Dubbs (User)
Platinum Boarder
Posts: 9448
|
|
Re:LDS Church excommunicates calendar maker 5 Months, 2 Weeks ago
|
Karma: -512
|
Just Reading wrote:Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
JLD wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Uncle_Bud wrote:
[b * Contrary to the Bible prophecy concerning the Lordâs birth in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), and the fulfillment of that prophecy in Matthew 2:1, the Book of Mormon reads: âAnd behold, he (Jesus) shall be born of Mary at Jerusalemâ (Alma 7:10, parenthetical comment and emp. added). The writer of the Book of Mormon was simply wrong.
Another silly arguement by the anti's.
In Alma's time, 500 years after Nephi arrived in the New World, details of the geography of Israel were long forgotten. We should not be surprised to see that the land of Jerusalem is referred to as the place of Christ's birth - an entirely accurate and useful description, given the meaning of the phrase - rather than the nearby village of Bethlehem, a virtual suburb of the city of Jerusalem, roughly 5 miles away.
On this point, critics have long argued that the Book of Mormon is false because "everybody knows that Christ was born in Bethlehem." Certainly Joseph Smith knew that - he was familiar with much of the Bible and had heard the story of Christ's birth numerous times. If he were making the Book of Mormon up, why on earth would he make such a terrible blunder, placing Christ's birth in Jerusalem? How could he make such a thoughtless and stupid blunder in the midst of an otherwise enormously clever fraud? The "blunder" makes no sense if Joseph Smith were the author - but it is not a blunder at all and makes perfect sense if he were only translating an authentic ancient document. The use of the term "land of Jerusalem" in Alma 7:10 and many other locations can now be viewed as powerful evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, based on recent discoveries about the use of that term in the ancient world. Joseph Smith could not possibly have made that up.
Biblical cities, like those of the Book of Mormon, controlled nearby land. Hence, we read of "the king of Ai, and his people, and his city, and his land" (Joshua 8:1) and of the city of Hebron, its suburbs, fields and villages (1 Chronicles 6:55-56). In the Bible, cities are sometimes called by the term "land." Tappuah is called a "land" in Joshua 17:8, but a "city" in Joshua 16:8. Jeremiah prophesied that Jerusalem would become "a land not inhabited" (Jeremiah 6:8; cf. 15:5-7). The Mesha or Moabite stela of the ninth century B.C. provides contemporary archaeological evidence for the interchange of "city" and "land." The text, reporting the rebellion of Mesha, king of Moab, against Israel, lists a number of "lands" which are known from the Bible to be cities. Internal evidence also implies that they are cities, since Mesha noted that he had "built" these lands. The reason that lands were named after their principal cities was that some cities controlled other nearby sites. In the account of the assignment of lands to the tribes under Joshua, we frequently read of "cities with their villages" (Joshua 13:23, 28; 15:32, 36, 41, 44, 46-47, 51, 54, 57, 59-60, 62; 16:9; 18:24, 28; 19:6-8, 15-16, 22, 30-31, 38-39, 48; 21:12). Sometimes the word "daughters" was used in the Hebrew text to mean "villages," in the sense of satellites (Exodus 21:25, 32; 2 Chronicles 28:18; Nehemiah 11:25, 27, 30-31). In some cases, a known city is named and is said to have other cities, towns or villages under its dominion. Thus, we read of "Heshbon and all her cities" (Joshua 13:17), "Ekron, with her towns and her villages" (Joshua 15:45), "Megiddo and her towns" (Joshua 17:11), and "Ashdod, with her towns and her villages" (Joshua 15:47). Jeremiah 34:1 speaks of "Jerusalem and . . . all the cities thereof." The use of the name Jerusalem to denote both a city and a land is followed, in the Bible, by references to Samaria, the capital city of the northern kingdom of Israel. Old Testament scriptures frequently extend the term Samaria to include surrounding regions or "the cities of Samaria" under the political control of the state (1 Kings 13:32; 2 Kings 17:24, 26; 23:19).
