Jump to content

Bruja

Members
  • Posts

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Bruja's Achievements

Explorer

Explorer (4/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later
  • One Year In

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. You say you haven't insulted me (and I really don't think I've insulted you or anyone else). You don't think you insult me by inferring the 'contention is of the devil' doctrine? You're essentially calling me evil. You are dismissing an intellectual argument by calling me petty. I'm not worth your time, as you make ridiculous insinuations that my claims just silly and mean. You say my argument against your church's doctrines isn't discussion. Argument IS discussion. I don't know what you expected from me based on my initial comments, but argument is what I live for. Honestly, what do you think I'm talking here for if not argument? You appear to have a lot of contempt for my honest questions (and I mean a lot). I really think religious training in evangelizing should make a person less afraid of such honest inquiry, and if it doesn't happen, I question the quality of what's being presented to potential converts. Since you bring up how very different all the Christian denominations are, what can you say about the over 100 mormon sects, all differing in doctrines and organization, and most claiming authority from Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, PoGP, and D&C? How is that any different?
  2. 1. there's no way you don't get that the time of the prophets is over from that verse. 2. the purpose of the OT prophets was to reveal God, as both you and I said. Jesus is the FULL and COMPLETE revelation of God, therefore the prophets were foretelling Jesus. There is no more need to reveal God, Jesus did it completely. You commit a logical fallacy when you presume when I say that it means we don't need God any more. It's obviously not what I'm saying; we always need God. I won't refute this since it is a completely false inference from my comment. I never said we don't need God. ... Since this is clearly of the utmost importance, where are these saving revelations that are absolutely necessary for the church? What did Hinckley or Monson reveal from God lately that's so important? Ear piercings?? Are you kidding me? And if their revelation is just the daily management of the church, how is that any different than what a Christian pastor does in the running of their congregation? 3. Perhaps Joseph's story matches up to the OT criteria, but NONE of the subsequent prophets were - they are simply the longest serving member of the quorum of the 12 apostles. Speaking of which, how can you POSSIBLY claim the exact same organization of the early church when there were quite clearly 12 apostles, led by one of their own, Peter, and you have 12 apostles separate and distinct from 3 extra apostles and the leader, who is NOT one of the 12?? 4. You claim that the setup of your church is the same as the early church. You cannot prove this, as all your offices and titles are related in name ONLY to ANY Biblical priesthood or office, from the Old or the New Testament, and that includes that of high priest. You use the title without any respect for the original meaning of the word, as if Christianity wasn't the natural evolution from Judaism! Of course there should be a relationship with any title or rite that carries over from the Mosaic traditions, just as Christ's paschal sacrifice on the cross has a direct relationship to the sacrifice of the lamb at Passover! Deacons in the NT were chosen to run the charitable distribution and temporal affairs of the church - only 7 men were chosen for the church in Jerusalem, having over 1000 people. The criteria listed for deacons makes it obvious it was a role intended for adult men. It was clearly never meant for every 12 year old boy to have! Ephesians 4 v.11 says that SOME are teachers, etc - NOT all. But the lds church makes every 14 year old boy a teacher. There is no such thing as a Melchizedek priesthood in the Bible. The Hebrew word, dibra, translated as order, actually means "style" or "manner," not a class or order of priests. Jesus is a priest after the manner of Melchizedek in two ways: 1. offering bread and wine, as I already said and 2. he's a priest of God who is NOT of the line of Aaron, the tribe of Levi - Jesus is of the tribe of Judah. The letter to the Hebrews makes reference of Melchizedek ONLY when addressing the fact that the Jews are asking how Jesus can be a priest when he's not of the tribe of Levi. They're not asking what their priesthood should be called. There is no relationship between the lds Melchizedek priesthood and the Bible's references to Melchizedek. The titles Bishop and Elder are also completely misused in the same context. Read the NT thoroughly, front to back, and you'll find no substantive relationship between the early church and the lds church in organization, practice, or belief.
  3. 1. Hebrews 1:1-2 says explicitly that the time of prophets is over, that now God has revealed himself finally in the person of Jesus Christ 2. The purpose of prophets in the OT was to foretell of Jesus. That was their whole point of speaking to the people, to reveal God to the people. Jesus is the fullness of God's self-revelation to his people. Prophets, the kind seen in the OT that you're talking about, are no longer necessary. 3. If it were true that this was an unchangeable pattern: Where were the prophets between Jesus and Joseph Smith? Where is "the prophet" in the early church? There is no primary leader of the early church who is called a prophet, in fact, in the Bible, the office of prophet is lower than that of apostle. Peter is never called a prophet, ever, in the NT. Not only that, but the way the lds 'prophet' is chosen is not how OT prophets are chosen. If your argument is that this is the way it's always been, there's not much evidence to support that at all. 4. There was only ever one high priest in Judaism. There can be only one, and that is Jesus. Read Hebrews. 5. Your reasoning is exactly how I know that mormonism is false. You can't argue against someone saying, "well I prayed about it and God said it was true." Do you know how many religions use that exact same method of "proof" to show their religion is "true"? The Jehovah's Witnesses do the same thing. It's completely invalid. It's a cop-out.
