the Jesus, Paul and Women thread but wish to ask you here, the following:

You wrote to Cassandra:"Read everything, think, meditate, decide how it affects you, and then you are in a position to criticise.  That's a motto of mine - I do try to make it work." followed by "Don't stop thinking."

I have never stopped thinking and I read everything, even the fine print, I meditate and think about the words, etc and then I get ready to criticise. That was a good advice to her, I like it.

Could you please explain the following contradiction  in the NT when Jesus is arrested? Only John gives this narrative, the other three don't:

18:6When Jesus said, "I am he", they drew back and fell to the ground.

What happened, what did they see that made them fall down? Was there any transfiguration of his face? Keep in mind that the other three writers did not know about this at all.

Next comes18:8"I told you that I am he," Jesus answered. "If you are looking for me, then let these men go." 9This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled:"I have not lost one of those you gave me."

Before this he had already lost Judas. Immediately after this he had already lost Simon Peter who disowned him three times verified by the cock crowing. He had also lost the doubting Thomas. How was 9 fulfilled?

bmzsp:

Actually it was I who wrote:

:"Read everything, think, meditate, decide how it affects you, and then you are in a position to criticise.  That's a motto of mine - I do try to make it work."

followed by Annietwo's rejoinder:"Don't stop thinking."

Just a little point of order.  I've made a life of thinking. I'm even qualified in it!

Both, I think are worth contemplating.  Cassandra

BMZ wrote: Could you please explain the following contradiction  in the NT when Jesus is arrested? Only John gives this narrative, the other three don't:

There is no contradiction.

BMZ wrote: 18:6When Jesus said, "I am he", they drew back and fell to the ground. What happened, what did they see that made them fall down? Was there any transfiguration of his face? Keep in mind that the other three writers did not know about this at all.

John has already testified to the effect of Jesus' words on temple officials sent to arrest him (see John 7:45-46).  It is not at all unlikely that some of the same personnel are again involved.  If they have been awed by Jesus before, if they have been dumbfounded by his teaching, his authority, his directness in the full light of day in the precincts of the temple where they most feel at home, it is not hard to believe that they are staggered by his open self-disclosure in the middle of the night.  Their physical ineptitude was another instance of people responding better than they knew.

Jesus' effect on people was astounding.  I think just looking into his eyes could make one weak in the knees.

BMZ wrote: Next comes18:8"I told you that I am he," Jesus answered. "If you are looking for me, then let these men go." 9This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled:"I have not lost one of those you gave me." Before this he had already lost Judas. Immediately after this he had already lost Simon Peter who disowned him three times verified by the cock crowing. He had also lost the doubting Thomas. How was 9 fulfilled?

What did Jesus mean by saying "I have not lost one of those you gave me."  When did Jesus say that?  Read John 17:12,

12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition [pointing to Judas], that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

Also, see John 6:39

39 This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.

And John 10:28

28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.

It is already understood that Judas was lost by his actions.  Peter and Thomas were not lost.  Thomas called Jesus, "My Lord and My God" after he saw Jesus after his resurrection.  Peter went on to preach the gospel of Messiah Jesus.

Annie

Annie wrote:

"Jesus' effect on people was astounding.  I think just looking into his eyes could make one weak in the knees."

But this is not true.

John did not recognise Jesus and had to be told who he was: John 1:33 I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.'

Isaiah states that there was nothing unusual or even beautiful about Jesus: Isaiah 53:2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

And we all know that jesus was so indistinguishable from his followers that Judas had to point him out to those who came to arrest him: Matthew 26:47 While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people.    26:48 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: "The one I kiss is the man; arrest him."    26:49 Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Greetings, Rabbi!" and kissed him

Mishmish wrote: Annie wrote: "Jesus' effect on people was astounding.  I think just looking into his eyes could make one weak in the knees." But this is not true. John did not recognise Jesus and had to be told who he was: John 1:33 I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.'

Apples and oranges.  John said that he was not worthy to tie Jesus' sandals.  People followed Jesus in droves and hung on his every word.  People brought the sick to him.  He spoke like no other prophet either before him or after him.

Mishmish wrote: Isaiah states that there was nothing unusual or even beautiful about Jesus: Isaiah 53:2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

I am not speaking of Jesus' outward appearance but his inward appearance.

Mishmish wrote: And we all know that jesus was so indistinguishable from his followers that Judas had to point him out to those who came to arrest him: Matthew 26:47 While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people.    26:48 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: "The one I kiss is the man; arrest him."    26:49 Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Greetings, Rabbi!" and kissed him

Nope.  I am speaking of Jesus inward appearance not his outward appearance.

Annie:

If you are speaking of his inward appearance, then what did they see that made them fall to the ground?

"18:6When Jesus said, "I am he", they drew back and fell to the ground.

What happened, what did they see that made them fall down? Was there any transfiguration of his face? Keep in mind that the other three writers did not know about this at all."

You wrote:

"John has already testified to the effect of Jesus' words on temple officials sent to arrest him (see John 7:45-46).  It is not at all unlikely that some of the same personnel are again involved.  If they have been awed by Jesus before, if they have been dumbfounded by his teaching, his authority, his directness in the full light of day in the precincts of the temple where they most feel at home, it is not hard to believe that they are staggered by his open self-disclosure in the middle of the night."

If they had already been awed by him, having come in contact with Jesus before, why would they have needed Judas to point him out to them?

The soldiers (all 600 of them) fell to the ground in awe of Jesus.  It is believed that Judas' famous betrayal with a kiss was necessary to show the soldiers which of the men was Jesus BECAUSE he blended in so well with the other men on the scene.  This act singled him out.  Afterall, it was night time and would have been difficult to see anyway.