Clay tablets written in the fourteenth century B.C. and found in 1887 at el-Amarna in Egypt use the term "land" for Canaanite sites known to have been ancient cities. For example, one text (EA 289)speaks of the "town of Rubutu," while another mentions the "land of Rubutu" (EA 290). The first of these also speaks of "land of Shechem," and "the land of the town of Gath-carmel" (both ancient cities) and says of Jerusalem, "this land belongs to the king." A third text mentions the lands of Gezer, Ashkelon, and Jerusalem (EA 287).
But there is evidence that, even in the Old World, Bethlehem was considered to be part of the "land of Jerusalem." One of the Amarna texts (EA 290) speaks of "a town in the land of Jerusalem" named Bît-Lahmi, which is the Canaanite equivalent of the Hebrew name rendered Beth-lehem in English Bibles.
We conclude that Lehi's descendants in the New World followed authentic Old World custom in denominating each land by the principal city in the land. This kind of detail lends evidence to the authenticity and antiquity of the Book of Mormon text.
John Tvedtnes
Interesting to know, thanks for that post.
what's even more interesting is that it is all conjecture, "LOL"
Boy some people are good they can make an excuse for anything "LOL"
Actually those are all facts from ancient writings, and the Bible, The Bible even uses the term "At Jeruselem" to refer to another city also.
Didn't know that did you bigdummy? Well of course you don't. Why would you, you were never a gospel scholar of any stretch of the imagination, you probally read the cartoon versions of the Bible stories, that's about it. 
"LOL" NO Dubbs the key word is "AT" look it up, it means near or about stupid "LOL"
I find it funny you didn't know that,
I use to tell that to all the new missionaries when they would come over as a test...I was a stake missionary then
but it is still just an excuse..!!! "LOL"
 First you say "AT" means near or about,(surprisingly you are correct) but then say the usage of it in the Book of Mormon is an excuse?
Your about as dumb as they come bro, seriously.
I guess the Bible is also wrong, because it uses the same "at" to describe and area also, so is that also an excuse? shakes head at the idiotic logic of big
No Dubbs it all depends on in what contexts you use the word at,
what Joseph wrote could be either way,
and in the end the you are just using it as an excuse....
you see the historical facts show that Joseph Smith was a con man a liar and a thief,
so there is more leaning towards that he just made a mistake, that can have a good excuse 
How could it be a mistake if the same phrasing is used to describe city's in the Bible in the same fashion? Are they also a mistake?
Think dumby think.
were not talking about the bible Dubbs,
were talking about how the liar and con-man Joseph Smith used the word "at"....
Listen dumby, your simply not bright enough to argue this stuff, just stop.
Fact is, if the Bible and the Book of Mormon use Old World terminology in a similar fashion, to me that shows uniformity and shows Joseph didn't make it up, but Nephi was using language that was common in those days.
Funny thing you also won't get bigdummy, the church has changed 4000 spelling errors in the BofM, and a few other errors, you don't think they would have noticed this one and changed it if it was wrong? Fact is, it is lingistically accurate for the time, and they knew it. It points to Joseph translating, and makes it more authentic.
"LOL" now Dubbs admits the book of mormon had spelling errors, Dubbs not all of those 4000 errors were just spelling errors, what about the other errors Dubbs??
when are you goin to admit them???
Remember this Dubbs:
In 1841, Joseph Smith declared the Book of Mormon to be "the most correct of any book on earth,
and the keystone of our religion," and suggested that "a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book" (History of the Church, 4:461).
This certainly is an astounding claim.
Surely, a book that is the "most correct" on Earth would contain no mistakes
but as you just admitted this is not the case.
If the Book of Mormon was translated by the "power of God," it is reasonable to assume that it would be completely free from error.
but the original edition is filled with many
mistakes.
and again acording to the LDS Church history Joseph Smith could not have made any mistakes in the book of mormon:
Martin Harris, another of the three witnesses, wrote:
"The translation was just as it was engraven on
the plates precisely in the language then used" (The Myth of Manuscript Found, p. 71,).
