Jenda

The Q is what many scholars claim the book of Mark is, and many scholars believe that Matthew and Luke were derived from this manuscript as well, just modified to meet the needs of the specific audience they were sent to. One was meant for the Jews (Matthew), one was meant for the Romans and one was meant for the Greeks (don't know which is which).

I am bad. I meant to put into my post that we are not saved by works. We are saved by grace. We are judged by works. This clarifies my belief. This all becomes clearer with my clarification. We are judged by our works. It does indeed determine where we will end up eternally. That is exactly what Matthew 16 states. BUT HE DIDN'T! Do you think the Armed Forces are ever going to give out a Medal of Honor to somebody for what they MIGHT do in the future? Is there any biblical basis for believing God gives out prizes for potential good works? Again, a man-made theology. You're kidding, right? I mean, when one has an experience with God, they are forgiven and told "Go and sin no more". It is what happens after that that determines whether that experience is a life-changing experience or not, not what has happened previously to it. Once you are forgiven, you are forgiven. God doesn't continue to bring it back up. "Go and sin no more" means from this point on. No disrespect, but everybody says that. My evidence never comes from what a person says, but what others say about them. I've found that asking somebody's spouse is the real indicator of where they are. There is nothing easier than self deception. If I ever want to know where I'm truly at, I ask my wife because she sees me from a point of view that I am uncapable of. No disrespect to your no disrespect, but I know the sins I have. I am capable of understanding just where I need to improve. I can tell when I am far from God and when I am close to Him. Sure, go ask my husband. He will tell you all of my petty idiosyncrasies, but he can't judge what is in my heart. Remember, Christ wasn't a prophet in his home town, either. Irue, I just wanted to show that it is a poor indicator that somebody actually did. That is correct. Faith and works are tied together a lot. However they are NEVER tied together in terms of eternal destiny being affected by our works. I don't understand why but religious people seem to always value performance and works ahead of what is in their heart. I always look at motives, not the works themselves. There is no closeness between man and God if man must earn every bit of love himself. The more man must do means the less that God must do. If you want a religion that is based around man's righteousness rather than God's goodness, then works-salvation might be for you. If one looked at it as something you need to do to earn a place in heaven, then they will never get to heaven because the motivation is wrong. They should do it because it pleases God and helps his fellow man. The main thing that one can do to to try to earn a place in heaven is the one thing that will keep them from heaven. You can't work your way into heaven, but you can't get into heaven without your works.

I once lived under the notion that behavior dictated where you were spending eternity. I found that I had absolutely no biblical basis for believing that. That is one of the things that man made up somewhere. It is a man-made theology. I did find a few interesting examples that contradicted my whole train of thought: 1- The thief on the cross. He was sorry for what he did, that is evident by his remorse. But he did not live life deserving of anything good. I know some people on this board wold like to think he was a good man. He was on a cross, sentenced to death. The ones who were put on crosses were considered enemies of Rome who had been convicted in a court of law. Jesus called him a thief for a reason. 2- The story of the lost son. There were 2 sons. One acted right and the other did not. One was a faithful son and the other was a rebel who threw his inheritance away. At the end of this story we see that the father had equal love for his children. Some people think that because his father promised him everything he had, that means he was rewarded for his service. The older brother received all his father had because that was his birth right, not because he earned it or acted righteous enough to receive it. The way that culture worked is if there were 2 brothers, the younger would get 1/3 and the older would get 2/3. The moment the younger son received his 1/3 basic math will tell you that 3/3 minum 1/3 = 2/3 (exactly how much his birthright claimed for him). Both of these sons received what they were destined to have, rgeardless of their actions. I hate to argue the point, but the scriptures are full of "works" being required. Matthew 7:13-20 13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. 15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. James 2:14-17 14 What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be [ye] warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what [doth it] profit? 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Your first example is not a good example in this situation because the thief on the cross died minutes after accepting Jesus as his Savior. It is not what happens before one accepts Him, it is what one does after they accept Him. Had the thief on the cross had a chance to live, it is what his actions would be then that would determine if he had truly accepted Christ. I see this all the time, I even went through it a few times. It is nothing more than an emotional experience. Why do I say that? Because I see the changes that people do go through. There is a pocket of people at my church who go to conferences on a semi-regular basis. They come back like whole new people because of what they've experienced. But that only lasts for a period of time, usually around 2 weeks. When people first find Jesus their responses are usually the same, tremendous joy and they can't help but tell other people. This is far from what most people end up like. Unless you experience that same joy and eagerness to tell everybody you see about Jesus all the time, then it is nothing more than an emotional response dictated by your mind, will, and emotions. Well, if their life were truly changed, it would be a permanent thing. It has been 25+ years since my first experience, and every day I walk with God and He ministers to me. If is is an emotional response then it is natural that it dies, but that doesn't mean that they have really accepted Christ. True, I can't make that judgment, but given all the scriptures that tie faith and works, it just seems natural.

