Jesus/God came unto his own, he came to earth, God/'Jesus made everything.
 

joeboonda

Well-Known Member
1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins,

(King James Bible, Hebrews)

Scott, here is another clear verse that God made the worlds, by his Son. Yes, God made the universe, but His Son was there too. That's why in Genesis it says let US make man in our image. Jesus was there, that is why he said 'before Abraham was, I AM.' Ok, nuf theology, have a nice evening.

Regards,

Mike
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
joeboonda said:
I will agree to disagree. And I am not alone. You are misusing the rules of grammar, not me. He is talking about his 'dear Son, the image of the invisible GOd, the firstborn of every creature, for by HIM were all things created. By Jesus who is God.

John came bearing witness of the Light--Jesus, and it says He (Jesus) was in the world and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own and his own received him not. Jesus/God came unto his own, he came to earth, God/'Jesus made everything.
Jesus is not the author of the Letter to the Church of Collossus. The author of the epistle was given no authority by Christ or God. His words are as fallible as yours or mine.

Regards,
Scott
 

joeboonda

Well-Known Member
Popeyesays said:
Jesus is not the author of the Letter to the Church of Collossus. The author of the epistle was given no authority by Christ or God. His words are as fallible as yours or mine.

Regards,
Scott
OK, well then we cannot debate this then. I believe the entire Bible to be God's Word, and you apparently do not. I believe the Bible when the different epistles give credence to other epistles as inspired scripture. But, lets talk about that somewhere else. Jesus himself said before Abraham was, I AM, so I believe he was there and was involved in the creation as the Bible says. But we can discuss it elsewhere, I think this is a Mormon debate thread, I don't even remember, something about the Christ appearing to other nations...shhooo, its late, and I still sick.

Peace,

Mike
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
From the forum rules:

20. )We will enforce our understanding of intellectual property rights. Plagarism is not allowed and material originating with another author must be identified by Title (if available), author and publisher (or web site). Keep it to a few sentences or a short paragraph or two with a cite and link to the source. It must be within the standards of Fair Use.

Joeboonda,

Why don't you just put a link to these websites and tell everyone to go and read them. We've
"discussed" most of this information plenty of times.
 

joeboonda

Well-Known Member
jonny said:
From the forum rules:

20. )We will enforce our understanding of intellectual property rights. Plagarism is not allowed and material originating with another author must be identified by Title (if available), author and publisher (or web site). Keep it to a few sentences or a short paragraph or two with a cite and link to the source. It must be within the standards of Fair Use.

Joeboonda,

Why don't you just put a link to these websites and tell everyone to go and read them. We've
"discussed" most of this information plenty of times.
OK, didnt know that, most of my sources say feel free to use em. But I will comply.
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
joeboonda said:
OK, didnt know that, most of my sources say feel free to use em. But I will comply.
Ah... confirmation that you don't read my posts. I've mentioned it before. :p

Not only the citing, but the "keep it to a few sentences or a short paragraph" part. Newsbot was a great example of this. If people really want to read it they can easily click on the link. For those of us who don't want to read it, it gets annoying to scroll through.
 

DeepShadow

White Crow
Hey, Joe, my biggest problem isn't that you cut and paste or even fail to cite, it's that you cut and paste stuff that's riddled with errors and then expect us to think you shouldn't be held accountable for those errors, because the statements aren't yours. I highly recommend that you start citing sources so that you aren't held accountable for the foolishness of other people. For example:

According to the Smithsonian Institute of Washington, D.C., USA, the following items (which, according to The Book of Mormon, existed in the Americas between 600 B.C. and 421 A.D.) have absolutely no evidence for existing in the America's during the time in question:

Silk - Alma 4:6, Nephi 13:7, Alma 1:29
Horses - Enos 1:21, Alma 18:9, 3 Nephi 3: 1, Nephi 18:25
Cement - Helaman 3:7,11
Steel - Jarom 1:8, 2 Nephi 5:15,16, 1 Nephi 4:9, 16:18
Iron - 2 Nephi 5:15, 20:34, Jarom 1:8, Mosiah 11:8
Coins - Alma 11:5-19
Donkeys - 1 Nephi 18:25, Mosiah 5:14, 12:5
Cattle, Cow, and Oxen - Enos 1:21; 3 Nephi 3:22, 6: 1 Nephi 18:25
Pigs - 3 Nephi 7:8
Grain and Wheat - Mosiah 9:9; Helaman 11:17
Okay, first, this list leaves out what the Smithsonian and others have found evidence for. Roads, forts with wooden palisades, city-state arrangements, elephants, concurrent records that parallel the BoM account, and more. The weighty evidence in this kind of thing is in the number of successful predictions, not the number of unsuccessful ones, because the unsuccessful could be mistakes due to any number of errors.

