Mark5222..

I absolutely loved

your comments & your passion

your Love of The Lord

& your proclamation of your Faith...


Right on ...

sending some love to repunzel....and all my new buddies.

Ferel, you're still using the Bible to support the Bible.
Well, you do mention this:

"Perhaps the most interesting book ever written on the historicity of Acts is James Smith's The Voyage and Shipwreck of Saint Paul, first published in 1848. Smith, himself a skilled mariner who retraced Paul's voyage from Jerusalem to Rome, showed that Luke's account of this voyage must be altogether authentic, for the writer is accurate in his use of nautical terms, and the events he relates correspond perfectly to ancient sailing methods, the capacities of ancient ships, and the conditions of wind and weather in the Mediterranean (8)."

So what did James Smith use to retrace this voyage? What data was he going by? Someone named Paul appered in a village and said 'hey, I'm Paul - here's a transcript for ya to read. I knew JC personally you know. Want me to help set up a churuch for ya?' In the mean time another similiar transcript appears in another village far far away suppoesely written by a guy named Paul Until 'Paul' has existed in many places, sometimes at the same time, and there were many versions of the transcripts. Until a King named Constantine decided to gather all these transcripts for the purpose of creating a single religious doctrine for his kingdom. Of course all those not considered appropriate additions for whatever reason, were ordered destroyed.

Now what is available are duplications upon duplications, ancient, yes, but who wrote them, was Paul who lived here, the same Paul who lived there, and was he the Paul that knew Jesus?

I think this thread was a good idea to look at ancient religions comparatively. There's so much garbage floating around that trying to get to the the true historocity of where, when, who and how the different belief systems came down the pipe seems near impossible.

Instead of defending the Bible with the Bible, try looking at the opening post, and researching some other religious claims having 'original' claims to the stories of the Bible. Perhaps by discrediting them, we can narrow the field for better reseach.

Well,that was my idea, more heads to do more research and compare notes. But, I guess I'll have a crumpet instead. I'm tired tonight.

Redy;

Okay - I get it. I just wasn't sure where you were headed.
I'm not sure where people will take it - but I'll be curious to see.

Red wrote:

Instead of defending the Bible with the Bible, try looking at the opening post, and researching some other religious claims having 'original' claims to the stories of the Bible. Perhaps by discrediting them, we can narrow the field for better reseach.

Well,that was my idea, more heads to do more research and compare notes. But, I guess I'll have a crumpet instead. I'm tired tonight.

So this is what Im going to be doing. And understand one thing. I have studied many many religions before I became a Christian.

Scientific Evidence Against the Book of Mormon

In an attempt to validate and justify the claims of the Book of Mormon, the highest authority in Mormonism, Joseph Smith Jr., the Mormon prophet, related an event which, if true, would add significant weight to some of the Mormon claims for their sacred book. Fortunately, it is a fact on which a good deal of evidence can be brought to bear. Smith put forth his claim in the book Pearl of Great Price (Joseph Smith—History, 1:62–64, 1982 edition), and it is worthwhile to examine it:

I commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them. Mr. Martin Harris came to our place, got the characters which I had drawn off the plates, and started with them to the city of New York. For what took place relative to him and the characters, I refer to his own account of the circumstances, as he related them to me after his return, which was as follows: “I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters that had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters.”

According to Joseph Smith, then, Martin Harris, his colleague, obtained from the learned Professor Charles Anthon of Columbia University a validation of Smith’s translation of the reformed Egyptian hieroglyphic characters found on the plates that Moroni made available to him. The difficulty with Smith’s statement is that Professor Anthon never said any such thing, and fortunately he went on record in a lengthy letter to Mr. E. D. Howe, a contemporary of Joseph Smith who did one of the most thorough jobs of research on the Mormon prophet and the origins of Mormonism extant. Upon learning of Smith’s claim concerning Professor Anthon, Mr. Howe wrote him at Columbia. Professor Anthon’s letter reproduced here from Howe’s own collection is a classic piece of evidence the Mormons would like very much to see forgotten.

