How easy is it ????


HizWife625
 Share

Recommended Posts

The Jesus Christ I serve is the Jesus Christ in the Bible.....And it was He that said I am sealed and no man can pluch me from His hand. It's a done deal......

So if you kill someone between now and when you die, you're still promised a place in Heaven, right? But someone in Tibet who is the Bhuddist equivelant of Mother Teresa is going to burn in Hell?

Is that a just God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 374
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hemi

In the name of Jesus Christ, I rebuke you and your teachings. You have no power or authority over me whatsoever.....You might feel you do over your own group, but remember, you have absolutely no authority to those that are in Jesus Christ.

And if you claim to be that of Jesus Christ, because He is the only one who has the authority, then you are a false teacher.

As a servant of GOD, stop with the deception and intent of innocent of why you are here sister. Spirit is not going to bide with you and you are now standing in "quick sand", placing fate in your own hands.

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes...... The Buddahist had no personal relationship with Jesus Christ..... I do, but I fell into sin ............... The only unpardonable sin is not accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior....

Remember Peter denying Christ three times.......Prior to that the personal relationshoip was established....IN 3nd Timothy, it talks about when we become faithless just as Peter did.....Jesus Christ remains faithful .... And since we accepted Him, we became one with Him....Therefore, he cannot disown Himself.......

Jena..... My lie is just as bad as the next persons..... My sin is not better than your nor yours mine...... God views sin as sins....... That is why we cannot do enough "right" to gain His Grace.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes...... The Buddahist had no personal relationship with Jesus Christ..... I do, but I fell into sin ............... The only unpardonable sin is not accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior....

Remember Peter denying Christ three times.......Prior to that the personal relationshoip was established....IN 3nd Timothy, it talks about when we become faithless just as Peter did.....Jesus Christ remains faithful .... And since we accepted Him, we became one with Him....Therefore, he cannot disown Himself.......

Jena..... My lie is just as bad as the next persons..... My sin is not better than your nor yours mine...... God views sin as sins....... That is why we cannot do enough "right" to gain His Grace.......

But why would God rather have a murderer in His Holy Presence, than someone who typified Christian behavior, minus a belief in Christ? And what if that Bhuddist never even heard the name of Christ in his/her lifetime? Are they still going to be punished for that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes...... The only unpardonable sin is not accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior....

That is not correct. The only unpardonable sin is the one who is a witness of the Godhead and denies it afterward and fight against it. Next to that, a Saint who murders another in cold blood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could someone *please* provide some scriptural evidence of a closed cannon? So far nobody has provided anything, other than the verse in Revelations, which is very obviously only refering to the book of Revelation.

WHY no more Prophets??? Why would Christ call the Twelve if he didn't intend for that organization to be the norm in His church?

okay jena,, i knew I would find his article someday...Our God-Breathed Bible  --  John MacArthur It hard to argure with someone like John macarthur..but since I would be here all day explaining these scriputures..read this article slowly..really digesting it and its content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not correct. The only unpardonable sin is the one who is a witness of the Godhead and denies it afterward and fight against it. Next to that, a Saint who murders another in cold blood.

Scripture please from the Bible?

Denying Christ is the only unpardonable sin......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as a general observation and as a way of clarification, having been lurking this thread for a bit, I'm prone to say that on this thread, Hemidakota doesn't seem to be advocating the type of religion I believe in as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I'm not sure by what authority Hemi decides he wants to start passing final judgment on folks, but I wouldn't worry about it, in case someone is. Also, don't mistake his views here as being the official view of the Church or even the mainstream of it's members.

Regards,

Finrock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not correct. The only unpardonable sin is the one who is a witness of the Godhead and denies it afterward and fight against it. Next to that, a Saint who murders another in cold blood.

where is that in scripture nobody answered that for me..about the murder not being forgiven? but the upardonable sin is the one who grieves the holy spirit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

okay jena,, i knew I would find his article someday...Our God-Breathed Bible* --* John MacArthur It hard to argure with someone like John macarthur..but since I would be here all day explaining these scriputures..read this article slowly..really digesting it and its content.

Believe me, I *did* read it. I'm a fast reader. :lol:

But he still didn't answer my question. And he still used the Revelation scripture as "reason" for closed cannon:

How do we know that the canon of Scripture is closed? Why do we believe we cannot add to the sixty-six books of the Bible?

One reason is the warning in Revelation 22:18: "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book." The phrase "this book," while it refers specifically to Revelation, carries the sense of that verse beyond the twenty-two chapters of this book. Since Revelation is the last book of the Bible, if we are to add to Scripture we must add to Revelation--and that is exactly what John says is forbidden.

That last sentence is incredibly arbitrary. John had no part in the compilation of the Bible, it was a council of men (not apostles) who decided what books were included, and in what order. And in fact, the book of Revelations wasn't even the last book he wrote! Was he guilty of adding to his own book? The book of Mark isn't adding to the book of Matthew, it is it's own book, in it's own right. It *supports* the book of Matthew, but it is not adding to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why would God rather have a murderer in His Holy Presence, than someone who typified Christian behavior, minus a belief in Christ? And what if that Bhuddist never even heard the name of Christ in his/her lifetime? Are they still going to be punished for that?