What kind of errors? Glancing back through that list, we run into a serious problem with ideography, namely the use of an old word to refer to a new object. To say that the Book of Mormon must be fake because it speaks of "horses" and "pigs" is to say that the early exploration of America was faked because they found "lions" and "tigers" and...(wait for it)..."Indians!"

Going through the list in more detail:
Silk - Even in the Bible, the term "silk" doesn't mean it came from a silkworm. This could refer to almost any fine fabric.
Horses - could have been any riding animal (or possibly even non-riding!). In the words of Orson Scott Card, "...it is no more surprising that the word horse appears in the Book of Mormon than that the word buffalo was [and still is!] used in a nation where there were no buffaloes but only bison." I'd like to thank you for your quote about Joseph's stories to his family, I've been looking for it for quite a while. Note that it says he described the animals they rode upon...would it really have been necessary for him to describe a horse to a group of 1820's farmers? :biglaugh:

Cement - What formula? According to Victor Von Hagen's text, World of the Maya, the Mayan lathered huge amounts of lime-based stucco on their buildings, which can also be confirmed by other sources. Lime is the chief ingredient in cement; what other word should Joseph have used to denote a mixture of lime and gravel that is spread on surfaces to harden?:sarcastic

Donkeys - see horses, above.
Cattle, Cow, and Oxen - Could also refer to anything that served similar functions.
Pigs - Sheesh, people, they're technically called peccaries; go down to South America and see how many people call them "wild pigs."
Grain and Wheat - Did you know, Joe, that in Europe the term "corn" used to be a generic term for grain? When Europeans arrived they called maize "Indian corn" and finally just "corn." Funny that.

Wow, that whittled down the list to just a few that need special attention:

Steel - Could also mean fire-hardened iron...but note that the last reference to steel is in 2 Nephi, shortly after arriving in the Americas! Hardly the best evidence to go searching for, especially in jungles that are notorious for devouring such evidence--Von Hagen bemoans the speed at which the jungle absorbs stuff like this. Same goes for...
Iron - For which the last reference Mosiah--not much later. Bear in mind that we know the Mesopotamians used iron knives because of one single clump of ruddy earth, and that's in a place that is quite kind to historical artifacts. Between the early loss of iron technology, the voraciousness of the environment, and the limited regions we've searched, could it be we've not found our clump of ruddy earth yet?
Coins - This might be a hard one, if the scripture actually said they were coins. Ontis, senums, senines and so forth were much likely to be weights. Oh, and did you know that the Mesoamericans used gold and silver as weight standards for measuring? :bonk:

Not only are we limited in early South/Meso-American artifacts, but Von Hagen (who I might as well add is/was not LDS) says we still don't understand most of what we've found:
"Of the extensive corpus of Maya texts, fully 60 per cent remains undeciphered. Those glyphs which deal with dates and calculations can be read; those that deal with ritualistic matters and history cannot." (p. 197)

If The Book of Mormon is true, certainly some evidence for the items mentioned above should have been unearthed by modern-day archeologists.
And it has been. They haven't recognized it. Von Hagen speaks of roads, cement, palisades, and much more in the same book where he condemns lost-tribe theories!

But where are the "Houses of Cement" mentioned in Helaman
Cliff houses made of adobe, anyone?

Mormon 6:9-15 states that many thousands of men fought a great battle armed with swords, bows, arrows and axes, but have archaeologists discovered any of these items dating back to that time period on this continent?
Yup. Breastplates and swords, at least, and a few things that could have easily been ideologued as "bows" and "arrows." Atl-atls come to mind.

I'm sorry, were you asking about metal weapons? Does it say these swords, breastplates etc. were metal?! No, it doesn't; strangely enough, it has Captain Moroni "inventing" a whole new armor system in the middle of Alma, and the novelty of those inventions strongly suggests the metal armor they had come with (that of Laban) had long been discarded, as it ought to be in a hot jungle. Presumably Moroni figured out a way to make a jungle-functional armor out of bark and other materials...and such armor types have indeed been discovered in Central America.