"So Judas made his way [to the garden] with a detachment of soldiers (the word here translated "detachment" refers to a military unit of 600 men), and with Temple guards provided by the chief priests and the Pharisees: they were equipped with lanterns, torches, and weapons."

Picture the setting. The night is clear and cold. The moon is almost full. Jesus and the disciples are in a walled garden. Into this enclosed space Judas leads six hundred Roman soldiers and an unspecified number of Temple guards with lanterns, torches, and weapons, looking for one unarmed man who has never been violent and who has never attempted to flee. The scene is almost laughable.

Then, Jesus steps forward and identifies himself. "Whom are you seeking?" he asks, recalling his first words to the disciples. In answer to their response, "Jesus of Nazareth," he replies "I am." We fill in the predicate and say, "I am he," but the Greek says simply, "egw eimi," "I am." This is more than a simple, "I am he." Contemporaries of Jesus and of John would have remembered the ways in which Jesus identifies himself elsewhere in the gospel: "I am the bread of life; I am the gate for the sheep; I am the good shepherd; I am the true vine; I am the way, the truth, and the life; I am the resurrection and the life; I am the light of the world," and would have understood this "I am" as a summation of all those divine attributes. They would also have known that in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, these two words are God's name, Yahweh, a name so freighted with holiness and mystery that it was not to be pronounced.

As soon as he says this, the hundreds of men step back and fall to the ground. Imagine! I would love to paint this scene: more than six hundred armed forces prostrate before the single unarmed peasant they have come to arrest, their weapons irrelevant and their lanterns and torches competing in vain with the Light of the World while the Passover moon shines silently and steadily.

Their awe is evidently short-lived, for the dialogue continues. Again Jesus asks, "Whom are you seeking?" Again the answer, "Jesus of Nazareth," to which Jesus replies, "I have told you that I am." We know what happens next: how, in solidarity with those who have no choice, Jesus goes voluntarily to the cross where, for the sake of humanity, he suffers the most ignominious and painful form of capital punishment the Roman Empire has to offer.

God's Peace to All!

Annie,

Annie, you wrote: "There is no contradiction."

BMZ: The other three gospels clearly contradict. It is a serious contradiction and by saying "There is no contradiction" the Contradiction is not removed.

Annie: "John has already testified to the effect of Jesus' words on temple officials sent to arrest him (see John 7:45-46).  It is not at all unlikely that some of the same personnel are again involved.  If they have been awed by Jesus before, if they have been dumbfounded by his teaching, his authority, his directness in the full light of day in the precincts of the temple where they most feel at home, it is not hard to believe that they are staggered by his open self-disclosure in the middle of the night.  Their physical ineptitude was another instance of people responding better than they knew.  "

BMZ: John's testimony does not match the common testimony of the other three gospel writers. Either the three were unaware or had not heard of what went there or John came up with the story of people falling down.

Annie: "Jesus' effect on people was astounding.  I think just looking into his eyes could make one weak in the knees."

BMZ: If that were true, it would have been a success story and the entire Israel would have fallen down on it's knees and that never happened. Any man with that power would not have been running and hiding, getting persecuted and stones thrown at.

If what you said were true, Pilate, the most powerful, would have been the one with the weakest knees as he and Jesus spoke face to face. Surely Jesus must have looked into his eyes too.  That argument falls flat. 

Hi Cassandra,

My apologies. Annie does sometimes write in between the text of others.  Annie knows that, she would not mind saying this.

That's why I thought, it was from her.

"Just a little point of order.  I've made a life of thinking. I'm even qualified in it!

Both, I think are worth contemplating.  Cassandra "

I agree with above and thanks for the words of wisdom.

Why is the Gospel of John different from the other Gospels in the account of the arrest of Jesus? If an entire army of 600 fell down in awe in front of Jesus, wouldn't the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and Mark have mentioned this amazing thing?

Matthew 26:47 While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people.

26:48 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: "The one I kiss is the man; arrest him."

26:49 Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Greetings, Rabbi!" and kissed him.

26:50 Jesus replied, "Friend, do what you came for."    Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him.

That is what I have always questioned. Mishmish. If the 600 men fell down in awe or reverence, they would have instead followed Jesus and would have perhaps torn Judas into pieces.

Something just doesn't sound right here. I was also coming from another angle but did not elaborate. Notice how Peter denied him!!

It shows that there was some kind of transfiguration of his face. Otherwise the men would not have fallen down and why would a rock like Peter crumble in front of a maid-servant and deny Jesus, the man whom he knew so well, three times? I know the reason given that Jesus himself told that Peter would deny him three times but it is not a convincing reason.  

The gospels are of no great help and we have to think hard here. The problem is whose account should be taken seriously? Now that the Gospel of Judas has been discovered, more things may come to light.

bmzsp wrote: Hi Cassandra, My apologies. Annie does sometimes write in between the text of others.  Annie knows that, she would not mind saying this. That's why I thought, it was from her. "Just a little point of order.  I've made a life of thinking. I'm even qualified in it! Both, I think are worth contemplating.  Cassandra " I agree with above and thanks for the words of wisdom. I did use quotes, BMZ.  <>

Thanks for the post - it's got me thinking.

Annie asked:

"Where does it say that 600 men fell down?"

"So Judas made his way [to the garden] with a detachment of soldiers (the word here translated "detachment" refers to a military unit of 600 men), and with Temple guards provided by the chief priests and the Pharisees: they were equipped with lanterns, torches, and weapons."

DavidC wrote: Mishmish wrote: Why is the Gospel of John different from the other Gospels in the account of the arrest of Jesus? The Gospel of John is different in many ways.  The other three gospels are called the synoptic gospels because they parallel each other.  Perhaps the best supported theory for this is that there was a common source or author "Q" responsible for the similarities.

I was asking more from a factual point of view. And even within the synoptic gospels there are differences.