He went on to state:
"The translation of the characters appeared on the Urim and Thummim, sentence by sentence, and as soon as one was correctly translated the next appeared" (p. 91,).
Joseph F.Smith, sixth president of the Mormon church, said:
"Some persons have thought that the Lord revealed to Joseph the ideas, and that Joseph conveyed those ideas into the English language. But this is not so.
The Lord gave not only the ideas but the language itself-the very words" (The Territorial Inquirer, March 2, 1881,).
Again, he explained:
Joseph did not render the writing on the gold plates into the English language in his own style of language as many people believe,
but every word and letter was given to him by the gift and power of God....
The Lord caused each word spelled as it is in the book to appear on the stones in short sentences
or words, and when Joseph had uttered the sentence or word before him and the scribe had written it properly, that sentence would disappear and another would appear. And if there was as a word wrongly written or even a letter incorrect, the writing on the stoned would remain there (Journal of Oliver Huntington,
Utah State Historical Society, p. 168,).
Now this is just too funny Dubbs that you would admit that there are mistakes in the book of mormon
I like you you lose one argument, have nothing else to say, so you move on to another topic, throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks.
Which argument did I lose????
Fact is, the Bible has more than 156,000 errors in it, it is still the word of God, (when translated correctly) When men are involved, mistakes happen, espeically when a guy with a 6th grade education is involved. Small and simple things will great things be accomplished. And it was. A miracle really.
errors?? "LOL"
Dubbs that's only to be expected in a set of texts written and collected over several thousand years.
In any other collection, errors and contradictions would be unremarkable.
Dubbs the Bible was written by approximately 40 different authors over a period of around 1500 years. Each writer wrote from a different perspective, to a different audience, for a different purpose in different languages.
But Dubbs you don't seem to grasp what the changes were in the Bible, almost all of the changes are spelling changes, punctuation changes, Changes in type face etc.
You see Dubbs, the Bible you buy off the shelf today is printed in the ROMAN TYPE FACE! The Bible of 1611 was printed in the GOTHIC TYPE FACE! There you have it, Dubbs. Changes in TYPE FACE there are a lot of your 150,000 "changes" also Dubbs in the bible of 1611 there are over 300 words that no longer mean what they did in 1611, more changes
here is the main thing Dubbs, that you don't mention, none of changes in the Bible affects any major doctrine what so ever...!!!
What you don't get is there are still many errors in the bible, I have posted them in the past, a partial list, so for you to say it's only changes from Roman to Gothic shows your paralegal eduction.
"LOL" what you don't get Dubbs is that the errors in the bible change none of the doctrine in it and that the changes are mostly type face changes and spelling and punctuation errors "LOL"
Dubbs what is paralegal eduction ???
How did I educe paralegal??
"OH WAIT" you ment Paralegal Education
boy that is some real good spelling Dubbs
Also Dubbs it is from Gothic to Roman type face not Roman to Gothic like you wrote "LOL" this and your spelling sure shows your education Dubbs... You don't even know the doctrine to begin with, how do you know it didn't change it? It caused people to interpret things two different ways, which cause so many doctrinal changes that you don't even get big, Stop trying to be a bible scholar big, you come across as ignorant on religious matters to begin with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
Dubbs (User)
Platinum Boarder
Posts: 9448
|
|
Re:LDS Church excommunicates calendar maker 5 Months, 2 Weeks ago
|
Karma: -512
|
Jaye wrote:Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Betzz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Betzz wrote:
[b
And please, if you want to have a discussion with me, don't bring your opinion of the beliefs of Jaye and Sir John into it . . . it's annoying and only goes to prove you can't make an argument without pointing fingers at people because you think your faith is superior to theirs.
You were the one that jumped into apostateJ's question.
Okay, then please justify why you brought Jaye into it? Because you enjoy the whole idea of "tattling"? Are you ever going to grow up?
Because Jaye was agreeing with the "misinterpretation" that ApostateJ mentioned that rich people can't go to heaven.
