Why is OK to harrass mormons?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Oh drat!

Sunday Sabbath?

It is my understanding that it may have come from the Celtic Church and was adopted because that was the traditional holey day of the previous religion. As was preaching from a pulpit.

This may sound outrageous but remember who re-Christianized Europe after the fall of Rome.

Ah yes, the Celtic Church, a favourite topic of discussion in Northern Ireland where the Protestants/Catholics want to prove they were there first.

Well, according to some pamphlets I have on St. Patrick (a Protestant and a Briton apparently, although he is seriously from my little hometown!), the early Celtic Church were Saturday Sabbatarians.

I am pretty sure every non-evangelical denomination agrees that he lost his salvation with his Bathsheba stunt.

non-evangelical = bad and rejects the Gospel!

Setting the infallible canon aside, all offspring of the original church worshiped on the first day of the week. If this was a Roman construct, then the orthodox, Coptic and Armenian churches would still worship on a Saturday. Christ was resurrected on a Sunday and since the church was all about this event - it became the new day of worship. A new covenant under new rules (mosaic Sabbath strictness done away with). Obviously Christ wanted the breaking of bread to be done periodically and in remembrance of him and his work. A ceremonial worship of the father through Christ's sacrifice, and done on the first day of the week hence forth.

That they happened to worship on the first day of the week does not suggest any sort of superstitious reverence of a holy day. I go to church every Sunday, I also go to football every Saturday...

The observance of days is explicitly condemned by Paul (Galatians 4:9-11).

[Sigurd]

Well, according to some pamphlets I have..

I would not trust "some pamphlets" that some self-proclaimed doctor of a church wrote on any subject. I have read pamphlets about Mormons that were utterly rubbish and based on clear lies. Also - some of these doctors have written about how Islam is a constructed religion and that the culprits were the Catholic Church. And let's not get into the pamphlets about how the Scots are really one of the lost tribes of Israel.

non-evangelical = bad and rejects the Gospel!

What should I call them?
It is the new age Christendom with their saved by grace, no need for baptism, just say the name Jesus three times and you are guarantied salvation even if you murder small babies the rest of your life, type of cults I am trying to not-name here.
All based on individuals that one day decides to interpret the not-so-infallible-anymore book of tampered-with text in a new way, that might have been the way the authors (or the not so helpful co-writers) intended it to be. Behold, a new sect has been born and can be added to the 35 000 others that each claim they are the only one that leads to salvation. All the rest can burn in hell.
We are on the verge of getting an explosion of Christian extremists. The Bible is not infallible as it is. It never was.
Athanasius and cronies that suggested the compilation of books that ended up with "the book" would turn in their graves if they found out what came of their work.
The foundation on which these individuals build their church is flawed and for the sake of saving lives, you should tear these constructions down. It is what any sound inspector would recommend.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I would not trust "some pamphlets" that some self-proclaimed doctor of a church wrote on any subject. I have read pamphlets about Mormons that were utterly rubbish and based on clear lies. Also - some of these doctors have written about how Islam is a constructed religion and that the culprits were the Catholic Church. And let's not get into the pamphlets about how the Scots are really one of the lost tribes of Israel.

Heh, I didnt' say I believed them all, I just think they're interesting. Makes a change from the healf-hearted liberal tripe you get these days that seems to dominate mainstream Christianity.

What should I call them?
It is the new age Christendom with their saved by grace, no need for baptism, just say the name Jesus three times and you are guarantied salvation even if you murder small babies the rest of your life, type of cults I am trying to not-name here.
All based on individuals that one day decides to interpret the not-so-infallible-anymore book of tampered-with text in a new way, that might have been the way the authors (or the not so helpful co-writers) intended it to be. Behold, a new sect has been born and can be added to the 35 000 others that each claim they are the only one that leads to salvation. All the rest can burn in hell.

@bolded bit in particular - "new age" I am not. Yes I believe in salvation by faith through grace like any Protestant does, and I don't agree with water baptism, so what. I most definitely do not agree with the modern Evangelical notion that you just say the 'sinners prayer' and that's all you need to do, its almost a form of salvation through works they have. Nope, you can't murder babies your whole life, faith without works is dead after all, the tree is known by its fruit, strive to make your calling sure etc...