I have read an article dealing with women in the early church, and this is part of what it stated about this point. "The latter two women (referring to Priscilla and Junia (who was even argued in early days about whether a man or woman)) were called in the Greek scripture "diakonos". This same word was used in reference to the widows mentioned in Timothy. Clement of Alexandria used the word "syndiakonous" when referring to the apostles' sisters. Diakonos literally means "servant" and could be translated "deaconess". Those advocating that the early church ordained women point to the use of this word in the original texts as evidence that women held a specific priesthood office. While such a conclusion seems on the surface to be reasonable, other evidence refutes it. This is because the word "diakonos" in used in scriptural passages which have no reference to women. Paul uses the word in reference to himself and his works (Rom 11:13; 1 Cor 3:5; 2 Cor 3:4; 2 Cor 6:3). He lists it as a manifestation of the Spirit placed between the gift of prophecy and the gift of teaching (Rom 12:7), which the King James translates as "ministry". The word is also used to describe the work of Stephanas and his household, they having "devoted themselves to the service of the saints" (eis diakomian tois hagiois etaxan heautous) (I Cor 16:15). Such a varied use implies that the word, instead of defining a specific office or calling for women, had a broad application. Today we use the word "minister" in such a broad way. While we say a priesthood member ministers in ways peculiar to his office, we also describe the service lay members give by using the word "minister". We speak of the ministry of music, the ministry of social service, and the ministry of physical care, all of which can be and are performed by the unordained. The fact that Paul uses the word "diakonos" in such diverse ways implies that he did not intend it to describe a priesthood office. As a result, some scholars have concluded that the most reasonable way to translate "diakonos" is to render it "minister". This means that the use of the word "diakonos" in the original text is no evidence that women were ordained to priestly offices. Supporters of the belief that women were ordained in the days of the apostles also point to the text (Rom 16:7) which mentions that Junia was noted among the apostles. They conclude that Junia, who perhaps was a woman, held the apostolic office. This seems a reasonable assumption, too. Equally reasonable, however, is the assertion that Junia was a noteworthy sister of the apostles, who traveled with them in order to provide them ministry, and who helped spread the gospel among widows and housewives."

Lindy, I have never heard this song before, but the words are right on. B)

Sorry, I disagree completely!!!I have been born-again (to use the phrase), and my life changed 180 degrees INSTANTLY. There is no way someone can have an experience like that and not be changed. If you are referring to someone just making the statement that they have accepted Christ, it must be based in truth or it isn't true. Get it? If it isn't based on fact, it is just something to say. If it is based on truth, then they will produce fruits worthy of being called Christian. Sorry, I don't go with the 'once-saved-always-saved' routine where you can say you have accepted Christ and then just turn around and do whatever you want.

I think I'd better brush up on my Book of Mormon reading. Where does it talk about Lehi being a scribe? In I Nephi 1:1,2 it states 1 I, NEPHI, having been aborn of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days. 2 Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians. And in Chapter 3 and 4 it gives the story of Laban, who is Nephi's cousin, who is the keeper of the plates. It can be inferred from that that he was also the writer of the plates (or else, why would he have them?). During the OT times, the only people who learned to write were scribes, and it was usually a family profession. So, if Laban was a scribe, and Nephi was a scribe, it stands to reason that Lehi was a scribe. I read a paper on this subject once, I would have to find it again so I can give a better reference.

In the OT times, there were people whose job it was to write down these things. They were called scribes. That is what Nephi's family were. The BoM makes it plain. I don't know if any of Jesus followers were scribes. If not, that would explain why his writings were never recorded. Maybe he chose on purpose not to have scribes, that way, everything must be taken on faith, which is what God wants. IMO.

Snow, Paul's letters are the closest thing to Christ that we have. They are believed to have come within 10-20 years of His death. The gospels come later, closer to 70AD. I agree with srm. It was the priesthood and ordinances that were restored. Along with a restoration of the truth of the gospel. All those things that were lost within the first 500 years of the Christian Church.

Snow, I am so glad that you substituted those "facts", because if you didn't, I would have seriously questioned the validity of the article, or the intelligence of everyone living in Utah. Those IQ numbers were seriously low. I was thinking how glad I am that I don't live in Utah if those were the actual numbers. B) (Some of us non-LDS, non-Utah natives have much higher IQ's.)

I didn't realize that it is the moderator's job to keep the threads on-topic. If we even attempted to do that, everyone and their brother would be complaining about us instead of the usual 2 or 3. Give us a break!