Like I once said to Fred, these accounts would never stand up in a court of law. Man's law. Yet, they purportedly describe the most miraculous occurance in the history of man: God incarnate on earth, and are supposed to be divinely guided.

My apologies, Annie.

That was an inadvertant mistake.

BMZ

Annie,

From you: "On the contrary, a well-know lawyer after reviewing the accounts of Jesus said that they would stand up in a court of law, simply because they do differ.  If they were exactly the same it would suggest collusion."

So far, God and The various Scriptures have not been taken to any Court of Law anywhere. If they are really sent to a Court of man's Law, they will not stand up in any Court of Law and all will be thrown out in a very nice way.  

From you, Annie: "And, once again, there are several accounts in the Qur'an where Allah gives different accounts of the same event.  With your logic, they would not stand up in a court of law."

Please quote me some accounts, if you can and I will explain.

All the gospel writers are supposed to have been inspired by God but John's account is totally different from the other three and so far no satisfactory explanation has been given, which leads the  reader to think as if Jesus transfigured himself into someone whom the troops held in a great awe!

BMZ wrote: Annie, From you: "On the contrary, a well-know lawyer after reviewing the accounts of Jesus said that they would stand up in a court of law, simply because they do differ.  If they were exactly the same it would suggest collusion." So far, God and The various Scriptures have not been taken to any Court of Law anywhere. If they are really sent to a Court of man's Law, they will not stand up in any Court of Law and all will be thrown out in a very nice way.

And you base your opinion on?  It is a fact that eyewitnesses accounts often vary in what they see.  If eyewitnesses to any crime had to be exactly the same, then no one would be convicted of any crime.

What is important is that all gospel accounts record the death and resurrection of Jesus.

BMZ wrote: From you, Annie: "And, once again, there are several accounts in the Qur'an where Allah gives different accounts of the same event.  With your logic, they would not stand up in a court of law." Please quote me some accounts, if you can and I will explain.

There is no need to explain because that is not the issue.  Mishmish seems to feel that all accounts have to be exactly the same.  I say that they do not and gave her examples in the Qur'an where Allah's accounts are slightly different.

Here they are again:

Moses and the burning bush:  S. 20:9-24; S. 27:7-14; S. 28:29-33

Moses' childhood:  S. 20:38-40; S. 28:7,11-13

Israel and obedience:  S. 2:58-59; S. 7:161-162

Moses and the sorcerers:  S. 20:65-73; S. 26:41-52 (Cf. 7:111-126)

Other examples include S. 11:77-83 with 15:61-75 and 29:32-34, as well as 26:160-175 with 27:54-58 and 29:28-30.

BMZ wrote: All the gospel writers are supposed to have been inspired by God but John's account is totally different from the other three and so far no satisfactory explanation has been given, which leads the  reader to think as if Jesus transfigured himself into someone whom the troops held in a great awe!

No, John's is not "totally different" from the other three accounts, but John's has a bit more theology.  And you must remember that John also had Andrew and other eyewitnesses who read what he wrote before it was published.

I don't think that Jesus transfigured himself when he was arrested.  I have already given my reply on this issue.

Annie

Annie:

I guess I do believe they should be almost identical. It is the divinely inspired story of God incarnate on earth.

If a space ship landed in Times Square tomorrow in front of a thousand poeple, most of them would probably remember exactly what it looked like. It's a spaceship. Something amazing, never before seen, unbelieveable, and the people who witnessed it would be talking about it for the rest of their lives.

In the Gospels we have the account of God incarnate on earth, walking around, healing people, and raising the dead, but no one can appear to get the story straight.

You say the important thing is the death and resurrection, yet even these accounts vary. Besides, I think the truly important thing is that this is supposed to be God. God the Almighty. The Creator of everything. How often does God the Almighty come to earth in human form? Once, apparently, yet it's not important enough to have all accounts match, and to beat a dying horse yet once again, to stand up and say: "I AM GOD".

Here is the part where I, as a Christian, got lost: you believe that salvation hinges on accepting Jesus as our savior. You believe that Jesus is God, and we must believe this to be saved. You beleive that those who do not accept this will be doomed for eternity. You believe that God is a loving God who sent Himself to earth in order to redeem man and save him from being doomed for eternity. Other than the actual creation of mankind, this is the most important event ever. Our eternal souls hinge on our acceptance of all of this. Yet, NEVER ONCE DID JESUS JUST SAY, I AM GOD AND YOU MUST BELIEVE THIS TO AVOID ETERNAL DAMNATION. I AM GOD AND THE SALVATION OF YOUR SOULS DEPEND UPON YOU BELIEVING THIS.

He went to all of the trouble of being born incarnate and then dying a horrible death, why not make it clear beyond any doubt that he was God? Wasn't that the whole point? To save people?

Annie,

From you:"There is no need to explain because that is not the issue.  Mishmish seems to feel that all accounts have to be exactly the same.  I say that they do not and gave her examples in the Qur'an where Allah's accounts are slightly different."

I don't think Mishmish seems to feel that. The accounts are written by four authors, we know that. We understand there are different style of writing, reporting and we are not expecting to find all to write exactly the same words.

But one thing is clear, the first three writers did not mention about the soldiers falling down after they saw his face. Only John did. What theology was he trying to introduce here? That is a big difference in the reporting and John did not explain what really happened. That is where all have to guess.

In Qur'aan, the substance never changes and more relevant information is revealed. I will do a write up later when I have more time.

Mishmish wrote: Annie: I guess I do believe they should be almost identical. It is the divinely inspired story of God incarnate on earth. If a space ship landed in Times Square tomorrow in front of a thousand poeple, most of them would probably remember exactly what it looked like. It's a spaceship. Something amazing, never before seen, unbelieveable, and the people who witnessed it would be talking about it for the rest of their lives.