Also, just to point out... Jesus agrees with the Evangelicas (and Mormons apparently) in that David did look to him for salvation. In Matthew 22:40-6, Jesus shows how David called to him, "How then doth David in spirit call him Lord"...

We are on the verge of getting an explosion of Christian extremists. The Bible is not infallible as it is. It never was.
Athanasius and cronies that suggested the compilation of books that ended up with "the book" would turn in their graves if they found out what came of their work.
The foundation on which these individuals build their church is flawed and for the sake of saving lives, you should tear these constructions down. It is what any sound inspector would recommend.

tbh I think there's a lot of hype surrounding the formation of the canon. There was no conspiracy at Nicaea, it was more or less widely accepted throughout Christendom long before Hippo. Heck even within the Pauline epistles they refer to themselves as scripture.

[Sigurd]

Yes I believe in salvation by faith through grace like any Protestant does, and I don't agree with water baptism, so what. I most definitely do not agree with the modern Evangelical notion that you just say the 'sinners prayer' and that's all you need to do, its almost a form of salvation through works they have. Nope, you can't murder babies your whole life, faith without works is dead after all, the tree is known by its fruit, strive to make your calling sure etc...

I think all Christian denominations including Mormonism and Catholicism believes in salvation through the grace of God. If not they would deny the very scriptures they uphold as truth. The disagreement would be in how you become a Christan worthy of His grace.
But baptism? I think it odd that any Christian denomination would question the ordinance of baptism. Your very God did this. Why? if he was sinless without blemish? Why would he conform to a Jewish tradition if it was not necessary? Something along 'Jesus is the way and the light, follow his example', would be a clue. Or Jesus followed all Gods commandments, even though he didn't need to.

Also, just to point out... Jesus agrees with the Evangelicas (and Mormons apparently) in that David did look to him for salvation. In Matthew 22:40-6, Jesus shows how David called to him, "How then doth David in spirit call him Lord"...

You Christians should agree on this. Some say David didn't forfeit his salvation, others damn him to hell. Why is it so important that David retained his salvation despite of murder and adultery - sins that "the infallible bible" says will result in not inheriting the Kingdom of God.

tbh I think there's a lot of hype surrounding the formation of the canon. There was no conspiracy at Nicaea, it was more or less widely accepted throughout Christendom long before Hippo. Heck even within the Pauline epistles they refer to themselves as scripture.

So you do hold to an infallible Bible? the 66 books, no more no less. You do realize that there are references to other books in the Bible, which are not a part of the Bible. Books and letters quoted as scripture, yet not found in the canon (yes even Pauline epistles referring to previous epistles which are not found in the Bible).
And... There were no compiled volumes of scriptures like the Bible at the time of Hippo. They were all separate books. I find it especially amusing when Christians believing in an infallible Bible quote Revelations to support a closed canon. Yeah.. John wrote revelations on the few blank pages left after they compiled the 65 books of the old and new testament.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think all Christian denominations including Mormonism and Catholicism believes in salvation through the grace of God. If not they would deny the very scriptures they uphold as truth. The disagreement would be in how you become a Christan worthy of His grace.
But baptism? I think it odd that any Christian denomination would question the ordinance of baptism. Your very God did this. Why? if he was sinless without blemish? Why would he conform to a Jewish tradition if it was not necessary? Something along 'Jesus is the way and the light, follow his example', would be a clue. Or Jesus followed all Gods commandments, even though he didn't need to.

Jesus, as a Jew, naturally observed the Jewish traditions. He came to fulfill the law after all. But now they are fulfilled, we are no longer bound by a ceremonial law but by the law of Christ, which the ceremonial law merely foreshadowed (see Hebrews).

You Christians should agree on this. Some say David didn't forfeit his salvation, others damn him to hell. Why is it so important that David retained his salvation despite of murder and adultery - sins that "the infallible bible" says will result in not inheriting the Kingdom of God.

Why does it matter whether or not professed Christians agree on the matter, at the end of the day Jesus give a plain answer to the pharisees.

