SilentOne Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 6 hours ago, brotherofJared said: Assuming "it" and "[my] position" are the same thing, I'd say that flabbergasted is a pretty good definition of upset. Quote Definition of flabbergast transitive verb: to overwhelm with shock, surprise, or wonder : dumbfound We were flabbergasted by the news that he had won the lottery. flabbergast [flab-er-gast] verb (used with object) 1. to overcome with surprise and bewilderment; astound. Other dictionaries say about the same. Flabbergasted means very surprised. Not upset. Quote upset verb (used with object), upset, upsetting. 2. to disturb mentally or emotionally; perturb: The incident upset her. 3. to disturb or derange completely; put out of order; throw into disorder: adjective 15.distressed; disturbed: She had an upset stomach. He is emotionally upset. Vort 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brotherofJared Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 On 6/26/2017 at 10:12 AM, anatess2 said: " Author: The Gospel of John is an intimate testimony of Jesus Christ written by one of His most trusted and beloved servants and disciples. John, like Matthew, was one of the Lord’s original Twelve Apostles and so was a special witness to the acts and teachings in his Gospel. John and James were sons of Zebedee and, like Simon Peter, were fishermen who left all when Jesus called them " Yes. Perhaps. But down around 1:19 we find a reference to another author who was not the apostle, but instead, John the Baptist. While the opening lines state that the "Word was God", later the author makes specific reference to beholding the glory of the only begotten of the Father and then very shortly after, No man has seen God at any time and then in the same sentence references the Son of God. In secular and theological studies, no one has been able to specifically identify the author. It is quite possible that the reason for this is that it had many authors or was a compilation by someone else piecing many references together. The individual who did it had a specific message he wanted to convey The early Christians didn't have this compiled document. That beginning piece doesn't fit any of the apostles' writings. It certainly wasn't known during Christ's mortal ministry where Christ specifically denied He was God and God cannot lie. Now I can't find the reference, I have several of McConkie's talks recorded and I use to listen to them all the time, some I didn't like so much. In one of his talks, he makes a side comment that "This is how we know who wrote the Book of John". Now, I might be mistaken in my understanding of what he said, but it was in specific reference to John's testimony of who it was he was baptizing, which to me, incorporates all of chapter 1 and probably a lot of chapter 2. I'm not relying on scholarship here or on testimonies of apostles (lds.org) when I draw my conclusions. From John's testimony, it is clear that John knew who Christ was. From the stumbling bumbling development of the apostles, it is clear that they did not. John the Baptist was clearly ahead of the apostles and that opening testimony was not the apostle John. It probably doesn't help that those two share the same name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brotherofJared Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, SilentOne said: Other dictionaries say about the same. Flabbergasted means very surprised. Not upset. Wow. It is pretty clear to me that in this case flabbergasted means upset. Edited June 28, 2017 by brotherofJared Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brotherofJared Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 On 6/14/2017 at 10:11 AM, anatess2 said: Condemned as used by Wheaton parlance means - in a state of sin. Really? That's what it means in Wheaton parlance? Well, I'll be. I never would have thunk such a thing. I always thought modern Christian's concept of condemned was to burn in hell for eternity and I was pretty sure Wheaton held the modern Christian tradition. I'm pretty sure their idea of condemned has nothing to do with a state of sin. Maybe I just don't understand what is meant by a "state of sin". In my naive idea of religion, we're all in a state of sin. Taking this to the next step, modern Christians believe that being saved is being absolved of the consequences of sin and thus are relieved of being accountable and thus can sin with impunity. This keeps them from the burning flames of hell. But those that don't accept Christ don't enjoy this absolution so, even if they do good and are good, they burn in hell anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brotherofJared Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 On 6/25/2017 at 7:16 PM, Carborendum said: Whaaa??? http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/John_the_Beloved He was among the first to be called as such. He was part of the inner circle of three. He was at Jesus side during the Last Supper. He was finally given the gift to tarry until the 2nd Coming. What on earth are you smoking to say John was not an apostle? Maybe you should read the statement in context. I wonder what other John it could be if not the apostle John. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brotherofJared Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 I just realized that I am probably arguing with myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zil Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 5 hours ago, brotherofJared said: Wow. It is pretty clear to me that in this case flabbergasted means upset. 3 hours ago, brotherofJared said: I just realized that I am probably arguing with myself. Maybe that's got something to do with the fact that among other things, you've taken it upon yourself both to correct the dictionary and to tell another person that what they're really feeling is not what they say they're feeling. Why would anyone want to engage with you on such grounds? Vort 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, brotherofJared said: Maybe you should read the statement in context. I wonder what other John it could be if not the apostle John. Really? 