You have GROSSLY misinterpreted and mischaracterized what I said.
I never said rich people can't go to heaven. I pointed out that according to the words of Jesus in the New Testament...it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Now...think about it for a moment...have you EVER seen a camel pass through the eye of a needle?
So Jaye, again, are there any exceptions or is this a hard fast rule that Jesus was teaching that NO Rich people can go to heaven?
Because when I asked this question last time you said..."That's what Jesus said"
It IS what Jesus said...according to Matthew, Mark, AND Luke.
What do you want me to say here Dubss? That Jesus DIDN'T say this?
When Jesus sat with His disciples in the courtyard of the Temple, they witnessed the Jews standing in line to cast their tithes into the Temple coffer.
They witnessed the wealthy, and the great, and the powerful casting small pouches containing gold or silver, or casting in rich jewels.
Then they witnessed a poor widow as she cast in two small coins.
And Jesus said, 'I say unto you, that this woman has given most of all...because she gave EVERYTHING she had...while these others only gave a small portion of their wealth.'
You claim to be a wealthy man Dubss. Do you content yourself with paying your 10% tithing, and call it good?
Or do you devote as much of your wealth as you can (without breaking your bank account and beggering your family) to alleviating the physical needs of the poor who are all around us?
If a rich man were to do everything in his power throughout his life, to assist, and to provide for the basic physical needs of those less fortunate brothers and sisters who we see every day on street corners...I would say that God would look into his heart, and his soul, and count him among the sheep.
It is a matter of obedience to God's will. It is a matter of whether a rich individual is only drawing close to the Lord with his mouth, while his heart is far, far away.
What did James say?
'If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well.
But if ye have respect to persona, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
SO SPEAK YE, AND SO DO, AS THY THAT SHALL BE JUEDGED BY THE LAW OF LIBERTY.
FOR HE SHALL HAVE JUDGMENT WITHOUT MERCY FOR THEM WHICH HAVE SHOWN NO MERCY; AND MERCY REJOICETH AGAINST JUDGMENT.
WHAT DOTH IT PROFIT, MY BRETHREN, THOU A MAN SAY HE HATH FAITH, AND HAVE NOT WORKS? CAN FAITH SAVE HIM?
IF A BROTHER OR SISTER BE NAKED, AND DESTITUTE OF DAILY FOOD, AND ONE OF YOU SAY UNTO THEM, DEPART IN PEACE, BE YE WARMED AND FILLED; NOTWITHSTANDING YE HAVE NOT GIVEN THEM THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE NEEDFUL TO THE BODY; WHAT DOTH IT PROFIT?'
So long as there are people among us who don't have enough to eat, who are homeless, living on the streets, or under bridges, who wear filthy and tattered clothing...it is evident that we as Christians are failing in truly striving to obey Christ's commandment to provide for the physical needs...and not only the spiritual needs of our brothers and sisters.
Wren (surprisingly) explained well the explanation of that verse, it is NOT a hard fast rule that NEVER can a rich man go to heaven.
Or is that what you really believe?
You have GROSSLY misinterpreted and mischaracterized what I said.
I never said rich people can't go to heaven. I pointed out that according to the words of Jesus in the New Testament...it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
I asked you earlier if it was a hard fast rule, you said...
"That's what Jesus said"
Now your back peddeling. typical jaye.
Not back peddling at all Kent.
And what I said was the truth. It WAS EXACTLY what Jesus said.
His disciples, amazed asked...'Who then can be saved?
And Jesus said, 'With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible'.
And Peter asked...'Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore'?
And Jesus said...'Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.'
A rich man has his reward already in this mortal life. He has his palatial home(s), all the finest furnishings, his expensive automobiles, his boat, his R.V.'s, his A.T.V.'s, his expensive silk suits, his membership in exclusive Country Clubs, etc.etc.
But if he wishes further reward in his eternal life...it depends largely upon whether he has utilized his wealth to the best of it's advantage and his efforts to alleviate the needs of God's children on earth.