New York, N.Y.
Feb. 17, 1834
Mr. E. D. Howe
Painsville, Ohio

Dear Sir:

I received this morning your favor of the 9th instant, and lose no time in making a reply. The whole story about my having pronounced the Mormonite inscription to be “reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics” is perfectly false. Some years ago, a plain and apparently simplehearted farmer called upon me with a note from Dr. Mitchell of our city, now deceased, requesting me to decipher, if possible, a paper, which the farmer would hand me, and which Dr. Mitchell confessed he had been unable to understand. Upon examining the paper in question, I soon came to the conclusion that it was all a trick, perhaps a hoax. When I asked the person who brought it how he obtained the writing he gave me, as far as I can now recollect, [he gave] the following account: A “gold book,” consisting of a number of plates of gold, fastened together in the shape of a book by wires of the same metal, had been dug up in the northern part of the state of New York, and along with the book an enormous pair of “gold spectacles”! These spectacles were so large that if a person attempted to look through them, his two eyes would have to be turned toward one of the glasses merely, the spectacles in question being altogether too large for the breadth of the human face. Whoever examined the plates through the spectacles, was enabled not only to read them, but fully to understand their meaning. All this knowledge, however, was confined at the time to a young man, who had the trunk containing the book and spectacles in his sole possession. This young man was placed behind a curtain, in the garret of a farm house, and, being thus concealed from view, put on the spectacles occasionally, or rather, looked through one of the glasses, deciphered the characters in the book, and, having committed some of them to paper, handed copies from behind the curtain to those who stood on the outside. Not a word, however, was said about the plates having been deciphered “by the gift of God.” Everything, in this way, was effected by the large pair of spectacles. The farmer added that he had been requested to contribute a sum of money toward the publication of the “golden book,” the contents of which would, as he had been assured, produce an entire change in the world and save it from ruin. So urgent had been these solicitations, that he intended selling his farm and handing over the amount received to those who wished to publish the plates. As a last precautionary step, however, he had resolved to come to New York and obtain the opinion of the learned about the meaning of the paper which he brought with him, and which had been given him as a part of the contents of the book, although no translation had been furnished at the time by the young man with the spectacles. On hearing this odd story, I changed my opinion about the paper, and, instead of viewing it any longer as a hoax upon the learned, I began to regard it as a part of a scheme to cheat the farmer of his money, and I communicated my suspicions to him, warning him to beware of rogues. He requested an opinion from me in writing, which of course I declined giving, and he then took his leave carrying the paper with him. This paper was in fact a singular scrawl. It consisted of all kinds of crooked characters disposed in columns, and had evidently been prepared by some person who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets. Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and nourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways, were arranged in perpendicular columns, and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle, divided into various compartments, decked with various strange marks, and evidently copied after the Mexican Calendar given by Humboldt, but copied in such a way as not to betray the source whence it was derived. I am thus particular as to the contents of the paper, inasmuch as I have frequently conversed with my friends on the subject, since the Mormonite excitement began, and well remember that the paper contained anything else but “Egyptian Hieroglyphics.” Some time after, the same farmer paid me a second visit. He brought with him the golden book in print, and offered it to me for sale. I declined purchasing. He then asked permission to leave the book with me for examination. I declined receiving it, although his manner was strangely urgent. I adverted once more to the roguery which had been in my opinion practiced upon him, and asked him what had become of the gold plates. He informed me that they were in a trunk with the large pair of spectacles. I advised him to go to a magistrate and have the trunk examined. He said the “curse of God” would come upon him should he do this. On my pressing him, however, to pursue the course which I had recommended, he told me that he would open the trunk, if I would take the “curse of God” upon myself. I replied that I would do so with the greatest willingness, and would incur every risk of that nature, provided I could only extricate him from the grasp of the rogues. He then left me.

I have thus given you a full statement of all that I know respecting the origin of Mormonism, and must beg you, as a personal favor, to publish this letter immediately, should you find my name mentioned again by these wretched fanatics.

Yours respectfully,

Charles Anthon, LL.D.
Columbia University

Professor Anthon’s letter is both revealing and devastating where Smith’s and Harris’ veracity are concerned. We might also raise the question as to how Professor Anthon could say that the characters shown to him by Martin Harris and authorized by Joseph Smith as part of the material copied from the revelation of the Book of Mormon were “Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic” when the Book of Mormon itself declares that the characters were “reformed Egyptian,” the language of the Nephites. Since the language of the Book of Mormon was known to “none other people,” how would it be conceivably possible for Professor Anthon to have testified as to the accuracy of Smith’s translation? To this date, no one has ever been able to find even the slightest trace of the language known as “reformed Egyptian”; and all reputable linguists who have examined the evidence put forth by the Mormons have rejected them as mythical.