5 hours ago, brotherofJared said: I just realized that I am probably arguing with myself. I wonder why that is. Perhaps you don't say anything and then don't clarify when someone supposedly misunderstands you, instead, opting to accuse others of not paying attention. Edited June 28, 2017 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 (edited) 10 hours ago, brotherofJared said: Absolutely false. The fact that the "stem" from anything is an indication that there are grounds. The fact that I am a Christian refutes your allegation. The grounds they put their hat on is a rejection of historical facts. These are the same people who state that Jesus Christ himself never existed - a position that even secular historians do not take. Your being a Christian simply means you as a Christian decided to believe them instead of the Christian and even secular historians. Edited June 28, 2017 by anatess2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 (edited) 10 hours ago, brotherofJared said: I didn't say Christ isn't God. I just said the the early Christians didn't refer to the risen Lord as God. They speocically did not use that title. For them, Christ's Father was God. A position not supported by facts. The Bible is replete with proof. Catholic Tradition is replete with proof. "My Lord and my God" as stated by the Apostle Thomas was just the first proof I presented which you, for some reason, summarily rejected in favor of the words of an atheist who doesn't have much support even in secular historical circles. Edited June 28, 2017 by anatess2 Vort 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 (edited) 9 hours ago, brotherofJared said: I'm not really sure what ur arguing here, but you can't possibly know what you claim here. I don't know how you expect me to accept any of this except as your personal belief. I can accept that it is, but that does not make it true. Are you Mormon or not? If you are, then the Priesthood Authority of the 12 Apostles IS A REQUIRED BELIEF to qualify for baptism. The baptismal interview question of "Do you believe that Joseph Smith is a Prophet" can only be answered YES if you accept the truth that Peter had Priesthood Authority to lay his hands on the head of Joseph Smith and ordain him to the Priesthood. If you don't believe this is true, then you may want to re-examine what exactly it is you believe. John the Apostle has Priesthood Authority. He declared that the Word is God, became flesh, and dwelt amongst us. He, therefore, taught that Jesus is God. Thomas the Apostle has Priesthood Authority. He declared Jesus is his Lord and his God. He, therefore, taught that Jesus is God. These teachings of the Jesus' Apostles are bedrock Mormon teachings. The teaching that Jesus is God is not a teaching that was lost and got restored by the prophet Joseph Smith. The teaching that Jesus is God has been taught by Prophets and Apostles from the time of Adam all the way to the Apostles of Jesus' time who then taught the early Christians who passed on this same teaching generation after generation until TODAY. Edited June 28, 2017 by anatess2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 8 hours ago, brotherofJared said: Yes. Perhaps. But down around 1:19 we find a reference to another author who was not the apostle, but instead, John the Baptist. While the opening lines state that the "Word was God", later the author makes specific reference to beholding the glory of the only begotten of the Father and then very shortly after, No man has seen God at any time and then in the same sentence references the Son of God. In secular and theological studies, no one has been able to specifically identify the author. It is quite possible that the reason for this is that it had many authors or was a compilation by someone else piecing many references together. The individual who did it had a specific message he wanted to convey The early Christians didn't have this compiled document. That beginning piece doesn't fit any of the apostles' writings. It certainly wasn't known during Christ's mortal ministry where Christ specifically denied He was God and God cannot lie. Now I can't find the reference, I have several of McConkie's talks recorded and I use to listen to them all the time, some I didn't like so much. In one of his talks, he makes a side comment that "This is how we know who wrote the Book of John". Now, I might be mistaken in my understanding of what he said, but it was in specific reference to John's testimony of who it was he was baptizing, which to me, incorporates all of chapter 1 and probably a lot of chapter 2. I'm not relying on scholarship here or on testimonies of apostles (lds.org) when I draw my conclusions. From John's testimony, it is clear that John knew who Christ was. From the stumbling bumbling development of the apostles, it is clear that they did not. John the Baptist was clearly ahead of the apostles and that opening testimony was not the apostle John. It probably doesn't help that those two share the same name. Regardless. Whether taught by John the Apostle or John the Baptist or John somebody else, the fact STILL remains that the teaching that Jesus is God was taught by the Early Christians. mordorbund 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 8 hours ago, brotherofJared said: Wow. It is pretty clear to me that in this case flabbergasted means upset. Since you are talking about MY feelings... I can assure you, I am not upset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 6 minutes ago, anatess2 said: Since you are talking about MY feelings... I can assure you, I am not upset. @brotherofJared if you want some tips on how to really tick anatess2 off I can give you pointers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, brotherofJared said: Really? That's what it means in Wheaton parlance? Well, I'll be. I never would have thunk such a thing. I always thought modern Christian's concept of condemned was to burn in hell for eternity and I was pretty sure Wheaton held the modern Christian tradition. I'm pretty sure their idea of condemned has nothing to do with a state of sin. Maybe I just don't understand what is meant by a "state of sin". In my naive idea of religion, we're all in a state of sin. Taking this to the next step, modern Christians believe that being saved is being absolved of the consequences of sin and thus are relieved of being accountable and thus