How about a space ship lands in Times Square at night and stays only a short while.  Some might say the ship was silver, some may say it was gold, some may say it was shinny green.  Some may say they saw two men in the ship, some may say they saw three, some may say they saw 4.  But all would say that they saw a spaceship.  Do you see?

And in Times Square there would be people who said they did not see it even though it landed at their feet.  lol

Mishmish wrote: In the Gospels we have the account of God incarnate on earth, walking around, healing people, and raising the dead, but no one can appear to get the story straight.

The stories are straight enough for Christians.  Tell me something, Mishmish, if there had been only one Gospel and not 4 written to different audiences, would you then believe it?

And don't forget that not all believed in Jesus.  Some accused Jesus' miracles were the result of the power of Satan.

Mishmish wrote: You say the important thing is the death and resurrection, yet even these accounts vary.

As you would expect from eyewitness accounts and they all note that Jesus died on the cross and rose again.

Mishmish wrote: Besides, I think the truly important thing is that this is supposed to be God. God the Almighty. The Creator of everything. How often does God the Almighty come to earth in human form?

He came in theophanies in the Old Testament.

Mishmish wrote: Once, apparently, yet it's not important enough to have all accounts match, and to beat a dying horse yet once again, to stand up and say: "I AM GOD".

Jesus said he was God in many ways, by the claims he made.  Think about this one for a while.  What do you think would have happened if Jesus had said that he was God?  What would his listeners understand by that?  Mishmish, Jesus never would have been able to give his message.  No one would have listened to him.  But he rose from the dead.  I believe that this is when all that he said, all the claims he made were vindicated by God.

If Jesus came to your mosque today and said in front of everyone, "I am Jesus and I am God" would you believe him?  Or would you think some crackpot had made himself into your mosque and call the police to take him out?

You must remember the reactions of the Jews.  They understood that Jesus was claiming to be God and Jesus never corrected them.  A prophet would have been obligated to do so, don't you think so?  But Jesus didn't.  He did not say that he wasn't God.

Mishmish wrote: Here is the part where I, as a Christian, got lost: you believe that salvation hinges on accepting Jesus as our savior. You believe that Jesus is God, and we must believe this to be saved. You beleive that those who do not accept this will be doomed for eternity. You believe that God is a loving God who sent Himself to earth in order to redeem man and save him from being doomed for eternity. Other than the actual creation of mankind, this is the most important event ever. Our eternal souls hinge on our acceptance of all of this. Yet, NEVER ONCE DID JESUS JUST SAY, I AM GOD AND YOU MUST BELIEVE THIS TO AVOID ETERNAL DAMNATION. I AM GOD AND THE SALVATION OF YOUR SOULS DEPEND UPON YOU BELIEVING THIS.

Well, to be honest with you, there are a lot of Christians who do believe that others will be saved even though they don't believe in Jesus.  I am not one of them and I admit that too.  The church in my opinion is bending over backwards to be "politically correct" and they are doing it at the expense of the Gospel.

Jesus did say this:

John 8:21Then He said again to them, "I go away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come." 22So the Jews were saying, "Surely He will not kill Himself, will He, since He says, 'Where I am going, you cannot come'?" 23And He was saying to them, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. 24Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."

"He" means Messiah.  Unless we believe that Jesus is the Messiah we will die in our sins.

And it is very important to consider what Jesus' disciples said about him.  They walked with him and talked with him and I am sure that he said many things to them that aren't recorded.  Look what Peter said:

Acts 4:8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, �Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: 9 If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, 10 let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. 11 This is the �stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.� 12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.�

7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.

22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

2 John 9 Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.

Mishmish wrote: He went to all of the trouble of being born incarnate and then dying a horrible death, why not make it clear beyond any doubt that he was God? Wasn't that the whole point? To save people?

If Jesus had said he was God (see above) there would be those who wouldn't believe him anyway, either in the first century or today.

Annie

Annie,

From you: "If Jesus came to your mosque today and said in front of everyone, "I am Jesus and I am God" would you believe him?  Or would you think some crackpot had made himself into your mosque and call the police to take him out?"

Well, I don't believe in hypothetical scenarios, so let's move down to your next comment.

"You must remember the reactions of the Jews.  They understood that Jesus was claiming to be God and Jesus never corrected them.  A prophet would have been obligated to do so, don't you think so?  But Jesus didn't.  He did not say that he wasn't God."

The Scripture was written in a way to show as if the Jews, the Pharisees and the Sadduces were fools. They knew well he was no God and not God. "Jesus was claiming to be God and Jesus was claiming divinity" is the the claim of the Church writers. The Jews simply did not accept his talks which sounded against them. This is more factual.

Jesus himself never said that he was God. There is not a shred of evidence in the Bible that says he said so. Even if they had considered him to be God, Jesus would have corrected them and said,"You brood of vipers and snakes, don't call me God for I am not God!"  

Keeping quiet does not necessarily mean an acceptance of a statement. For example, if you asked me,"BMZ, Are you God?" and I keep quiet. That does not mean that I have accepted being one. It may also mean that in my heart I laughed or scoffed at that idea.

Jesus was one of the best debators in the world.

Annie wrote:

"And it is very important to consider what Jesus' disciples said about him.  They walked with him and talked with him and I am sure that he said many things to them that aren't recorded.  Look what Peter said:

Acts 4:8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, �Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: 9 If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, 10 let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. 11 This is the �stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.� 12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.�

Yes, let us look at what Peter said: Peter does not say that Jesus was God, but distinctly says Jesus Christ was crucified, GOD raised him.

A complete and separate being.

Peter was a witness to the transfiguration, and the voice of God told him this is my son, not this is Myself. God also told Abraham he was his son in James.