The Truth About the god of the Mormons

In sharp contrast to the revelations of Scripture are the “revelations” of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and the succeeding Mormon “prophets.” So that the reader will have no difficulty understanding what the true Mormon position is concerning the nature of God, the following quotations derived from popular Mormon sources will convey what the Mormons mean when they speak of “God.”

1. “In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 349).
2. “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man ”(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345).
3. “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s: the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit ” (Doctrine and Covenants, 130:22).
4. “Gods exist, and we had better strive to be prepared to be one with them” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 7:238).
5. “As man is, God once was: as God is, man may become” (Prophet Lorenzo Snow, quoted in Milton R. Hunter, The Gospel Through the Ages, 105–106).
6. “Each of these Gods, including Jesus Christ and His Father, being in possession of not merely an organized spirit, but a glorious immortal body of flesh and bones ” (Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology, ed. 1978, 23).
7. “And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth” (Abraham 4:1).
8. “Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, and mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point where He now is” (Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, 1:123).
9. “Mormon prophets have continuously taught the sublime truth that God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar to that through which we are now passing. He became God—an exalted being—through obedience to the same eternal Gospel truths that we are given opportunity today to obey” (Hunter, op. cit., 104).
10. “Christ was the God, the Father of all things. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son” (Mosiah 7:27 and Ether 3:14, Book of Mormon).
11. “When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organized this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom we have to do” (Brigham Young, in the Journal of Discourses, 1:50).
12. Historically this doctrine of Adam-God was hard for even faithful Mormons to believe. As a result, on June 8, 1873, Brigham Young stated: “How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our father and God.
“ ‘Well,’ says one, ‘Why was Adam called Adam?’ He was the first man on the earth, and its framer and maker. He with the help of his brethren brought it into existence. Then he said, ‘I want my children who are in the spirit world to come and live here. I once dwelt upon an earth something like this, in a mortal state. I was faithful, I received my crown and exaltation’ ”(Deseret News, June 18, 1873, 308).

It would be quite possible to continue quoting sources from many volumes and other official Mormon publications, but the fact is well established. The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which disagrees with the Utah church on the subject of polytheism, steadfastly maintains that Joseph Smith Jr. never taught or practiced either polygamy or polytheism, but the following direct quotation from Smith, relative to the plurality of gods and the doctrine that Mormon males may attain to godhood, vexes the Reorganized Church no end. But, it is fact, nonetheless.
The following quotations are excerpted from a sermon published in the Mormon newspaper Times and Seasons (August 15, 1844, 5:613–614) four months after Smith delivered it at the funeral of Elder King Follett, and only two months after Smith’s assassination in Carthage, Illinois.
Tenth LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith notes that the King Follett sermon was given at the April conference of the Church in 1844 and was heard by around 20,000 people. The argument that Smith was misquoted is discounted by the fact that it was recorded by four scribes, Willard Richards, Wilford Woodruff, William Clayton, and Thomas Bullock. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism states that Smith’s two-hour-and-fifteen-minute message “may be one of the Prophet’s greatest sermons because of its doctrinal teachings.”
It is significant that the split in Mormonism did not take place for more than three and a half years. Apparently their ancestors did not disagree with Smith’s theology, as they themselves do today. Nor did they deny that Smith preached the sermon and taught polytheism, as does the Reorganized Church today. But the facts must speak for themselves. Here are the above mentioned quotes:

I want you all to know God, to be familiar with him. What sort of a being was God in the beginning?
First, God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heavens, is a man like unto one of yourselves if you were to see him today, you would see him in all the person, image and very form as a man.
I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are the simple and first principles of the gospel, to know for a certainty the character of God, that we may converse with him as one man with another, and that God himself; the Father of us all dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did what did Jesus say? (mark it elder Rigdon) Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power; to do what? Why what the Father did, that answer is obvious. Here then is eternal life, to know the only wise and true God. You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves; to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you—namely, by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as doth those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.