can sin with impunity. This keeps them from the burning flames of hell. But those that don't accept Christ don't enjoy this absolution so, even if they do good and are good, they burn in hell anyway. Burning in hell happens AFTER you die. Since the person is still very much alive, then you know for sure Wheaton does not believe that to be condemned means to burn in hell. Burning in hell is the RESULT of staying in a state of condemnation without repentance and accepting Christ as your Savior and Redeemer before you die. We are all sinners, yes. But Wheaton's faith declaration is that Salvation comes to all sinners when you accept Christ as your Savior, otherwise, you remain condemned. Therefore, when somebody of protestant faith tells you, "You are condemned", this ALWAYS means unless you accept Christ as your Savior. Therefore, a protestant's mission is to help you so that you can feel the love of Christ that you may accept his saving grace. And no, this doesn't mean that once you accept Christ, you can then sin with impunity. That's a mis-characterization of the "Saved by grace" belief. If you sin and do not repent, then your acceptance of Christ as your Savior is in question - because, if you accept Christ as your Savior, then you would do everything in your power to follow his commandments. If you continue to sin without remorse and repentance, then that shows you never really did accept Christ as your Savior (their lips are close but their hearts are far from Christ). Edited June 28, 2017 by anatess2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said: @brotherofJared if you want some tips on how to really tick anatess2 off I can give you pointers. Please don't give him pointers. Especially not about Trump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brotherofJared Posted June 29, 2017 Report Share Posted June 29, 2017 16 hours ago, Carborendum said: Really? I wonder why that is. Perhaps you don't say anything and then don't clarify when someone supposedly misunderstands you, instead, opting to accuse others of not paying attention. Were you asking for clarification? I must have missed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted June 29, 2017 Report Share Posted June 29, 2017 (edited) 9 hours ago, brotherofJared said: Were you asking for clarification? I must have missed it. What kind of logic determines that the only appropriate time to clarify is when its asked for? Edited June 29, 2017 by The Folk Prophet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brotherofJared Posted June 29, 2017 Report Share Posted June 29, 2017 On 6/28/2017 at 7:59 AM, anatess2 said: The grounds they put their hat on is a rejection of historical facts. These are the same people who state that Jesus Christ himself never existed - a position that even secular historians do not take. Your being a Christian simply means you as a Christian decided to believe them instead of the Christian and even secular historians. There are no historical facts where the author of the Gospel of John is concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brotherofJared Posted June 29, 2017 Report Share Posted June 29, 2017 3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said: What kind of logic determines that the only appropriate time to clarify is when its asked for? None. It was claimed that clarification was sought. It wasn't that I could see. Instead, the question was "what are you smoking". So sorry, but that doesn't appear to me to be a person seeking clarification. Instead, it appears to be the standard judgmental Mormon who thinks that anyone who disagrees on trivial things is on the road to apostasy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brotherofJared Posted June 29, 2017 Report Share Posted June 29, 2017 On 6/28/2017 at 8:56 AM, anatess2 said: Please don't give him pointers. Especially not about Trump. I'm not trying. It seems to come natural to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted June 29, 2017 Report Share Posted June 29, 2017 (edited) 11 minutes ago, brotherofJared said: None. It was claimed that clarification was sought. It wasn't that I could see. Instead, the question was "what are you smoking". So sorry, but that doesn't appear to me to be a person seeking clarification. Instead, it appears to be the standard judgmental Mormon who thinks that anyone who disagrees on trivial things is on the road to apostasy. Hmm. So if I said, "Monkeys are chickens" and you, thinking I was confusing two very different animals as the same thing replied with, "What are you smoking? Monkeys and chickens are two different animals.", then it wouldn't be incumbent upon me to say, "I don't mean literally. I mean the word chicken as it's used to convey fear." Whereupon you'd probably either say, "Ah...yeah you're right," or, "Ah...I see. But they aren't scared of stuff. Monkeys are brave!" ...and onward. Presuming others are just misunderstanding you, perhaps you'd do well to learn how to clarify even when your perception is that you're merely being accused of being on the road to apostasy. That strikes me as downright reasonable. Edited June 29, 2017 by The Folk Prophet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted June 29, 2017 Report Share Posted June 29, 2017 40 minutes ago, brotherofJared said: There are no historical facts where the author of the Gospel of John is concerned. The question, once again is not who wrote John. The question is whether the Early Christians taught that Christ is God. Historical facts on the matter (and even on the gospel of John) are abundant. Especially in the Catholic Church. Whether you take such facts as credible or not is, of course, up to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brotherofJared Posted June 29, 2017 Report Share Posted June 29, 2017 1 minute ago, anatess2 said: specially in the Catholic Church Well, we certainly can count on "facts" coming from there. I feel so much better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted June 29, 2017 Report Share Posted June 29, 2017 7 minutes ago, brotherofJared said: Well, we certainly can count on "facts" coming from there. I feel so much better. lol. Facts are a harsh mistress. They don't really care what your (generic) opinion is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.