"The stories are straight enough for Christians." 

Then why are there so many different beliefs in Christianity? Out of the Christians answering this thread right now, not one of you believes exactly the same thing.

In my own family: my maternal grandfather was Catholic. My maternal grandmother was baptist. My mom was raised Catholic but later became an Evanfgelical Christian. One of my sisters was a Jehovahs Witness for years. She divorced her husband and was shunned, but she still holds their beliefs. My other sister follows the teachings of the OT and goes to services with the Jews for Jesus.

Annie, I can hear the: well Muslims have different beliefs, coming. But we really don't. We have our own personal beliefs, which often interfere with what we say and how we follow Islam, but the Quran is clear and 90% of Muslims follow it. There is no divergence on: One God, Jesus is not God, Mohammed is the last Prophet of God, to believe otherwise is shirk, belief in all of the Prophets, and non belief in a trinity. ALL Muslims believe these. And the main difference in Islam, between Shi'ite and Sunni, was originally political, not spiritual.

DavidC wrote: Mishmish wrote: ...later became an Evanfgelical Christian....  "Ef'fin'-gelical Christians?"  I like that one...

Wow, Freudian slip.....

David wrote" "Ef'fin'-gelical Christians?"  I like that one..."

Not everyone can do this. Both get

Mishmish wrote: The stories are straight enough for Christians."  Then why are there so many different beliefs in Christianity? Out of the Christians answering this thread right now, not one of you believes exactly the same thing.

You said it yourself.  Muslims have personal beliefs and so do Christians.  How could that be when we all use the same scriptures�Christians, the Bible�and Muslims, the Qur'an?  It is because we are allowed to interpret the scriptures on our own.  Those with similar beliefs get together.

But, if you go to any Orthodox Christian site you will find that they all believe in the same basics, i.e., there is only one God, God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Jesus died for our sins, was the Messiah, rose from the dead and such and he is our savior.

I wish that there weren't so many denominations but one of the main reasons we have so many is that they are governed differently.

Jehovah Witnesses are not Orthodox Christians.

Annie

Mishmish wrote: Annie wrote: "And it is very important to consider what Jesus' disciples said about him.  They walked with him and talked with him and I am sure that he said many things to them that aren't recorded.  Look what Peter said: Acts 4:8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, �Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: 9 If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, 10 let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. 11 This is the �stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.� 12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.� Yes, let us look at what Peter said: Peter does not say that Jesus was God, but distinctly says Jesus Christ was crucified, GOD raised him.

Yes, God raised His son.

Mishmish wrote: A complete and separate being.

Jesus was also human.

Mishmish wrote: Peter was a witness to the transfiguration, and the voice of God told him this is my son, not this is Myself. God also told Abraham he was his son in James.

Jesus was human.  The Father is not the Son.  The Son is the incarnate Word of the Father.  They communicated.

"God also told Abraham he was his son in James?"  I'm not following that comment.

Annie

BMZ wrote: Annie, From you: "If Jesus came to your mosque today and said in front of everyone, "I am Jesus and I am God" would you believe him?  Or would you think some crackpot had made himself into your mosque and call the police to take him out?" Well, I don't believe in hypothetical scenarios, so let's move down to your next comment. "You must remember the reactions of the Jews.  They understood that Jesus was claiming to be God and Jesus never corrected them.  A prophet would have been obligated to do so, don't you think so?  But Jesus didn't.  He did not say that he wasn't God." The Scripture was written in a way to show as if the Jews, the Pharisees and the Sadduces were fools. They knew well he was no God and not God. "Jesus was claiming to be God and Jesus was claiming divinity" is the the claim of the Church writers. The Jews simply did not accept his talks which sounded against them. This is more factual.

Sorry, I don't agree.  Take a look at what the Jews said in the Scriptures.  There is no doubt that they understood Jesus' claim to divinity.

BMZ wrote: Jesus himself never said that he was God. There is not a shred of evidence in the Bible that says he said so.

He did so by his claims.

BMZ wrote: Even if they had considered him to be God, Jesus would have corrected them and said,"You brood of vipers and snakes, don't call me God for I am not God!"

Yes, but he didn't, not once.

BMZ wrote: Keeping quiet does not necessarily mean an acceptance of a statement. For example, if you asked me,"BMZ, Are you God?" and I keep quiet. That does not mean that I have accepted being one. It may also mean that in my heart I laughed or scoffed at that idea.

But you are not a prophet of God and Jesus was.  He was obligated to correct the Jews but he did not, not once.

BMZ wrote: Jesus was one of the best debators in the world.

Yes, he was.

Annie

David,

Well, duh...he knew what the other people were thinking

Because God is too big to be conceptualized by a single theological framework. The body of Christ has many organs.  Catholics are the frontal lobe.  Methodists are the hands.  Jehovah's witnesses are the spleen or something...nobody quite knows why they are there.

 You said it best. I can relax now and go to bed. I am going to study the Mormons now. All other organs bore me!  

Good Night

BMZ

Annie:

How did Jesus and God communicate?

AnnieTwo wrote: Mishmish wrote: Annie: How did Jesus and God communicate? Via prayer. Annie

But why was it necessary for Jesus to pray to God, when Jesus was God?

Mishmish wrote: AnnieTwo wrote: Mishmish wrote: Annie: How did Jesus and God communicate? Via prayer. Annie But why was it necessary for Jesus to pray to God, when Jesus was God?

Okay....this is just my amatuer Mormon answer....because they aren't one and the same!!!!!!!  Ha!  oh....uh....

Okay, I'll go back to my corner now.

Mishmish: "How did Jesus and God communicate?"

Annie: "Via prayer".

Mishmish, that was a very good question.