According to Ether 15:2, two million Jaredite peoples (men, women and children) were killed in battle, yet there is not a trace of this battle anywhere. Ether 15:15 claims that men, women, and children armed with shields, breastplates, and headplates, fought a great battle with much loss of life -- yet not one article of battle has been found to date.
Okay, barring the discovery of weapons (see above) you may have something here. I mean, it's not like those jungles have groups of scavengers specifically known for devouring every trace of a dead body...or like they had any kind of tradition of throwing all the dead bodies from a war into the river to wash out to sea...(Alma 2:34, 3:3, 44:22)

The Smithsonian Institute has issued a statement regarding archaeological evidence and The Book of Mormon.

"The Smithsonian Institution has never used The Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archaeologists see no direct connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book."
Of course they don't; they aren't familiar with the Book of Mormon! To find connections in anything one needs to be familiar with the two sides being connected. What the Smithsonian archaeologists have discovered, for example, are things like:

"According to one Aztec codex, nightly for a year 'there arose a sign like a tongue of fire, like a flame. Pointed and wide-based, it pierced the heavens to their midpoint, their very heart. All night, off to the east, it looked as if day had dawned. Then the sun arose and destroyed it.' A temple inexplicably burst into flames, and the fire could not be extinguished. On a calm day, lightning struck the roof of another temple. A large column of light was seen in the east. A comet appeared one afternoon, hurtling from west to east and 'scattering sparks like glowing coals.' Lake Tetzcoco was suddenly roiled to flood heights, for no apparent reason. And at night, people claimed to have heard a woman weeping. 'She would pace about wailing, "My dear children, we have to go! Where can I take you?"'"--Aztecs: Reign of Blood and Splendor (Time/Life 1992; part of the "Lost Civilizations" series)

How is it that Joseph Smith told these stories several years before he allegedly found the golden plates and wrote The Book of Mormon?
Because that was--as you'd discover if you've read the whole passage--during the time when Joseph was receiving instructions from Moroni in preparation for receiving the plates. A much better question is, "Why on earth didn't he put these kinds of details into the book?!?" You see, the Book of Mormon doesn't have these kinds of detailed descriptions. It says things like "fine clothing" and "fine-twined linen" and whatnot. These are descriptions as given by a native, who doesn't know what's different between his audience's culture and his own.

You might as well ask, "Why didn't the creators of I Love Lucy explain somehow that Ricky's treatment of Lucy isn't wife abuse?" The answer is, of course, because it never occurred to them that it would be seen that way. They never considered how different a culture might be, even a few years down the road.
 

benjosh

Member
joeboonda said:
The more I read, the more I am convinced that Mormonism is a false religion. I am sorry if that offends you, but I believe I must tell the truth of what I believe, just like you must tell what you believe to be true.
You said this above
just like you must tell what you believe to be true.

But, you have not actually allowed anyone to tell you what they believe. Instead you cut and paste one-size-fits-all, cookie-cutter, stereotyping . . . . . . . in other words you take what someone has pre-digested for you and do not want to invest your own time to form personal relationships that break stereotypes.

We are people, not mindless robots marching to the doctrine of sincerely deceived men. The material that you bring is in part what was in the Godmakers - that stuff is so foreign to most people who believe the Book of Mormon, that I must wonder about your gullibility.

What you are doing is telling us what we believe and then mentally blocking out any information that contradicts your inflexible conclusion. Get into the real world of people who have give and take conversations.

BenJosh
 

may

Well-Known Member
To fit the description given by Jesus, the other sheep must be people who, regardless of racial or ethnic background, recognize Jesus Christ as the Fine Shepherd. What does that include? They must manifest meekness and a willingness to be led, which qualities are characteristic of sheep. (Psalm 37:11) As is true of the little flock, they must "know [the fine shepherd’s] voice" and not allow themselves to be led off by others who may seek to influence them. (John 10:4; 2 John 9, 10) They must appreciate the importance of what Jesus did in surrendering his soul in behalf of his sheep and exercise full faith in that provision. (Acts 4:12) They must "listen" to the voice of the Fine Shepherd when he urges them to render sacred service only to Jehovah, to keep on seeking first the Kingdom, to keep separate from the world, and to show self-sacrificing love for one another. (Matthew 4:10; 6:31-33; John 15:12, 13, 19) Do you fit that description of those whom Jesus views as his other sheep? Do you want to? What a precious relationship opens up to all who truly become Jesus’ other sheep!