Mormon theology is polytheistic, teaching in effect that the universe is inhabited by different gods who procreate spirit children, which are in turn clothed with bodies on different planets, “Elohim” being the god of this planet (Brigham’s teaching that Adam is our heavenly Father is now officially denied by Mormon authorities, but they hold firm to the belief that their God is a resurrected, glorified man). In addition to this, the “inspired” utterances of Joseph Smith reveal that he began as a Unitarian, progressed to tritheism, and graduated into full-fledged polytheism, in direct contradiction to the revelations of the Old and New Testaments as we have observed. The Mormon doctrine of the trinity is a gross misrepresentation of the biblical position, though they attempt to veil their evil doctrine in semi-orthodox terminology. We have already dealt with this problem, but it bears constant repetition lest the Mormon terminology go unchallenged.
On the surface, they appear to be orthodox, but in the light of unimpeachable Mormon sources, Mormons are clearly evading the issue. The truth of the matter is that Mormonism has never historically accepted the Christian doctrine of the Trinity; in fact, they deny it by completely perverting the meaning of the term. The Mormon doctrine that God the Father is a mere man is the root of their polytheism, and forces Mormons to deny not only the Trinity of God as revealed in Scripture, but the immaterial nature of God as pure spirit. Mormons have gone on record and stated that they accept the doctrine of the Trinity, but, as we have seen, it is not the Christian Trinity. God the Father does not have a body of flesh and bones, a fact clearly taught by our Lord (John 4:24, cf. Luke 24:39). Mormon Apostle James Talmage describes the church’s teaching, as follows, in his book The Articles of Faith:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims against the incomprehensible God, devoid of “body, parts, or passions,” as a thing impossible of existence, and asserts its belief in and allegiance to the true and living God of scripture and revelation. Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh. Jehovah, who is Jesus Christ the Son of Elohim, is called “the Father” that Jesus Christ, whom we also know as Jehovah, was the executive of the Father, in the work of creation as set forth in the book Jesus the Christ, Chapter IV (48, 466–467).

In these revealing statements, Talmage lapses into the error of making Elohim and Jehovah two separate gods, apparently in complete ignorance of the fact that Elohim “the greater god” and Jehovah—Jesus the lesser god, begotten by Elohim—are compounded in the Hebrew as “Jehovah the Mighty One,” or simply “Jehovah God” as any concordance of Hebrew usage in the Old Testament readily reveals (LORD—; God—). This error is akin to that of Mary Baker Eddy who, in her glossary to Science and Health With Key to the Scriptures made exactly the same error, she too being in complete ignorance of the Hebrew language. In this grammatical error, Christian Science and the Mormons are in unique agreement.
Talmage’s argument that “to deny the materiality of God’s person is to deny God; for a thing without parts has no whole and an immaterial body cannot exist” is both logically and theologically an absurdity. To illustrate this, one needs only to point to the angels whom the Scriptures describe as “ministering spirits” (Hebrews 1:7), beings who have immaterial “bodies” of spiritual substances and yet exist. The Mormons involve themselves further in a hopeless contradiction when, in their doctrine of the preexistence of the soul, they are forced to redefine the meaning of soul as used in both the Old and the New Testaments to teach that the soul is not immaterial, while the Bible clearly teaches that it is. Our Lord, upon the cross, spoke the words, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit” (Luke 23:46). Certainly this was immaterial. And Paul, preparing to depart from this world for the celestial realms, indicated that his real spiritual self (certainly immaterial, since his body died) was yearning to depart and to be with Christ, which is far better (Philippians 1:21–23). The martyr Stephen also committed his spirit (or immaterial nature) into the hands of the Father, crying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59). And there are numerous passages in both the Old and New Testaments that indicate an “immaterial nature” can exist, provided that form is of a spiritual substance as is God the Father and the Holy Spirit, and as was Jesus Christ as the preincarnate Logos (John 1:1, cf. John 1:14). Far from asserting their “belief and allegiance to the true and living God of Scripture and revelation,” as Talmage represents Mormonism, Mormons indeed have sworn allegiance to a polytheistic pantheon of gods, which they are striving to join, there to enjoy a polygamous eternity of progression toward godhood. One can search the corridors of pagan mythology and never equal the complex structure that the Mormons have erected and masked under the terminology and misnomer of orthodox Christianity. That the Mormons reject the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity no student of the movement can deny, for after quoting the Nicene Creed and early church theology on the trinity, Talmage, in The Articles of Faith, declares:

“It would be difficult to conceive of a greater number of inconsistencies and contradictions expressed in words as here. The immateriality of God as asserted in these declarations of sectarian faith is entirely at variance with the scriptures, and absolutely contradicted by the revelations of God’s person and attributes ”(p. 48).