Annie, you have been misinformed. God and Jesus communicated through the Holy Spirit of Truth known as Gabriel. God had spoken with all the prophets before through Gabriel only and with Moses, did God speak direct.

Angela, I find your Mormonic answer more appealing. The act of Jesus praying to God, establishes two clear and distinct personalities totally separate from each other. One, the God Almighty and the other, the most obedient Servant of God. Even the definition 100% man and 100% God becomes null and void.

Looking from the angle of the gospel writers, it looks to me as if at sometime, the communications between God and Jesus broke down and there was a dead silence. "Eli, Eli, Lama sabachtani" is the tell-tale sign. However, this single sentence also confirms two distinct personalities totally different from each other. It clearly establishes the relationship between a man, in severe pain under torture, and his Almighty God.

If Jesus were God, he would not have really said that. Now someone may come up and say "Oh! he was 100% human" but that argument hold no water.

All these complications and confusions are removed and the picture becomes clear and easy to understand; when God Almighty tells us through  Qur'aan that Jesus was not killed as people thought. He was rescued and taken away by God.

The Almighty God, who gave Jesus life in his mother's womb and made him a virgin-born, was surely watching over him. How could The Most Loving, The Most Merciful, The Most caring and The Most Compassionate God, the God Most High let that beautiful soul to perish and go to waste and let all those wicked and cruel people live and face another defeat from Satan?

God is the Saviour of Jesus. Only God Almighty saves as told in Isaiah and the other Chapters of The Jewish Scriptures and Qur'aan. 

Annie,

"You are right, Angela.  The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father.  The Father is higher in "office," it is He who gives the "orders/command" and the Son carries them out.

Annie"

Who was carrying out the orders/command before the son was born or created? What do you think the son is doing now?

AnnieTwo wrote: bmzsp wrote: Annie, "You are right, Angela.  The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father.  The Father is higher in "office," it is He who gives the "orders/command" and the Son carries them out. Annie" Who was carrying out the orders/command before the son was born or created? What do you think the son is doing now? The Father.  He created through His Word.  The Son is the incarnate Word of God. The Son is now standing at the right hand of the Father. Annie

So, you are saying that Jesus and God are two separate beings?

That's what I'm saying.  Jesus and God are not one and the same.  Jesus is the Son of God, but he is not God.  The Trinity doesn't make any sense.  Jesus was the Word....the promise...a creation of God.  He is less than God but equal in purpose.  What's that purpose, to return as many of God's children as possible to him in Heaven.  The salvation of mankind. 

This is why mainstream Christianity doesn't work....you cannot say that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one and the same and then later say they are different.  Either they are or they aren't.

Jesus was not God.  Father, Son and Holy Ghost were present when John the Baptist plunged Jesus into the waters of the Jordan River.  They cannot all be the same if they are all manifest at the same time.

Jehovah was a creation of Elohim....there's not stretch in logic there.  No hardship to understand.  God said and it was....

Angela wrote: That's what I'm saying.  Jesus and God are not one and the same.

Jesus is human, Angela.  Jesus is a human being.  God is spirit.

Angela wrote: Jesus is the Son of God, but he is not God. The Trinity doesn't make any sense.  Jesus was the Word....the promise...a creation of God.

Angela wrote: He is less than God but equal in purpose.  What's that purpose, to return as many of God's children as possible to him in Heaven.  The salvation of mankind.

Angela wrote: This is why mainstream Christianity doesn't work....you cannot say that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one and the same and then later say they are different.  Either they are or they aren't.

I'm not following you.  Mormons don't believe that God's Word and His Holy Spirit are all God?

Angela wrote: Jesus was not God.  Father, Son and Holy Ghost were present when John the Baptist plunged Jesus into the waters of the Jordan River.  They cannot all be the same if they are all manifest at the same time.

You are forgetting that Jesus was human.  The Father, His Word and His Holy Spirit are all one God, the same substance.  God is omnipresent.

Angela wrote: Jehovah was a creation of Elohim....there's not stretch in logic there.  No hardship to understand.  God said and it was....

That must be a Mormon belief.  Don't Mormans believe in three gods--three separate beings?  This would be shirk in Islam.

"God said and it was."  God created by His Word, yes.  Ever wonder why He needed to speak?  Why didn't He just point His finger or think things into being?

Annie

Here's this article sums it up best....

http://www.fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/chap03.html - http://www.fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/chap03.h tml

For the benefit of those like AK that don't like to read the whole article....

The LDS Concept of the Godhead

"We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." (Article of Faith 1) While this statement of faith may seem perfectly mainstream, there are many significant differences between the LDS doctrine of God and that of the bulk of the Christian world. Moreover the differences between any two doctrines of the Godhead in Christianity can usually be understood by comparing the ways in which a number of scriptural propositions are combined and interpreted.

The Godhead of the Bible

The Bible contains four propositions about God that every Christian denomination must reckon with in its theology. (1) First, is that the Bible contains several strongly monotheistic statements. When Moses says, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD" (Deuteronomy 6:4), he means, as the Muslims say, "There is no God but God." This view also finds support in God's statement to Isaiah that, "I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." (Isaiah 43:10) This tradition is continued in the New Testament as, for example, when Jesus prayed to the Father he said, "And this is life eternal: that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3)

(2) Second, there is a person called the Father, who is identified as God. The example of Christ's "high-priestly prayer," quoted in part above, should be ample evidence of this fact.