With God...all things are possible.
And even a rich man could find himself numbered with the sheep.
This is a back pedal, because when I asked you if it was a hard fast rule, you said that's what Jesus said, now your saying it depends on how he handled his wealth, which is what I have been saying for days, at least you came around and understood the concept.
1. I have not back-pedaled.
2. Jesus DID say it.
3. I have never said that it is impossible for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.
I have only quoted what Jesus had to say about it...and what He said was that 'it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.'I asked, "are there no exceptions? Is it a hard fast rule a rich man can never go to heaven?" You said... that's what Jesus said. Back pedal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
Dubbs (User)
Platinum Boarder
Posts: 9448
|
|
Re:LDS Church excommunicates calendar maker 5 Months, 2 Weeks ago
|
Karma: -512
|
Jaye wrote:Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Kent...you have not yet addressed the FACT that the phrase...'getting into bed with' is usually a derogatory phrase.
'Getting into bed with the mob'...'getting into bed with the Syndicate'...'getting into bed with terrorists'...or in a political meaning...'getting into bed with special interest groups'.
It is NOT a complimentary terminology.
So if your say to your kids, time for Bed, go get in bed kids, it's derogatory?
Always? No excpetions?
you are delusional.
You are splitting hairs and arguing semantics.
This has nothing to do with the semantics or meanings of the phrase you used.
Silly illogical logic.
Interesting remark.
But that's an oxymoron. The words cancel each other out.
But that is par for the course...because you are an ox...AND a moron.Ahh, from the guy who likes to lecture about being Christlike, that's nice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
Dubbs (User)
Platinum Boarder
Posts: 9448
|
|
Re:LDS Church excommunicates calendar maker 5 Months, 2 Weeks ago
|
Karma: -512
|
Just Reading wrote:Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Betzz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Betzz wrote:
[b
And please, if you want to have a discussion with me, don't bring your opinion of the beliefs of Jaye and Sir John into it . . . it's annoying and only goes to prove you can't make an argument without pointing fingers at people because you think your faith is superior to theirs.
You were the one that jumped into apostateJ's question.
Okay, then please justify why you brought Jaye into it? Because you enjoy the whole idea of "tattling"? Are you ever going to grow up?
Because Jaye was agreeing with the "misinterpretation" that ApostateJ mentioned that rich people can't go to heaven.
You have GROSSLY misinterpreted and mischaracterized what I said.
I never said rich people can't go to heaven. I pointed out that according to the words of Jesus in the New Testament...it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Now...think about it for a moment...have you EVER seen a camel pass through the eye of a needle?
So Jaye, again, are there any exceptions or is this a hard fast rule that Jesus was teaching that NO Rich people can go to heaven?
Because when I asked this question last time you said..."That's what Jesus said"
It IS what Jesus said...according to Matthew, Mark, AND Luke.
What do you want me to say here Dubss? That Jesus DIDN'T say this?
When Jesus sat with His disciples in the courtyard of the Temple, they witnessed the Jews standing in line to cast their tithes into the Temple coffer.
They witnessed the wealthy, and the great, and the powerful casting small pouches containing gold or silver, or casting in rich jewels.
Then they witnessed a poor widow as she cast in two small coins.
And Jesus said, 'I say unto you, that this woman has given most of all...because she gave EVERYTHING she had...while these others only gave a small portion of their wealth.'
You claim to be a wealthy man Dubss. Do you content yourself with paying your 10% tithing, and call it good?
Or do you devote as much of your wealth as you can (without breaking your bank account and beggering your family) to alleviating the physical needs of the poor who are all around us?
If a rich man were to do everything in his power throughout his life, to assist, and to provide for the basic physical needs of those less fortunate brothers and sisters who we see every day on street corners...I would say that God would look into his heart, and his soul, and count him among the sheep.
It is a matter of obedience to God's will. It is a matter of whether a rich individual is only drawing close to the Lord with his mouth, while his heart is far, far away.
What did James say?
'If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well.