 

joeboonda

Well-Known Member
DeepShadow said:
Hey, Joe, my biggest problem isn't that you cut and paste or even fail to cite, it's that you cut and paste stuff that's riddled with errors and then expect us to think you shouldn't be held accountable for those errors, because the statements aren't yours. I highly recommend that you start citing sources so that you aren't held accountable for the foolishness of other people. For example:

Okay, first, this list leaves out what the Smithsonian and others have found evidence for. Roads, forts with wooden palisades, city-state arrangements, elephants, concurrent records that parallel the BoM account, and more. The weighty evidence in this kind of thing is in the number of successful predictions, not the number of unsuccessful ones, because the unsuccessful could be mistakes due to any number of errors.

What kind of errors? Glancing back through that list, we run into a serious problem with ideography, namely the use of an old word to refer to a new object. To say that the Book of Mormon must be fake because it speaks of "horses" and "pigs" is to say that the early exploration of America was faked because they found "lions" and "tigers" and...(wait for it)..."Indians!"

Going through the list in more detail:
Silk - Even in the Bible, the term "silk" doesn't mean it came from a silkworm. This could refer to almost any fine fabric.
Horses - could have been any riding animal (or possibly even non-riding!). In the words of Orson Scott Card, "...it is no more surprising that the word horse appears in the Book of Mormon than that the word buffalo was [and still is!] used in a nation where there were no buffaloes but only bison." I'd like to thank you for your quote about Joseph's stories to his family, I've been looking for it for quite a while. Note that it says he described the animals they rode upon...would it really have been necessary for him to describe a horse to a group of 1820's farmers? :biglaugh:

Cement - What formula? According to Victor Von Hagen's text, World of the Maya, the Mayan lathered huge amounts of lime-based stucco on their buildings, which can also be confirmed by other sources. Lime is the chief ingredient in cement; what other word should Joseph have used to denote a mixture of lime and gravel that is spread on surfaces to harden?:sarcastic

Donkeys - see horses, above.
Cattle, Cow, and Oxen - Could also refer to anything that served similar functions.
Pigs - Sheesh, people, they're technically called peccaries; go down to South America and see how many people call them "wild pigs."
Grain and Wheat - Did you know, Joe, that in Europe the term "corn" used to be a generic term for grain? When Europeans arrived they called maize "Indian corn" and finally just "corn." Funny that.

Wow, that whittled down the list to just a few that need special attention:

Steel - Could also mean fire-hardened iron...but note that the last reference to steel is in 2 Nephi, shortly after arriving in the Americas! Hardly the best evidence to go searching for, especially in jungles that are notorious for devouring such evidence--Von Hagen bemoans the speed at which the jungle absorbs stuff like this. Same goes for...
Iron - For which the last reference Mosiah--not much later. Bear in mind that we know the Mesopotamians used iron knives because of one single clump of ruddy earth, and that's in a place that is quite kind to historical artifacts. Between the early loss of iron technology, the voraciousness of the environment, and the limited regions we've searched, could it be we've not found our clump of ruddy earth yet?
Coins - This might be a hard one, if the scripture actually said they were coins. Ontis, senums, senines and so forth were much likely to be weights. Oh, and did you know that the Mesoamericans used gold and silver as weight standards for measuring? :bonk:

Not only are we limited in early South/Meso-American artifacts, but Von Hagen (who I might as well add is/was not LDS) says we still don't understand most of what we've found:
"Of the extensive corpus of Maya texts, fully 60 per cent remains undeciphered. Those glyphs which deal with dates and calculations can be read; those that deal with ritualistic matters and history cannot." (p. 197)

And it has been. They haven't recognized it. Von Hagen speaks of roads, cement, palisades, and much more in the same book where he condemns lost-tribe theories!

Cliff houses made of adobe, anyone?

Yup. Breastplates and swords, at least, and a few things that could have easily been ideologued as "bows" and "arrows." Atl-atls come to mind.

I'm sorry, were you asking about metal weapons? Does it say these swords, breastplates etc. were metal?! No, it doesn't; strangely enough, it has Captain Moroni "inventing" a whole new armor system in the middle of Alma, and the novelty of those inventions strongly suggests the metal armor they had come with (that of Laban) had long been discarded, as it ought to be in a hot jungle. Presumably Moroni figured out a way to make a jungle-functional armor out of bark and other materials...and such armor types have indeed been discovered in Central America.