After carefully perusing hundreds of volumes on Mormon theology and scores of pamphlets dealing with this subject, the author can quite candidly state that never has he seen such misappropriation of terminology, disregard of context, and utter abandon of scholastic principles demonstrated on the part of non-Christian cultists than is evidenced in the attempts of Mormon theologians to appear orthodox and at the same time undermine the foundations of historic Christianity. The intricacies of their complex system of polytheism causes the careful researcher to ponder again and again the ethical standard that these Mormon writers practice and the blatant attempts to rewrite history, biblical theology, and the laws of scriptural interpretation that they might support the theologies of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Without fear of contradiction, I am certain that Mormonism cannot stand investigation and wants no part of it unless the results can be controlled under the guise of “broad-mindedness” and “tolerance.”
On one occasion, when the Mormon doctrine of God was under discussion with a young woman leaning in the direction of Mormon conversion, I offered in the presence of witnesses to retract this chapter and one previous effort (Mormonism, Zondervan Publishing House, 1958) if the Mormon elders advising this young lady would put in writing that they and their church rejected polytheism for monotheism in the tradition of the Judeo-Christian religion. It was a bona fide offer; the same offer has been made from hundreds of platforms to tens of thousands of people over a twenty-year period. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is well aware of the offer. To the unwary, however, they imply that they are monotheists, to the informed they defend their polytheism, and like the veritable chameleon they change color to accommodate the surface upon which they find themselves.
G. B. Arbaugh, in his classic volume Revelation in Mormonism (1932), has documented in exhaustive detail the progress of Mormon theology from Unitarianism to polytheism. His research has been invaluable and available to interested scholars for over sixty years, with the full knowledge of the Mormon Church. In fact, the Mormons are significantly on the defensive where the peculiar origins of the “sacred writings” are involved or when verifiable evidence exists that reveals their polytheistic perversions of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is extremely difficult to write kindly of Mormon theology when they are so obviously deceptive in their presentation of data, so adamant in their condemnation of all religions in favor of the “restored gospel” allegedly vouchsafed to the prophet Joseph Smith. We must not, however, confuse the theology with the person as is too often the case, for while hostility toward the former is scriptural, it is never so with the latter.
Continuing with our study, Apostle Orson Pratt, writing in The Seer, declared:

“In the Heaven where our spirits were born, there are many Gods, each one of whom has his own wife or wives, which were given to him previous to his redemption, while yet in his mortal state” (p. 37).