But if ye have respect to persona, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
SO SPEAK YE, AND SO DO, AS THY THAT SHALL BE JUEDGED BY THE LAW OF LIBERTY.
FOR HE SHALL HAVE JUDGMENT WITHOUT MERCY FOR THEM WHICH HAVE SHOWN NO MERCY; AND MERCY REJOICETH AGAINST JUDGMENT.
WHAT DOTH IT PROFIT, MY BRETHREN, THOU A MAN SAY HE HATH FAITH, AND HAVE NOT WORKS? CAN FAITH SAVE HIM?
IF A BROTHER OR SISTER BE NAKED, AND DESTITUTE OF DAILY FOOD, AND ONE OF YOU SAY UNTO THEM, DEPART IN PEACE, BE YE WARMED AND FILLED; NOTWITHSTANDING YE HAVE NOT GIVEN THEM THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE NEEDFUL TO THE BODY; WHAT DOTH IT PROFIT?'
So long as there are people among us who don't have enough to eat, who are homeless, living on the streets, or under bridges, who wear filthy and tattered clothing...it is evident that we as Christians are failing in truly striving to obey Christ's commandment to provide for the physical needs...and not only the spiritual needs of our brothers and sisters.
Wren (surprisingly) explained well the explanation of that verse, it is NOT a hard fast rule that NEVER can a rich man go to heaven.
Or is that what you really believe?
You have GROSSLY misinterpreted and mischaracterized what I said.
I never said rich people can't go to heaven. I pointed out that according to the words of Jesus in the New Testament...it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
I asked you earlier if it was a hard fast rule, you said...
"That's what Jesus said"
Now your back peddeling. typical jaye.
Not back peddling at all Kent.
And what I said was the truth. It WAS EXACTLY what Jesus said.
His disciples, amazed asked...'Who then can be saved?
And Jesus said, 'With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible'.
And Peter asked...'Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore'?
And Jesus said...'Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.'
A rich man has his reward already in this mortal life. He has his palatial home(s), all the finest furnishings, his expensive automobiles, his boat, his R.V.'s, his A.T.V.'s, his expensive silk suits, his membership in exclusive Country Clubs, etc.etc.
But if he wishes further reward in his eternal life...it depends largely upon whether he has utilized his wealth to the best of it's advantage and his efforts to alleviate the needs of God's children on earth.
With God...all things are possible.
And even a rich man could find himself numbered with the sheep.
This is a back pedal, because when I asked you if it was a hard fast rule, you said that's what Jesus said, now your saying it depends on how he handled his wealth, which is what I have been saying for days, at least you came around and understood the concept.
1. I have not back-pedaled.
2. Jesus DID say it.
3. I have never said that it is impossible for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.
I have only quoted what Jesus had to say about it...and what He said was that 'it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.'
LOOK IT UP DUBBS:
ST MARK 10:25
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.Try to follow big, we've already discussed this verse, the question is, is there any exceptions? Or is it impossible for a rich man to go to heaven?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
Dubbs (User)
Platinum Boarder
Posts: 9448
|
|
Re:LDS Church excommunicates calendar maker 5 Months, 2 Weeks ago
|
Karma: -512
|
Jaye wrote:Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
[
Jeffrey Dahmer served his time at the Columbia Correctional Institution in Portage, Wisconsin, where he ultimately declared himself a born-again Christian. This conversion occurred after viewing evangelical material sent to him by his father. A local preacher, Roy Ratcliff, met with Dahmer and agreed to baptize him.
A point to remember...simply declaring oneself to be a born again Christian, and fulfilling the ritual ordinance of baptism does not a Christian make.
.
Well according to Wren and his cronies, Dahmer is a saved man then. Hey Wren, you'll be in Heaven with the likes of Jeffrey Dahmer 
I do not believe that Wren would consider Jeffrey Dahmer to be a saved man.Then he'd be judging unrightously. Because according to his beliefs, if a man accepts Jesus, then he is saved, no matter what he does from then on out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
Dubbs (User)
Platinum Boarder
Posts: 9448
| |