Sin is Sin in Gods eyes Jena..God is NOT looking upon your works to see if you are worthy. NONe of us is worthY.I am no better then the murder. In fact we all have murdered because the bible say that if you have ever hated someone in your heart then you are a murderer..10 commandments..you and I have probably broken most of them and the bible says if you break 1 commandment you are under the law..if you are going to try to go by the law then you have to never break a commandment..understand? This is what Paul was talking about being free from the law we are under grace now.

as far as the bhuddist..remember Romas 1.."For snce the creation of the world his invisable attributes have been clearly seen through what has been made so they are without excuse."

So yes the bhuddist would be punished for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as a general observation and as a way of clarification, having been lurking this thread for a bit, I'm prone to say that on this thread, Hemidakota doesn't seem to be advocating the type of religion I believe in as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I'm not sure by what authority Hemi decides he wants to start passing final judgment on folks, but I wouldn't worry about it, in case someone is. Also, don't mistake his views here as being the official view of the Church or even the mainstream of it's members.

Regards,

Finrock

It wasn't me that passed the judgment until notable post hit the thread.

However, the doctrine that is being presented is not of Christ. This needs to be cleared due to others here that may have weaker testimonies. Is that perfectly clear? Hopefully... As I said on page one, the intent here, was not here to learn but of preaching. Now, unless she is willing to learn, that will be something different and joyous to share.

Now, noting the contentious spirit that brooding, I will have to make an end here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as a general observation and as a way of clarification, having been lurking this thread for a bit, I'm prone to say that on this thread, Hemidakota doesn't seem to be advocating the type of religion I believe in as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I'm not sure by what authority Hemi decides he wants to start passing final judgment on folks, but I wouldn't worry about it, in case someone is. Also, don't mistake his views here as being the official view of the Church or even the mainstream of it's members.

Regards,

Finrock

Brother, next time, as general observation, when you come to a thread, read from page one to comprehend what is happening, :)

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as a general observation and as a way of clarification, having been lurking this thread for a bit, I'm prone to say that on this thread, Hemidakota doesn't seem to be advocating the type of religion I believe in as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I'm not sure by what authority Hemi decides he wants to start passing final judgment on folks, but I wouldn't worry about it, in case someone is. Also, don't mistake his views here as being the official view of the Church or even the mainstream of it's members.

Regards,

Finrock

Right. Hemi, sometimes you do make really great points, but when you bring up the whole "Judge in Israel" thing, I start tuning you out. I'm sure it's not your intention to come across so strongly, but just letting you know how it's coming across to me at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. Hemi, sometimes you do make really great points, but when you bring up the whole "Judge in Israel" thing, I start tuning you out. I'm sure it's not your intention to come across so strongly, but just letting you know how it's coming across to me at least.

Noted...:bighug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't me that passed the judgment until notable post hit the thread.

However, the doctrine that is being presented is not of Christ. This needs to be cleared due to others here that may have weaker testimonies. Is that perfectly clear? Hopefully... As I said on page one, the intent here, was not here to learn but of preaching. Now, unless she is willing to learn, that will be something different and joyous to share.

Now, noting the contentious spirit that brooding, I will have to make an end here.

gOD'S WORD will never go null and void.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sin is Sin in Gods eyes Jena..God is NOT looking upon your works to see if you are worthy. NONe of us is worthY.I am no better then the murder. In fact we all have murdered because the bible say that if you have ever hated someone in your heart then you are a murderer..10 commandments..you and I have probably broken most of them and the bible says if you break 1 commandment you are under the law..if you are going to try to go by the law then you have to never break a commandment..understand? This is what Paul was talking about being free from the law we are under grace now.

as far as the bhuddist..remember Romas 1.."For snce the creation of the world his invisable attributes have been clearly seen through what has been made so they are without excuse."

So yes the bhuddist would be punished for that.

I find it difficult to believe that works play NO part in it. I do not believe that works is the end-all be-all to gaining Salvation, but if "faith without works is dead", can it be said I have faith in Christ if my works do not match His teachings?

I believe that it is striving to emulate His works, and *repenting* when we fail (and why would I go to Christ for repentance if I didn't have faith in Him?) that marks a true believer. If your faith in Christ is only carried in your heart, and not by your hands and feet and tongue working for the glorification of God, then what benefit is it to God that you believe in Him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brother, next time, as general observation, when you come to a thread, read from page one to comprehend what is happening, :)

Thanks

Thank you for the advice. I've been following the thread from pretty much it's inception. However, it wasn't reading from page one that led me to my conclusion, but rather how the tone and intention of your posts here have not enlightened my mind nor fed my spirit. This tells me something is awry.

Kind Regards,

Finrock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share