In this terse sentence, Pratt summed up the whole hierarchy of Mormon polytheism, and quotations previously adduced from a reputable Mormon source support Pratt’s summation beyond reasonable doubt. The Mormon teaching that God was seen “face to face” in the Old Testament (Exodus 33:9, 11, 23; Exodus 24:9–11; Isaiah 6:1, 5; Genesis 5:24, etc.) is refuted on two counts, that of language and the science of comparative textual analysis (hermeneutics).
From the standpoint of linguistics, all the references cited by the Mormons to prove “that God has a physical body that could be observed” melt away in the light of God’s expressed declaration, “Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live” (Exodus 33:20).
Exodus 33:11 (face to face) in the Hebrew is rendered “intimate,” and in no sense is it opposed to verse 20. Similar expressions are utilized in Deuteronomy 5:4, while in Genesis 32:30 it is the Angel of the Lord who speaks, not Jehovah himself. The Old Testament is filled with theophanies (literally, God-appearances), instances where God spoke or revealed himself in angelic manifestations, and it is accepted by all Old Testament scholars almost without qualification that anthropomorphisms (ascribing human characteristics to God) are the logical explanation of many of the encounters of God with man. To argue, as the Mormons do, that such occurrences indicate that God has a body of flesh and bone, as “prophet” Smith taught, is on the face of the matter untenable and another strenuous attempt to force polytheism on a rigidly monotheistic religion. Progressing beyond this, another cardinal Mormon point of argument is the fact that because expressions such as “the arm of the Lord,” “the eye of the Lord,” “the hand of the Lord,” “nostrils,” “mouth,” etc., are used, all tend to show that God possesses a physical form. However, they have overlooked one important factor. This factor is that of literary metaphor, extremely common in Old Testament usage. If the Mormons are to be consistent in their interpretation, they should find great difficulty in the Psalm where God is spoken of as “covering with his feathers,” and man “trusting under his wings.” If God has eyes, ears, arms, hands, nostrils, mouth, etc., why then does He not have feathers and wings? The Mormons have never given a satisfactory answer to this, because it is obvious that the anthropomorphic and metaphorical usage of terms relative to God are literary devices to convey His concern for and association with man. In like manner, metaphors such as feathers and wings indicate His tender concern for the protection of those who “dwell in the secret place of the Most High and abide under the shadow of the Almighty.” The Mormons would do well to comb the Old Testament and the New Testament for the numerous metaphorical usages readily available for observation. In doing so, they would have to admit, if they are at all logically consistent, that Jesus was not a door (John 10:9), a shepherd (John 10:11), a vine (John 15:1), a roadway (John 14:6), a loaf of bread (John 6:51), and other metaphorical expressions any more than “our God is a consuming fire” means that Jehovah should be construed as a blast furnace or a volcanic cone.
The Mormons themselves are apparently unsure of the intricacies of their own polytheistic structure, as revealed in the previously cited references from Joseph Smith, who made Christ both the Father and the Son in one instance, and further on indicated that there was a mystery connected with it and that only the Son could reveal how He was both the Father and the Son. Later, to compound the difficulty, Smith separated them completely into “separate personages,” eventually populating the entire universe with his polytheistic and polygamous deities. If one peruses carefully the books of Abraham and Moses as contained in the Pearl of Great Price (allegedly “translated” by Smith), as well as sections of Ether in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Discourses of Brigham Young, the entire Mormon dogma of the preexistence of the soul, the polygamous nature of the gods, the brotherhood of Jesus and Lucifer, and the hierarchy of heaven (telestial, terrestrial, and celestial—corresponding to the basement, fiftieth floor, and observation tower of the Empire State Building, respectively), and the doctrines of universal salvation, millennium, resurrection, judgment, and final punishment, will unfold in a panorama climaxing in a polygamous paradise of eternal duration. Such is the Mormon doctrine of God, or, more properly, of the gods, which rivals anything pagan mythology ever produced.

Now I can give you evidence on any of the other churches such as buddhism, bahai, unification church, l. ron hubbard and scientology islam, etc......so just ask and you shall receive.

too much info, people hold beliefs because it gives them purpose.
I'm not one to say that is wrong, what i will say is wrong is the judgment passed on to people that don't share your viewpoint. After all if you believe judgment is reserved for your lord and savior or who ever for that matter, then leave it at that. If I die and my maker says i didn't choose the right faith, i will simply give him/her/it the finger and be thrown into damnation. If god is this master of intelligence, and all things, god needs to fire its publicist. Who can discern anything from the myriad of confusion left to us in multiple religious writings, and if god is this forgiving deity that is rumored to be, then i'm sure forgiving us of our lack of godlike intelligence to figure out the existence of such a being is a good possibility.
So until god miraculously appears and makes it's being known I'm gonna continue to hold my agnostic stance, and try to hold a few universal ethics that work beneficially for myself and others.

Roddimus,

You wrote:

"... After all if you believe judgment is reserved for your lord and savior or who ever for that matter, then leave it at that..."


Thumbs up!!!

The topic of this thread is referring to Jesus being a myth along with alot of other mythical people. Now I have said all along that people can of course believe whatever they wish to believe. But for me what an injustice I would be doing to God to keep silent, when he clearly states...."I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not worship them or serve them, for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God. (Jesus)included No one has to share my viewpoint and they will surely be judged by the Lord God, as I will, and will serve him all the days of my life...and as part of that service I will speak out when I see it necessary and when Im a led by the Lord to do so.