(3) Third, there is a person called the Son in the New Testament, namely Jesus Christ, who is called God. Clearly identifying Jesus as "the Word," John wrote, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1) http://www.fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/chap03.html#en4 - ⁴ Here Jesus is presented as God, but also as distinct from the Father, hence the phrase, "and the Word was with God." There are numerous other examples of this throughout the New Testament. For instance, when confronted by the resurrected Christ, Thomas exclaimed, "My Lord and my God." (John 20:28) Paul preached to the Church that they should, "Take heed . . . to feed Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." (Acts 20:28) Finally, Jesus Christ unequivocally identified himself as Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament when he said, "Before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58)

Naturally, these propositions present a problem. Are there three Gods or one? For Latter-day Saints, it is acceptable to say both that there is one God, and that there is a plurality of Gods, depending on the context. For example, in one sense the Father is "the only true God." "Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many . . . ; but to us there is but one God--that is pertaining to us; and he is in all and through all." http://www.fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/chap03.html#en5 - ⁵ That is, even if there are other Gods, the one with ultimate power and authority pertaining to us is the Father. In another sense there is a plurality of Gods. Again, quoting Joseph Smith, "I have always declared [that] . . . these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods." http://www.fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/chap03.html#en6 - ⁶

And in yet another sense, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can be spoken of as "one God." The Book of Mormon prophet Nephi preached the way to salvation, which he called "the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end." (2 Nephi 31:21) What is the nature of this "oneness"? In Jesus' great Intercessory Prayer (see John 17) http://www.fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/chap03.html#en7 - ⁷ , He asked that His disciples would be made one in Him as He was one in the Father. Joseph Smith explained:

Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow--three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. "Father, I pray not for the world, but I pray for them which thou hast given me." "Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom thou has given me, that they may be one as we are." All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God--he would be a giant or a monster. I want to read the text to you myself--"I am agreed with the Father and the Father is agreed with me, and we are agreed as one." The Greek shows that it should be agreed. "Father, I pray for them which Thou has given me out of the world, and not for those alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be agreed, as Thou, Father, are with me, and I with Thee, that they also may be agreed with us," and all come to dwell in unity, and in all the glory and everlasting burnings of the Gods; and then we shall see as we are seen, and be as our God and He as His Father. http://www.fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/chap03.html#en8 - ⁸

Consistent with the idea that the Father is the "only true God," the Prophet also preached "subordinationism," the idea that the Son and Spirit are subordinate in power, rank, and glory to the Father. "Any person that had seen the heavens opened knows that there are three personages in the heavens who hold the keys of power, and one [the Father] presides over all." http://www.fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/chap03.html#en9 - ⁹

The Prophet also taught a startling doctrine about the physical nature of God. He preached that "if you were to see [God] today, you would see him like a man in form," http://www.fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/chap03.html#en10 - ¹⁰ and that "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." (D&C 130:22) Indeed, the Spirit of God and the spirit of man are both material substance. (D&C 131:7-8) Consistent with all of this, Joseph Smith taught that man is of the same race as God. The spirit of man existed before this mortal life, and man is capable of becoming like his Father in Heaven. http://www.fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/chap03.html#en11 - ¹¹

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead. And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost. And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion--all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them. http://www.fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/chap03.html#en12 - ¹²

That is, there is only one God, but that God is composed of three distinct persons who share in the same substance or essence. http://www.fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/chap03.html#en13 - ¹³

Was this the original interpretation of the scriptural passages in question? Modern scholars agree that the Nicene view introduced new elements into the standard interpretations that had not been accepted by the earliest Church. For example, Maurice Wiles concludes that, "The emergence of the full trinitarian doctrine was not possible without significant modification of previously accepted ideas." http://www.fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/chap03.html#en14 - ¹⁴

Specifically, the phrase, "of one substance or essence," expresses a concept that was adopted and adapted from contemporary Greek philosophy, but was foreign to the thought of the original Christianity. This concept may seem strange to the modern reader because Greek philosophy is no longer the predominant system of thought, although it has remained the basis of many aspects of mainstream Christian theology even to the present time. At the time the Nicene Creed was adopted, the predominant philosophy was a hodgepodge of ideas, mostly based on Neoplatonism and a few other schools of thought. These schools, in turn, largely based their ideas on the thought of a few earlier philosophers, notably Plato, Empedocles and Xenophanes. A quick summary of how these philosophers viewed God should make the language of the Nicene Creed clear to the reader. (Although the Christians modified the terminology of the philosophers to fit their purposes, one still cannot make sense of their language without reference to these Hellenistic ideas.) http://www.fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/chap03.html#en15 - ¹⁵

Plato, realizing the material world was ever changing, speculated that it was impossible to obtain true knowledge by observing the natural world. But he had faith that true knowledge was possible, so he posited an unchanging, perfect world that was a higher reality than the material. He called this region or dimension the world of "Ideas" or "Forms." These "Ideas" were considered the perfect essences of various objects or attributes. For example, a waterfall and a person can both be said to be "beautiful" although they seem to have nothing material in common. Plato suggested that there must be an "Idea" or essence in the world of Forms--perfect and unchanging--called "The Beautiful," in which both the person and the waterfall participate. http://www.fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/chap03.html#en16 - ¹⁶ Similarly, Plato's idea of God was a perfect, unchanging, indivisible essence known as "The Divine," or "The One." http://www.fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/chap03.html#en17 - ¹⁷

Xenophanes and Empedocles expressed similar ideas of what God must be like. Xenophanes (570-475 B.C.) conceived of "God as thought, as presence, as all powerful efficacy." He is one God--incorporeal, "unborn, eternal, infinite, . . . not moving at all, [and] beyond human imagination." http://www.fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/chap03.html#en18 - ¹⁸ And Empedocles (ca. 444 B.C.) claimed that God "does not possess a head and limbs similar to those of humans . . . . A spirit, a holy and inexpressible one . . . ." http://www.fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/chap03.html#en19 - ¹⁹

(DavidC)  �The body of Christ has many organs.  Catholics are the frontal lobe.  Methodists are the hands.  Jehovah's witnesses are the spleen or something...nobody quite knows why they are there.�

The master of metaphor strikes again.  That, in addition to being hilarious, is also very insightful!