Okay, barring the discovery of weapons (see above) you may have something here. I mean, it's not like those jungles have groups of scavengers specifically known for devouring every trace of a dead body...or like they had any kind of tradition of throwing all the dead bodies from a war into the river to wash out to sea...(Alma 2:34, 3:3, 44:22)

Of course they don't; they aren't familiar with the Book of Mormon! To find connections in anything one needs to be familiar with the two sides being connected. What the Smithsonian archaeologists have discovered, for example, are things like:

"According to one Aztec codex, nightly for a year 'there arose a sign like a tongue of fire, like a flame. Pointed and wide-based, it pierced the heavens to their midpoint, their very heart. All night, off to the east, it looked as if day had dawned. Then the sun arose and destroyed it.' A temple inexplicably burst into flames, and the fire could not be extinguished. On a calm day, lightning struck the roof of another temple. A large column of light was seen in the east. A comet appeared one afternoon, hurtling from west to east and 'scattering sparks like glowing coals.' Lake Tetzcoco was suddenly roiled to flood heights, for no apparent reason. And at night, people claimed to have heard a woman weeping. 'She would pace about wailing, "My dear children, we have to go! Where can I take you?"'"--Aztecs: Reign of Blood and Splendor (Time/Life 1992; part of the "Lost Civilizations" series)

Because that was--as you'd discover if you've read the whole passage--during the time when Joseph was receiving instructions from Moroni in preparation for receiving the plates. A much better question is, "Why on earth didn't he put these kinds of details into the book?!?" You see, the Book of Mormon doesn't have these kinds of detailed descriptions. It says things like "fine clothing" and "fine-twined linen" and whatnot. These are descriptions as given by a native, who doesn't know what's different between his audience's culture and his own.

You might as well ask, "Why didn't the creators of I Love Lucy explain somehow that Ricky's treatment of Lucy isn't wife abuse?" The answer is, of course, because it never occurred to them that it would be seen that way. They never considered how different a culture might be, even a few years down the road.
Um Hello? This was cited from 600bc to 421ad, not the 1800s! And Indians didnt have horeses til much later when the Spanish brought them. Speaking of which, if Indians were lost tribes of Israel, which DNA proves they were not, would they not be forbidden as were the Jews in the Bible to ride horses?? The Jews were not to have horses.

Deuteronomy 17:15-17 (King James Version)

King James Version (KJV) Public Domain







15Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

16But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. 17Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.


And the truth is that Joseph Smith loved making up fanciful stories long before he wrote the BOM. Ok, I gotta go fix something. L8R
 

joeboonda

Well-Known Member
may said:
To fit the description given by Jesus, the other sheep must be people who, regardless of racial or ethnic background, recognize Jesus Christ as the Fine Shepherd. What does that include? They must manifest meekness and a willingness to be led, which qualities are characteristic of sheep. (Psalm 37:11) As is true of the little flock, they must "know [the fine shepherd’s] voice" and not allow themselves to be led off by others who may seek to influence them. (John 10:4; 2 John 9, 10) They must appreciate the importance of what Jesus did in surrendering his soul in behalf of his sheep and exercise full faith in that provision. (Acts 4:12) They must "listen" to the voice of the Fine Shepherd when he urges them to render sacred service only to Jehovah, to keep on seeking first the Kingdom, to keep separate from the world, and to show self-sacrificing love for one another. (Matthew 4:10; 6:31-33; John 15:12, 13, 19) Do you fit that description of those whom Jesus views as his other sheep? Do you want to? What a precious relationship opens up to all who truly become Jesus’ other sheep!

Do I wanna be one of Jesus' sheep? I been saved for 32 years. Do I wanna be a JW, no thanks.
 

Green Gaia

Veteran Member
joeboonda said:
http://www.geocities.com/cfpchurch/mormons.html

Here is an answer to whether Jesus visited the Indians or whatever, not that you will bother to look, and I KNOW you don't want me to copy it here, God forbid someone might actually learn something.
That tone is really uncalled for. Why should we believe what some nameless website whose sole purpose is to bash other religions has to say about anything?

p.s. I did read it, and their index doesn't work.
 

joeboonda

Well-Known Member
Maize said:
That tone is really uncalled for. Why should we believe what some nameless website whose sole purpose is to bash other religions has to say about anything?

p.s. I did read it, and their index doesn't work.
Sorry for the 'tone', I know most of the Mormons won't read my posts, they said so. They accuse me of not reading theirs, even though I do. The website above is a Presbyterian Church in Ireland, for crying out loud, their soul purpose is to expose error and proclaim truth, man you all get offended easily. Anyway, again, I humbly apologize if I've offended you with my 'tone'. Also, I fixed the index, it goes to the site now, thanks
 
Top