The pain threshold of Jesus

[_Nightlion]

Sorry, Nightlion. I think I may have inadvertently "carried on as if you said nothing"

Not being a Mormon, the D&C has eluded me and so it has no reference in my understanding of religions.

I am curious about the meaning of the phrase "uncircumcised of heart". I have a medical background and I'm generally against circumcision as a pointless (and very painful) procedure.

What part of a heart would one circumcise? The pericardium?

When the Old Testament mentions uncircumcised of heart they are referring to receiving the power of the gospel, the new heart from God, where you are given a heart to know and love God. And please note that the Lord considers all strangers and foreigners defiling and polluting the sanctuary who are not circumcised in heart. NO Mormon TODAY SEEKS FOR THE CIRCUMCISION OF HEART. So they are just as much an abomination in the sight of God and blasphemers in the house of the Lord. AMEN

Ezek. 44: 7, 9
7 In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations.
• • •
9 ¶ Thus saith the Lord God; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.

This might help LDS and non-LDS understand why the Lord declared to Joseph Smith that all churches were an abomination. Because they were not receiving the gospel and were not being visited of the promise of the Father none were truly wrought upon by the power of the Holy Ghost in the baptism of fire. This is the act of God whereby he conceives you his son or daughter by removing the foreskin of your heart or the natural man that is an enemy to God and raising you up to a state of righteousness as Alma testified.

The sign of circumcision in the flesh was to make it apparent what God expects every man to accomplish spiritually, in their heart. And this is what Christ was doing finishing his preparations to accomplish the will of the Father so that the TRUTH of his atonement counted as efficacious from the foundation of the world. Many were wrought upon and cleansed and given the new heart from God hundreds and thousands of years before Christ actually did the work. God knew the TRUTH that Christ WOULD do it and thereby could apply it unto all the generations that preceded the actual event. Cool! No?

[_Jason Bourne]

Not really. If you have a naïve assumption that God dictated the New Testament directly and that the words are preserved without error, then yes, you have a problem.

I don't though many Christians do.

Personally I am not sure if much of the New Testament really came from God at all.

And based on what I have studied if the Bible is really God's only word for us and the best way we can understand what He is about it seems that he really did a poor job transmitting it, protecting it and telling those who put it together what really should be in it.

The bottom line is that I don't know of any Christian church which has used these verses to generate doctrine. The LDS seem to be the only church which has done this, this is why the problem is unique to the LDS church.

Yes I noted that one can get to the blood from every pour from LDS sources and not the New Testament alone.

There are additions to the New Testament that do affect certain types of Christians. Take the longer addition to Mark, it is the sole source for the doctrine that the believers in Christ will drink poison and handle venemous snakes while remaining unharmed. There are Christians, such as Appalachian snake handlers, who take this as a major doctrinal point. This addition nukes their understanding of discipleship.

That as well as other such as the Johanine (SP?) comma.

Also the question of who really wrote what, were the gospel authors really eye witnesses of Jesus, why were some books included and others not that may have been just as valid scripture.

And don't you think it really would have been nice for God to preserve a few of the original autographs just so we could do a little checking? The book must not have been that important to Him.

[_Quasimodo]

Also the question of who really wrote what, were the gospel authors really eye witnesses of Jesus, why were some books included and others not that may have been just as valid scripture.

And don't you think it really would have been nice for God to preserve a few of the original autographs just so we could do a little checking? The book must not have been that important to Him.

I don't think that the Bible states anywhere that it is the true word of God (that's just a matter of faith by some people). A forward by God would have been helpful.

No full versions of the Gospels have been found that predate the fourth century. Who knows who wrote what?

[_Hoops]

If you have a naïve assumption that God dictated the New Testament directly and that the words are preserved without error,

Who believes this?