And you of course do whatever gets you through the day. But then again is it wrong for you to judge me for being passionate in my beliefs and knowing that what I speak if solely for His Glory and not mine. And what kind of person would that make me if he wants me to spread the good news and I stay silent so as not to hurt anyones feelings.

I dont judge u for your passion in your beliefs I judge you because of your holier than thou attitude, the idea that one could possibly do an injustice to god "almighty" (if he exists) is preposterous by your own standards

Well Feral Cat Lady,

I actually agree with you, as I have noted before, if you TRULY believe that those who do not share your beliefs will go to some awful "hell" then of course as a good person you would want to help keep as many as you can from such a fate...

but I would ask, even in such a case, does "I'm right and you're wrong" really ever work? Because that is the approach many Christians have used with me and others here have reported similar experiences...

Just a question.

its my belief that the only way someone would end up in a bad afterlife is if they truly believed they should
as gerald gardner said "each man should be the supreme judge of his own soul for each man goes to his own beyond"

I think you may be right Lizard- when we die we are only "mind" or "awareness" for at least a time so any "external" is just what we create with our own mind... it can be as ugly and painful or as beautiful and pleasing as we make it...

This is why I don't believe in "hell"

If I did I might make one for myself... not that I don't see many people do that right here on earth...

Lizard you are judging me bu saying I am holier then thou and have attitude....which is just not the case...have I not said all along you can believe what you want....don't I get the same treatment...or are the standards different for me. And honestly sweets people have done injustices to God for all time.


Anoasis

Now once again your putting words in my mouth. I have never said that if anyone doesn't believe as I that they are going to some awful hell...that is not for me to say or as I have repeated over and over I am not the judge.....Im just the messenger and what you do with the information is totally up to you...as your freewill allows this....I have nothing to do with it.

And once again Anoasis I say to you, it is not a matter of right or wrong...or a matter of what religion someone believes or doesn't believe.....I will ask you something Anoasis if the God that I believe in came to you and looked you smack in the face and said I am who I am......and gave you a message that you knew could only be from the The Lord God...Would you say nothing? and if so how would that look in his eyes if you ignored him like that. Do you think he would be fine with your silence?

Umm... feral cat lady... perhaps you could re-read my post... I actually *agreed* with you...

and I would never put words in your mouth... which is why I said "some christians"...

Peace.

anoasis I totally apoligize I did misread it.....I humbly apologize....

Feral Cat Lady-

No worries... that's why I *try* to keep my posts short (you'll see- doesn't always happen!!!)... I feel the more I write the more likely it is I will be misunderstood...

We all skim posts sometimes...

feralcat u said "And once again Anoasis I say to you, it is not a matter of right or wrong...or a matter of what religion someone believes or doesn't believe.....I will ask you something Anoasis if the God that I believe in came to you and looked you smack in the face and said I am who I am......and gave you a message that you knew could only be from the The Lord God...Would you say nothing? and if so how would that look in his eyes if you ignored him like that. Do you think he would be fine with your silence?"

Of course a spiritual encounter would change obviously someones perspective but they dont happen in your religion
obviously your god wouldnt do this, as according to you and many others he doensnt need to appear 4 u 2 believe in him

r u content in knowing that he exists solely because u believe he should?

lizardking19,

Jesus promised to appear to every saved Christian. God has no reason to appear to someone who rejects Him or who isn't looking for Him. God has reached out to all humanity by giving us the Bible and our conscience and the universe itself. I have told you before: If you want proof that God exists, humble yourself and ask God to prove his existance to you. If you ask with a humble heart, which is seeking the truth, you will know God's truth.

God bless.

LIZARD

oh he speaks to people all the time. To have a face to face encounter no way....you wouldn't be able to look into the light God....But some did for example Moses saw him.

Lizard I believe because of the miracles that happen directly to me. It's a long story and maybe some day I will share. But trust me my relationship with God is real and it's powerful and I know from experiences in my life that He is who He says he is. And when he speaks to my heart....I listen and I do what is asked. I have been called by God to bring his word to the people...and by golly that what I will do....until he speaks otherwise. When I asked Aoasis that question it as more for the effect...that sometimes I get frusterated that what the heck would it take for some of you to believe.....If He came and said it to you.....would you play a different tune in here.....

And if I didn't have my personal relationship and experiences with God I don't know honestly how I would be answering this.