• 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!

First verses Book of Mormon/Bible comparisons

Watchmen

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
IF I was talking to humanistheart, I'd explain it was my final post to him. I still feel obligated to post for the benefit of others since he is bound to twist the facts and pick and choose what he'll post. I simply provided the link to a broad google search for others to view. No twisting or picking or choosing there.
 
DeepShadow

DeepShadow

White Crow
Humanistheart said:
Let's take a look at the first site listed on the link watchmen provided. It links mary's lineage to luke 3. "Her genealogy is given in Luke 3."But let's look at the passage.

"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli," luke 3:23

Mary's not mentioned here.
Click to expand...

Cherry-picking. It also references Luke 1:27, which explicitly states that Mary was of the House of David:

Luke, Chapter 1 (King James Bible) - ChristianAnswers® WebBible™
"To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary"
 
DeepShadow

DeepShadow

White Crow
Humanistheart said:
And you base that on what? Perhaps it says so in your BoM, but it certainly doesn't in any book of the bible.
Click to expand...

The very first reference to Mary says she's of the house of David. Matter of fact, it states her lineage before stating her name!

LMGTFY is perhaps not the kindest response, but when you say things like this, it's certainly understandable. Blanket negatives require a little bit more research, y'know?
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Watchmen said:
For those curious, humanistheart is picking and choosing what he'll post rather than reviewing the full explanations. Of course I expected nothing less.
Click to expand...
I think this is a bit unreasonable. You told him to Google it; it's not up to him to sift through the search results and decide which ones would be "Watchmen-approved" and which ones wouldn't be. You had your chance to make your own argument in your own words and you decided not to take it.
 
L

LittleNipper

Well-Known Member
Humanistheart said:
What happened to this being your final post on this subject? So, when you're up in heaven and your god asks you why you sinned, lied, what will you tell him? Well, someone was wrong on the internet! ;)
Click to expand...

GOD knows why we sin... HIS only concern is if that sin is under the BLOOD of the LORD JESUS CHRIST, and not being carried by ourselves.
 
H

Humanistheart

Well-Known Member
LittleNipper said:
GOD knows why we sin... HIS only concern is if that sin is under the BLOOD of the LORD JESUS CHRIST, and not being carried by ourselves.
Click to expand...

I don't know how christians deal with the congnitive dissonance. This god reeally is evil isn't he? The only way for him to get over things humans do that he doesn't approve of at the moment is through blood. Wow.
 
SoyLeche

SoyLeche

meh...
LittleNipper said:
Actually, they both seem to have been of the House of David.
Click to expand...
I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm not sure who the phrase in that particular passage is referring to though. It seems more likely to me that the "of the house of David" in that verse refers to Joseph, not Mary.

If so, we still don't have a scriptoral basis for believin that Mary was of the house of David. It appears that everything is pointing out that Joseph was.
 
L

LittleNipper

Well-Known Member
Humanistheart said:
No, in that story it was a ram, if I'm not mistaken. That story has nothing to do with the messiah.
Click to expand...

Abraham was willing to sacrafice his son. It is believed that some sort of a miracle was going to happen. GOD however, provided a lamb for Abraham to sacrafice. This is the very same role the Messiah would one day perform. The ultimate replacement...
 
H

Humanistheart

Well-Known Member
LittleNipper said:
Abraham was willing to sacrafice his son. It is believed that some sort of a miracle was going to happen. GOD however, provided a lamb for Abraham to sacrafice. This is the very same role the Messiah would one day perform. The ultimate replacement...
Click to expand...

Christians believe jesus was god. Comparing a willingness to kill ones own son to the killing of a mortal shell god's inhabiting is hardly comparable.
 
H

Humanistheart

Well-Known Member
Katzpur said:
Could you explain what you mean, Humanist?
Click to expand...

Sure. In one case abraham only has 2 sons, one he actually keeps. In another god comes to our world by incarnating himself into the human avitar jesus. Jesus, according to mainstream christians, is god himself. In one example you have a father ready to kill his child in another you have god ready to have his mortal shell die while his spirit goes on. The way I see it it's not equavilent in terms of death or in familiar relationships.
 
Katzpur

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Humanistheart said:
Sure. In one case abraham only has 2 sons, one he actually keeps. In another god comes to our world by incarnating himself into the human avitar jesus. Jesus, according to mainstream christians, is god himself. In one example you have a father ready to kill his child in another you have god ready to have his mortal shell die while his spirit goes on. The way I see it it's not equavilent in terms of death or in familiar relationships.
Click to expand...
That's kind of what I thought you meant. Of course, according to LDS theology, they're very similar situations. In one case, Abraham is asked to offer up his son as a sacrifice. In the other case, God the Father actually does offer up His Son as a sacrifice. Jesus' body, as you probably know, is not the mortal shell of the Father's spirit at all, but the actual flesh of His Only Begotten. To me, the Father's sacrifice was absolutely enormous.
 
L

LittleNipper

Well-Known Member
Humanistheart said:
Christians believe jesus was god. Comparing a willingness to kill ones own son to the killing of a mortal shell god's inhabiting is hardly comparable.
Click to expand...

Actually, JESUS CHRIST several times indicated that no one could take HIS life, unless HE gave it up... "Father, into thy hand do I ..."
 
H

Humanistheart

Well-Known Member
Katzpur said:
That's kind of what I thought you meant. Of course, according to LDS theology, they're very similar situations. In one case, Abraham is asked to offer up his son as a sacrifice. In the other case, God the Father actually does offer up His Son as a sacrifice. Jesus' body, as you probably know, is not the mortal shell of the Father's spirit at all, but the actual flesh of His Only Begotten. To me, the Father's sacrifice was absolutely enormous.
Click to expand...

I am aware that it's more comparible in mormon theology, the idea of father killing son, which is why I through in 'mainstream' christian when answering you, however I am curious what you mean by the sacrifice was enormous? There are more painful ways of dieing, and jesus is, if I'm not mistaken more or less garanteed to go to the highest level of the celestial kindgom. Also, since heavenly father set the rules that required the sacrifice in the first place the entire act seemed needless from my point of view. But what do you think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top