Serv

Sevetus said:

"Catholics are the frontal lobe."

Ah Hum, and as a little side note, the Jesuits are considered to be the intellectual arm of the Catholic Church, are they not, Servie?

God's Peace.

Dear Angela, you are a dear friend, and I just read this, so I wondered if you would be so kind as to explain to me if this is so or not.  I had never known this before.  Do you also believe this?  If so, what brought you to the point where you believed it?  (I remember you were once Greek Orthodox and also Methodist). 

God's Peace!

DavidC wrote: Patty wrote: Ah Hum, and as a little side note, the Jesuits are considered to be the intellectual arm of the Catholic Church, are they not, Servie? That was me, Patty.  Not Servie. And Jesuits are definitely the liver.

Oops!  Sorry, it was YOU!  Now what's this about LIVER... NOT!

God's Peace.

The LDS Church is the only true church.

Yes, this is what we believe.  We believe that after all the apostles died that the church fell into apostacy and the truth was lost.  We believe the TRUE Church was restored to this earth through the Prophet Joseph Smith. So yes, we believe we are the one True Church. 

There are many Gods for other worlds, and each God is equal to the God of this world in terms of His nature.

Elohim is the creator of many worlds.  He is the creator of this Universe.

Moses Chapter 1

33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.
34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.
35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

I am not going to say we don't believe in multiple Gods.  Because we do.  But we believe there is only One God who created this Universe. 

I noticed that their main reference is Mormon Doctrine by Elder Bruce R McConkie.  The Apostles and Prophet denounced this book, he was not an Apostle at the time and had no authority to right that book.  Its full of mistakes and was not approved by the Church. 

I'll explain further in Private as to not completely derail this thread.

"So Angela, is the Mormon religion the only true religion?

Annie"

Is mainstream Christianity the only true religion?

Annie,

Thats the belief of countless religions.  Not everyone can be right.  Yes, Mormons believe they are the only ones with the Whole Truth.  I've heard this same statement from Protestants, Muslims, Catholics, Hindus (yes, Hindus).  But, if you think about it.....if you truly believe in your faith, you do believe its the only true religion.  Or you'd be something else.  However, we are taught there are fragments of the Truth in all religions, since we are all from the same creator.

Angela,

Thanks to you, I am reading more about Mormons. I have read the Bible many times and now is time to read others.

Yes, you are right about the fragments. When I read the Bible, I can easily find some fragments which Jesus must have really said himself.   

Catholics believe they know the truth, BUT they also believe that many others, even though we have different doctrines, are also correct in their beliefs of God, and upon Judgement Day, if they have loved God with all their being, and have loved their neighbor as themselves, as following moral, ethical, and just laws that God set forth, then God will grant them salvation.  We believe many people from ALL religions will be in Heaven!

I believe that Almighty God is a very loving, kind, an merciful God.

I don't know Patty why but in real life, I find the Catholics more loving, caring and sweet-natured than the Protestants.

Any idea, why is that so? You may choose not to answer. I would like to hear from a Protestant here, not evangelical though!

Good Night

BMZ

bmzsp wrote: I don't know Patty why but in real life, I find the Catholics more loving, caring and sweet-natured than the Protestants. Any idea, why is that so? You may choose not to answer. I would like to hear from a Protestant here, not evangelical though! Good Night BMZ

Humm, what can I say, BMZ?  To know me is to love me!   Sometimes it's just not so much what is said, but rather, how one says it.  In my case, I just really love people.  I think we're a lot more fun than we give ourselves credit for, and I think we're also capable of being a lot more forgiving, tolerant, and kind.  Everyone should try to behave more like God expects.

God's Peace!

BMZ,

The problem isn't with Protestants.  I know alot of loving, dedicated Protestants who are much like Patty in mindset.  My Baba is Methodist.  She was married (is married) to a Russian Orthodox who is non practicing for 55 years.  She had to be open and accepting.  I know many just like her.  Its the "Born Again" movement that I have come into the most contention with in my years.  Long before I left mainstream Christianity, I was harassed about being "Saved" and that it wasn't good enough that I had been baptized and attended church regularly, if I wasn't "Saved" then I was still bound for hell.  I often wondered if they knew what they meant by "saved."

On a side note.  If you would like a physical copy of our scriptures (the triple BoM, D&C and Pearl of Great Price), I would be happy to get you a copy in any language you want to add to your little collection of books.  ( And you don't even have to wash your hands.)  I bought a set for Sister Khadija since she has a Masters in Philosophy.  Members can get them pretty cheap.  Just let me know. 

Hi Angela,

You stated this:

 "I often wondered if they knew what they meant by "saved."

As half my family are Methodists, I can honestly say that, yes, they do know what it means to them.  Many Protestant denominations believe you need to ask Jesus to forgive you of your sins and to also ask Jesus to "come into their hearts" to help them live a good Christian life.  Some Protestants believe this is necessary because Jesus said in the Gospels, "If you deny me before men, I'll deny you before my Father who is in Heaven."  Based on that scripture verse, they feel it is important to acknowledge before the congregation that they truly have "accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior, and have repented of their sins."  I am not Protestant, but I respect them, and I still remember the "altar calls" from my wandering around through various churches days.  This is when the individual who is seeking salvation in a Protestant church comes forward to the altar, or just down in front of the minister and congregation, and confesses, out loud or silently, (the choice is up to the person) their sins to God, and also publically states that Jesus is their Lord.  It is not my way as a Catholic, but I certainly have no problem with their beliefs, nor anyone else's beliefs. 

Our faith is something personal and individual.....we all have to choose the path we will take on our journey through this life.  We are constantly learning and making choices as to how we will go about serving Allah/God, aren't we?

God's Peace to All!