Also, so what if David committed murder and adultery, you think that puts him beyond salvation while we can still have it? Do you think we are not murderers and adulterers? If you have been angry at someone or insulted them Jesus says you will face the council just as if you killed someone (Matthew 5:21-2). And if you look upon a women with lust, you have committed adultery (Matthew 5:27-8).

That in all likelihood makes us both murderers and adulterers.

So you do hold to an infallible Bible? the 66 books, no more no less. You do realize that there are references to other books in the Bible, which are not a part of the Bible. Books and letters quoted as scripture, yet not found in the canon (yes even Pauline epistles referring to previous epistles which are not found in the Bible).
And... There were no compiled volumes of scriptures like the Bible at the time of Hippo. They were all separate books. I find it especially amusing when Christians believing in an infallible Bible quote Revelations to support a closed canon. Yeah.. John wrote revelations on the few blank pages left after they compiled the 65 books of the old and new testament.

Yes I know the verse you are referring to and obviously John was only talking about the Book of Revelation. I trust the consensus that existed in early Christendom, and given the fact that 'core' scriptures refer to themselves as scripture and the idea of a New Covenant scripture to complement the old one is obvious, I trust God delivered the true scripture to the church.

[Sigurd]

Jesus, as a Jew, naturally observed the Jewish traditions. He came to fulfill the law after all. But now they are fulfilled, we are no longer bound by a ceremonial law but by the law of Christ, which the ceremonial law merely foreshadowed (see Hebrews).

Right.. so by that logic, Jesus was the last who was baptized and there should be no baptisms following him. In Acts - which supposedly takes place after Jesus' death, resurrection and ascension and into the Christian era and church, there would be no baptisms performed or preached?

Why does it matter whether or not professed Christians agree on the matter, at the end of the day Jesus give a plain answer to the pharisees.

Also, so what if David committed murder and adultery, you think that puts him beyond salvation while we can still have it? Do you think we are not murderers and adulterers? If you have been angry at someone or insulted them Jesus says you will face the council just as if you killed someone (Matthew 5:21-2). And if you look upon a women with lust, you have committed adultery (Matthew 5:27-8).

That in all likelihood makes us both murderers and adulterers.

I would think this an important matter. It obviously is for Christians as they argue extensively about this. Me thinks someone down the line committed some of these sins and "invented" new doctrines to cover up their demise. Me thinks this is true for most of the issues Christians argue about.

Yes I know the verse you are referring to and obviously John was only talking about the Book of Revelation. I trust the consensus that existed in early Christendom, and given the fact that 'core' scriptures refer to themselves as scripture and the idea of a New Covenant scripture to complement the old one is obvious, I trust God delivered the true scripture to the church.

You have faith in the canon, I understand.
IMHO Christians should be more sober regarding the origins of the Bible. They have painted themselves into many corners when they solely rely on it for authority and doctrine. It is a very frail thing to build a religion on.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Right.. so by that logic, Jesus was the last who was baptized and there should be no baptisms following him. In Acts - which supposedly takes place after Jesus' death, resurrection and ascension and into the Christian era and church, there would be no baptisms performed or preached?

Just like the early Christians suddenly stopped observing the other Jewish practices?

Matthew 3:11 makes it clear that the water of baptism is a shadow of baptism by the Holy Spirit, this is also the only consistent way to view the relationship between the ceremonial law and the promise of the Gospel.

I would think this an important matter. It obviously is for Christians as they argue extensively about this. Me thinks someone down the line committed some of these sins and "invented" new doctrines to cover up their demise. Me thinks this is true for most of the issues Christians argue about.

Where down the line, those quotes were from Jesus, can't go back further than that.

You have faith in the canon, I understand.
IMHO Christians should be more sober regarding the origins of the Bible. They have painted themselves into many corners when they solely rely on it for authority and doctrine. It is a very frail thing to build a religion on.

Well, I suppose. I've wondered a bit about Sola Scriptura recently.

The things is, even if there were other sources of authority, they would have to be consistent with scripture, but the scripture itself condemns pretty much anything and everything we associate with organised religion. It is as I said about natural law and not positive law, so how can you add anything to that, its a creation ordinance.