 | | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) An extreme example of this would be walking into a government building and seeing a swastika mounted on the wall. Now, I don't know about you, but I would very quickly get the impression that which ever government agency was housed in said (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) No, they would be favouring Judeism, as the 10 Commandments were given to Moses, who at the time was leading the Israelites out of Egypt. They were Jews. Christianity is based on Judeism with one fundamental difference - we believe that Jesus (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) My bad ^^; Though, technically, aren't the 10C included in the Old Testiment? I can't remember for certain. (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) Yes they are, in the book of Exodus is where we see them first. The Jewish Bible is basically the Old Testament only, whereas the Christian Bible has both the Old and New Testament. A freind of mine recounts an interesting story. He went to a (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) Aren't the New Testament and Old Testament versions of the Ten Comandments slightly different? (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) I seem to remember that Isaiah is one of the major source of messianic prophecy. Sounds like the friend was carefully trying to provoke the father of the groom. Steve (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) Actually the ten commandments are strictly a part of judaism. The are reiterated in the New Testament as moral principles and are summed in Jesus' statement that all the Law and the Prophets are summed up in two: love the Lord and love your (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) make (...) selected (...) he (...) Not so much provoke the man, but do what Christians (and Jesus Himself) have been trying to do for the last 2000 odd years - show that Jesus is the Saviour they've been waiting for, and demonstrate this (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) Why do you feel that way? I am of the understanding that in the New Testament, the law of the Sabbath was never revoked. Christ challenged many laws concerning activity on the Sabbath, but as far as I can determine, Christ never denounced (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) worship (...) sabbath (...) was (...) Sabbath, (...) In the New Testament, all of the commandments are repeated, not as commandments but as exhortations to fufill the law of love, (because we are saved by grace not by our deeds) all are (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) According to KJV Galatians Ch. 3, in particular verses 18 and 21, the promise given to Abraham for fulfilling those laws is still valid, even after some were made redundant by Christ's ministry. Granted, the speaker gives a fair amount of (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) commandments (...) grace (...) book (...) That's not at all what those verses say. Gal 3:18 is as follows: For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise; but God gave it to Abraham BY PROMISE. Abraham had nothing to do with (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) I wouldn't say "some" disagreement. :) Ben Roller (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) Isn't there some disagreement over this between the various christian sects? Kevin (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) Most definitely, tons of it. Usually comes from having preconceived ideas or from a lack of drawing conclusions until processing all of the facts. The bible must be viewed as a whole to try to get the overall picture. Too many christians make (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) I thought that it said that we were saved by Jesus. :D Ben Roller (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) I think he had a sister named Faith. {:^D Bill? (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) I didn't know Mr. and Mrs. OfNazareth(aka Mary and Joseph) had other kids. Seriously though, does anyone know where it tells about His brothers and/or sisters? I've always heard He had brothers but never read it anywhere. Also, where did the (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) Yes. His siblings James, Joses, Simon, and Judas are mentioned in Matthew 13:55; this crew plus their sisters are mentioned in Mark 6:3; and brother James is mentioned again in Galations 1:19, and probably wrote the Epistle of James as well as (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) Matt. 12:46-50 Matt. 13:55 Mark 6:3 Matthew 1:25 says Joseph "knew her not" until after Jesus was born. So much for perpetual virginity. The "H" stands for holy. Bill (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
I shouldn't talk for Bill, but I think I know what he means... Law v Grace You are saved by grace according to the New Testament. But you show your love of God by following his commandments (i.e. starting with all the Mosaic laws and up to and (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) The mosaic law was still in force until His resurrection. (...) Fulfilled in the sense that he retired them. He fulfilled them because they were given to show sin and the need of an innocent sacrifice. Since animals could not propitiate a Holy (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) [big snip] Bill, I'm afraid that we'll simply have to agree to disagree. After reading all of them, I can't see how any of the references you pointed me to support your side -- or even fail to support mine. And as for entering a civil (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) That's fine, I was just presenting an alternative view point. (...) That's the point of wide generalizations - they're "generally" correct. I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't think I've been rude or uncivil at all. I also haven't claimed (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) No, no, no, no. The "H" stands for "Howard". Reference the Lord's Prayer: "Our Father, who art in heaven, Howard be thy name." (-; John (...) (24 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
