Okay. It looks like I struck a few nerves before, and I apologise for that. I'll try to be a bit more careful this time round.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LionHarted Baptism is here declared a condition for Christians to enter heaven. |
Baptism is declared to be a condition, yes - but I cannot recall any instance of baptism in the Bible that did not invlove full immersion. I suppose it really comes down to what you believe is involved in baptism, doesn't it?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bobslob If it is so highly probable, why don't you do it? |
Because I'm not in the habit of reading through 1,500-odd pages of scripture just to prove a point. If I come across anything in my normal studies, I will tell you.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bobslob But she was bethrothed to be married. Normally, you'd be expecting to have children if you were engaged, no? She knew how babies were made, as it was so nicely put. She was going to get married. The angel tells her that she is going to conceive (not that she has), hence, she's looking towards the future. But, this perplexes her because she hasn't been planning to conceive at all. Obviously, we can quibble about this, but I think it's a totally acceptable explanation. |
You're right - we could easily quibble about this for the rest of our natural lives without making any headway, so I'll back off. I still don't agree, though.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bobslob Have you ever told a friend, hey, pray for me? |
No, actually, I haven't. But that's beside the point.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bobslob It's so natural, I believe all Christians do it all the time. Why do it? Because we do. It's the same thing as praying to a saint. You're asking someone else to pray for you. It certainly isn't necessary, but, it still works. You know, hey, I'm having that operation tomorrow Joe, will you pray for me? Why, sure I will. It's that innocuous. |
Except that you think the saints' prayers are "better" than the prayer of someone still on the earth. But I'll back off here as well.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bobslob The Deuterocanonicals. They're part of Scripture, part of the Old Testament. They were removed at the time of the Protestant Reformation by Luther. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, continued to use them. |
Oh. Right. That makes sense now. I'll see what I can find.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bobslob I'm sorry, but the issue seems to be coming down to your Bible being an inaccurate translation. |
It does, doesn't it? But without a copy of the original Bible, it's impossible to know for sure.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bobslob As far as I know, the Mormons claim to use a version of the King James Bible which is... correctly translated? |
Which we believe is correctly translated, yes. Especially as Joseph Smith went over it in a similar way to the Book of Mormon and corrected some of the more mangled passages. Please note: these corrections are in the footnotes and the back,
not in the main text.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bobslob I don't know where we can go from there. The point is more that water is used ritually, and that is holy water. I only see the quote from Numbers 5:17 claiming to say "holy" water. |
Oh, so
that's your definition of holy water. In that case, you could claim water used for baptism as "holy". Objections withdrawn.
And you don't see the "consecrated" footnote because you're not holding an LDS Bible. I've never seen a version of the Bible that has footnotes as extensive as ours.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bobslob (Not to mention that in the case of Mormons, they indeed accept non-Biblical sources, of course these are the Book of Mormon, etc... but my interest now is, why is it wrong for Catholics to have non-biblical sources, but not Mormons?) |
It's a question of differing faiths. If you claim to have non-Biblical sources, fine by me - but I wouldn't put any weight on viewpoionts based on such a source. That's why I haven't been quoted anything but the Bible - because I wouldn't expect you to accept it as a valid source.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DarkFire360 Then how do you define excommunication? |
I'm with LionHarted and Bobslob on this one. Excommunication is simply the act of expelling an errant member from church membership. It does not, in itself, automatically condemn anyone, but the act or acts that result in the excommunication often do. Full and honest repentance is all that is needed to be re-admitted to the Chruch (for LDS, anyway).
EDIT: BBD posted while I was typing (yes, I take a
long time preparing my replies). In reply to the first part, thank you. That helps my peace of mind. In reply to the second...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Big Bro Davidia And also I will discuss, if the Lord so wills it, how, if Peter was to found the Church, he also is Satan, himself, and there will be no denying this, for those who believe the Scriptures. |
...what the
heck?