Why always take a smart-alecky approach, Cal? Drugs might make you feel that way for a while, but they are man-induced feelings, they go away, and in order to get the feeling back you have to go get another fix. And after a while, it gets to be addicting. And expensive. And to pay for it, you have to start stealing and maybe even hurting people to get the money you need for your next fix. Which of those fruits are good? Cal, think about what I wrote. You stated that you can't rely on feelings. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID, TOO! I said that instead of relying on feelings, look at the fruits the feelings bring on. In a God-inspired experience, the fruits are good fruits. Love, justice, peace, doing good to/for others, etc. In the alternate experience YOU chose to compare it with, the fruits of the experience were not good. Addiction, stealing, assaulting, etc. I think that you assume a lot of things about most of us that post here. For example, I am pretty conversant regarding church history. I do not assume that the white-washed version is necessarily accurate. I read all accounts, and I study and pray about them. I accept many things that have been revealed. I don't wear blinders. However, where people try to tie things together with a lot of ifs and maybes, I don't accept them. I feel that some people are vindictive, and would try to pull a conspiracy out of thin air if they thought it would convict someone for something. Yes, I do believe in having faith, and faith leads to knowledge. But if you are talking of knowledge as the world gives, I don't really need it. Faith is much more fulfilling to me. But thanks for your concern and interest.

Tao is right. And not just maggots, but leeches, too. I remember a time when I was working at the hospital when a girl came in who had amputated her finger climbing over a fence. They brought the finger in and reattached it, and every 6 or 8 hours, or so, the doctors came in and attached leeches to it to drain the excess blood out that got pumped in but had no way to get out because the blood vessels and lymph systems in the finger hadn't started working yet. Without bleeding it, the finger would have died. Yes, God did know what he was doing when he created certain creatures in his creation.

Why always take a smart-alecky approach, Cal?Drugs might make you feel that way for a while, but they are man-induced feelings, they go away, and in order to get the feeling back you have to go get another fix. And after a while, it gets to be addicting. And expensive. And to pay for it, you have to start stealing and maybe even hurting people to get the money you need for your next fix. Which of those fruits are good?

DisRuptive1, they didn't break his legs. They thrust the spear in his side instead. They did break the legs of the other two.

How does one know if they are being humble and sincere? They are willing to ask with an open heart and an open mind. (I think the open mind thing is harder to attain.) They aren't afraid to admit they made a mistake when presented with the truth God reveals to them. They are willing to put aside their own carnal lusts to embrace the mission the Lord gives. They understand that the Lord's will is more important than their own. For starters.

Porter, It's not really in "final-form". It's a lesson, not a talk, but if you have an email option to your user profile, I can send you some stuff tonight or tomorrow. I'll maybe post some stuff on the board if I think it would interest anyone. Yes, posting would be nice.

My take on this, not being LDS, is that God respects the intent of our heart. IF that person had been alive during a period of time that the church was not in apostacy and would have accepted it, then God blesses that person accordingly. This goes hand in hand with the vision JS had regarding seeing his brother in the Celestial Kingdom.In Section 76, it states there is a period of time between the resurrection of the just and the final judgment where, I believe, those people who would have accepted the fulness of the gospel in life, or did accept it in the prisonhouse, will be able to receive baptism by those holding authority, thus fulfilling the requirements to enter the Celestial Kingdom. That is my non-LDS opinion.

Snow, can you come to my church and talk? :)

Snow, I would really like to hear how it went. Could you tell us?

But it is still not good manners to label unfavorably...hmmm? ............... I'm saying that I don't like it that they're preachy and annoying. ...and you're saying that you don't like that that I take notice of it. Guess we both state what we don't like in others. And I am saying that I don't like the fact that some have chosen base, worldly values, and conciously refute LDS beliefs because it calls to attention the inappropriate(or lack there-of)values of said persons lifestyle. And that I am considered to be self-righteous because I want to be the best person I can possibly be. My intent and your perception are two very different things. I don't look down on others for choosing to indulge in their carnal lusts, but I do not agree with them, nor do I take exception to them. I refuse to worship the Lord with respect of persons. And I am perfectly capable of humbling myself and shrugging those immoral things which weigh me down. I guess what it "appears" like, Porter, is that you are superhuman. You can do anything, you know everything, but you don't seem to be operating like someone who knows that all things are only possible through Christ. You come across as someone who relies on his own understanding and don't give God any of the credit or glory. Aside from that one glaring fault, you seem to have it all under control.

I had never heard the part about him rising from the dead on April 6, but since it falls at the correct time of year (in some years), it is entirely possible. But I have heard that He was born on April 6.

You are really full of yourself. You're a young pup though, so there's still hope. :) You know, that is how I kind of viewed myself 20 years ago and now I'm kind of sad that that person died somewhere along the way. She has been reborn, thank goodness, but I would have liked to have held onto those characteristics instead of following the ways of the world. Way to go, Porter. (But tone it down a notch or two. )

Porter, I agree with your assessment of faith. IMO, that is exactly why we are here. To answer your question, I would like to think that I am one who would take Jesus to be the Savior because of the impress of the Spirit, but that, in itself, is a miracle (of sorts). I have had that kind of miracle in my life, and because of it, I no longer believe, I know. Until then, I was like Tao, believing in something because of the good things it stands for but not having a testimony of it. But, I would like to think that I would accept Jesus as the Christ if I was in that position.

Trident, the topic is about faith, not historicity. Everyone who accepts a religious dogma does so on faith. Precisely because the things that define the code of beliefs are unprovable. That is what dogma means. Unprovable.