  4. You just can't resist the urge, can you? Next you'll be educating us on the difference between a psychopath and a sociopath.
  5. I find it ridiculous to imply that a person with true faith in Jesus Christ will automatically desire to give up coffee, tea, pop, beer, tobacco, etc. True faith in Jesus has nothing to do with any of these things, and Jesus himself told us that dietary laws are no longer relevant to God's people, saying, "It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man." (Mt 15:11) You took that quote completely out of context. The author was is using the old priesthood to demonstrate the humanity of Jesus, that he, like the high priests of old, were taken from among the people. All we know about Melchizedek is that he offered bread and wine, as Jesus did at the Last Supper, and blessed Abraham. That is the priesthood of Melchizedek, as the author of Hebrews saw Melchizedek as a kind of premonition of Christ.
  6. Oh my love ... you are rude. Point being: 1. The question wasn't about faith and works, it was about the fact that faith in Jesus isn't enough. (Going off the temple recommend quesions) you have to believe JS was a true prophet, that Monson is a true prophet, and everyone in between (as well as ALL the general authorities). You have to believe the lds church is the only true and living church, that the standard works are the word of God, believe in the restoration of the gospel, you must renounce all groups that disagree with church teachings, etc. If you reject any of these requirements you are denied entrance to the temple, which brings me to point 2 ... 2. As far as faith and works goes, you need to do works to get into the temple (tithing, word of wisdom, law of chastity, wear your garments, etc), and you have to be endowed & sealed in the temple to live with God and progress to godhood yourself. Ergo, faith in Jesus is not enough for salvation.
  7. i think it's a good indicator of skill on her part. she's not going to save somebody just because it's horrible. she's not off in lala land where only marginal characters die in a war. people die. usually they're the greatest people you ever met.
  8. There were "I KNEW IT!" moments and "ARE YOU SERIOUS??" moments, but overall it felt a little anticlimactic. So far all the books have been ... well I thought each was pretty damn good piece of literature. But with this one she seemed to 'overdo' her trademarks a bit. people's names and spell incantations, and a little of the dialog just wasn't up to par with what I'm used to with Rowling. It didn't all flow well the way it usually does. That's not to say I didn't like the book, it was AMAZING, but I think she could have done better. So I'm going to say that 95% of the book was fantastic and 5% was awkward moments of unnaturalness. I completely lost it when DD said that Harry was a horcrux, because I was hardcore thinking that it was impossible. I was also hardcore believing that Snape was never in love with Lily Potter. Strike two. my favorite quotes: give it up for molly weasley! I burst into tears when i read this, no joke ~ Ron
  9. tofu that link doesn't work ... what gives? i don't appreciate that. lol
  10. i rather like it. i noticed the hint with fenrir greyback's name in the beginning of HBP and I was pretty proud of myself.
  11. i grew up in a family of 10 children; i can hold my own. i spent a lot of spare time in high school trying to knock guys off their feet. it's a good way to pass the time.
  12. yea if you just wanted a basic idea of the plot. but there's so many correlations and allusions to look at that help you understand the plot. i mean you could spend hours just looking at people's names and seeing how that plays into the plot. some of it is just funny (ernie prang is a bus driver; a prang is a car accident and ernie was JKR's grandfather) but some of it tells you something about the plot or the character's personality (minerva is the roman goddess of wisdom, hermione is a character in one of Shakespeare's plays who is temporarily turned to stone). its a lot to take in, and its a big reason i love the books so much; there's so much to do between books.
  13. well what else are they supposed to do, if they can't even grow potatoes? pulling a trigger's pretty simple.
  14. that was kind of the point referencing the honors system wasnt it? well anyway, rushing through them all now is really an unfortunate way to experience the series, there's so much to notice, you have to process the book before you read the next one
  15. oh probably only because she knew from the beginning that they would be harry and ron's dates for th yule ball. and comic relief, lavender and parvati are excellent comic relief (won-won, heh)

Copyright (c) 1999-2022 by SWRebellion Community - All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters. Star Wars(TM) is a registered trademark of LucasFilm, Ltd. We are not affiliated with LucasFilm or Walt Disney. This is a fan site and online gaming community (non-profit). Powered by Invision Community

×
×
  • Create New...