tjsgigante

From 1830 to 2012, they've listed the New Testament as a reference more than 39,425 times.

For the same time period, the Book of Mormon only has 16,052 quotations.

Even the Old Testament is quoted more, 18,928 times.

Source: www.scriptures.byu.edu

I was thinking about it the other day and was wondering if Jesus, the healer of the sick, may have ever gotten sick Himself, perhaps as He was growing up.

Are you familiar with any scriptures that say He may or may not have?

Thanks!

If yes then:

Being that Jesus was perfect and sinless, how much more do we need to be baptized, being sinners?

If no then:

How could Jesus have "fulfilled all righteousness" and thus remain perfectly obedient to the Father's will without being baptized?

That trumpet looks suspiciously like a vuvuzela to me!

Just having some fun.

Obviously there is a lot of symbolism to that sacrifice and the sacrifice of Christ.

Isaac the only son, first born of Abraham.

Isaac's apparent willingness to go through with it (no resistance recorded)

Isaac carrying the wood for the sacrifice (Christ, the cross)

etc, I'm sure there are more and if you see any, feel free to jot them down.

My question is when does the parallel break down, if it breaks down?

For example, if Isaac represents Christ, does Abraham represent God the Father?

If so, Abraham was going to be the person who acted as the being who sacrificed Isaac--could that mean the God the Father had a similar role in Christ's sacrifice? (Even though Abraham was stopped by an angel, when no such thing happened for Christ)

I appreciate your thoughts on the subject.

Thanks!

I've heard it said that the book of St. John was written after John wrote Revelation. I'm just wondering how people have come to that conclusion.

.com

.edu

.gov

.xxx?

And we actually have a pretty good time and get along just great!

Is such a thing even possible?

All we need is a Buddhist and we'll represent most all the major branches of religion! (Heck, let's through an Atheist in there too, wouldn't want to forget ya'll either.)

Naturally, science is a "work in progress" by its very nature, but even as such it has greatly increased human knowledge and has led to countless advances that we all enjoy.

That being the case, which religions do you think have doctrines that agree the most with scientific understanding and why? Examples would be appreciated.

For example, I'm LDS (Mormon) and feel that the church's teachings about the creation lead to believe that God may have taken longer then the 6 literal days that some traditions adhere to.

Thanks in advance, I hope my thoughts on this are clear.

I was just going over some of them again, and there were a ton of awesome ones. Which ones stood out to you and why??

I'm just looking for thoughts from both Atheists and Christians here.

Just a little about me, I do believe that God exists, but not necessarily strictly because of the fact that we have the Bible. It just seems that with all the different religious sects claiming the truth and using the same Bible, that some credibility is lost.

Thanks for your thoughts!

;)

Who was dat in da Super Bowl, anyway?

Gal. 1: 8

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Rev. 14: 6

6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

It just appears that John saw a vision with an angel having the everlasting gospel, and preaching it as well.

Thanks!

I mean, seriously, the Church trusts some 50,000 boys, most around 19-20 years old to be the bulk of their proselytizing force.

When you think of the typical 19 year old, what do you think about? And yet these kids are continuing to baptize thousands of people all over the world, many in languages other then their own.

Is that just crazy?

God called prophets ever since Adam, the very first man. He kept calling prophets clear up to the end of the Bible.

For Him to remain changeless, shouldn't He have to keep calling prophets in the same fashion and of the same type?

I just read Genesis and it seems like they were so innocent, like little kids ("naked and not ashamed"), I don't see how they could have had children until after they ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

I just look back and see early Christians freaking out about scientists arguing that the Earth revolved around the sun, early Christians freaking out about scientists arguing that the Earth was round.

Did discovering those things go contrary to scripture?

Does evolution/natural selection prove there's no God/Creation?

Where in the Bible does God or His prophets carefully delineate how exactly or by what process God performed the Creation?

I'm trying to think if there is an example of Christ telling somebody that they were going to hell..., still coming up blank--even though He did call people to repentance.

Even the woman caught in adultery, Christ told to "sin no more" not that she was going to hell...

Before Joseph Smith said he saw a vision, what did his community think of him and his family?

I think the same question should apply to other early prominent members of the Mormon faith, like Brigham Young, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris and others.

What did people think about them before they got involved in the Mormon movement?

Anybody have any idea?