Posted on 06/23/2007 1:28:02 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
|
|
Mormonism | Christianity |
|---|---|---|
| What is the Church? |
The LDS Church is the only true church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true church (Doctrine and Covenants [D&C] 1:30); all other churches are "wrong," all their creeds an "abomination," and all who profess them are "corrupt" (Joseph Smith, History 1:19, Pearl of Great Price). One either belongs to "the church of the Lamb of God" or to "the church of the devil" (1 Nephi 14:10). Joseph Smith taught that everybody but Mormons will be damned (History of the Church 3:28), and the Book of Mormon teaches that if an individual doesn't repent in "this life" then one is sealed to the devil and "this is the final state of the wicked" (Alma 34:32-35). For LDS, this Book of Mormon passage typically means that apostates or these sons of perdition who willfully deny Christ and His Church after being a part of it end up in "outer-darkness" forever excluded from the presence of God in His celestial kingdom. But depending on how good the other non-members are in this life and the next determines their place in one of two lower heavenly kingdoms or "degrees of glory"--the telestial and terrestrial kingdoms--both of which are still outside the presence of God in His kingdom (D&C 76). Whether there may be any possible advancement out of these kingdoms still depends on acceptance of the LDS Church as the only true church. |
The church is a body of various believers and groups of believers. The one true church is the invisible, spiritual, and universal body of Christ in heaven and on earth made up of all those true believers from various local denominations or visible churches. Unity in the church does not demand complete uniformity in its various manifestations. God loves diversity. Yet the church's unity is in Christ, who is the vine. People in various denominations who are committed to the Vine are the branches; no one particular manifestation of the church is the vine (Matthew 16:18; John 15:5; Acts 15:35-41, 20:28; 1 Corinthians 11:19, 12:13ff.; and Ephesians 4:1-13). |
| What is divine salvation? |
Divine salvation is unconditional for resurrection and conditional for eternal life. In one sense, salvation is universal immortality and resurrection by grace alone, and is given to everyone except apostates. In another sense, salvation is eternal life or exaltation into the highest kingdom. The latter is dependent on grace through faith and one's works (2 Ne. 25:23; D&C 76:40-44; and Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 669-71). |
Divine salvation is always conditional. Divine salvation is always from sin and its consequence of separation from God. This salvation is always conditioned upon faith. Until this occurs, God considers the individual dead. When this salvation occurs, one has eternal life (Jn. 5:24; Romans 5; Eph. 2:1-10; and 1 Jn. 5:10-13). |
| Are there other Gods? |
There are many Gods for other worlds, and each God is equal to the God of this world in terms of His nature. There are many gods who create and rule over other worlds, and on those worlds, worship excludes the God of our world. So there is only one God for us, and this God is typically referred to as the Heavenly Father. Mormons may also speak of the term "God" in reference to "the Godhead," which is a team of separate Gods (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 576-7; Joseph Fielding Smith, ed., The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 346-7 [pre-2002 edition]; Abraham 4:1, Pearl of Great Price; Gospel Principles, 245 [1997 edition], and 302; "God," LDS Bible Dictionary; and Blake Ostler, "Review of The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis by Francis J. Beckwith and Stephen E. Parrish," FARMS Review of Books [Provo, UT: FARMS, 1996], 99-146). |
There is only one God for all worlds. There is only one God who created and rules over everything in existence. LDS simply devalue and weaken God when they think that He did not create something like some other world (Genesis 1:1; Deuteronomy 4:39; Nehemiah 9:6; Psalm 96:5; Isaiah 40:12-20; 43:10; 44:6, 8, and 24; Jn. 1:1-3; and 17:3). |
| The Trinity? |
The Trinity means three separate Gods, who are one in their nature and become one in purpose. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate gods, who are one in purpose and nature, but not in a being they share eternally (Ibid; Fielding Smith, The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 372 [pre-2002 edition]). There was a time when the person of the Father (Elohim) was without the person of the Son (Jehovah) as His Son. Thus, there was a time in which Elohim was not the Father. |
The Trinity means three inseparable Persons, who are eternally God in purpose, nature, and being. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct or different persons, who are eternally and inseparably one in purpose, nature, and being (Ibid.; Mt. 3:16; 4:10; and 28:16-20). So the Father is not the same person as the Son, and the Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the same person as the Father, but nonetheless, each Person eternally makes up the only Being of God there is. |
| Are men and God the same nature or species? |
Men and God are of the same nature or species. The nature of these gods is identical to the nature of man, and as such these humans had to become gods; they haven't always been gods (Fielding Smith, The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345 [pre-2002 edition]; Thomas C. Romney, The Life of Lorenzo Snow, 46; D&C 76:23-4; and Abraham 3:18-28). |
Men and God are not of the same nature or species. God has His own unique nature that man, a created being by definition, cannot ever have. God is God by nature, and not by obtainment (Ps. 90:2; Ezekiel 28:2 and 9; Hosea 11:9; Acts 14:15; Galatians 4:8; and 2 Peter 1:3-4). |
| Does God in His nature have flesh and bones? |
God is an exalted man with flesh and bones. God the Father and Jesus Christ have tangible bodies of flesh and bones, but the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit. Personages of spirit are still material with a certain form or shape, but they are not as tangible as the bodies of those who are sent to a mortal planet (Ibid.; D&C 130:22; 131:7-8; and "Spirit" in the LDS Bible Dictionary). |
God is not an exalted man with flesh and bones. Since He is the Creator of all things outside of Himself (e.g., the entire material universe), God is too big for a body. He does not need a body or anything else to operate anywhere in all of creation; He is all powerful. And since He is all powerful, He can take any type of form or nature to show up any way He wants to (1 Kings 8:27; Jeremiah 23:24; Luke 3:22; and Jn. 4:21-24). |
| Can human beings become Gods for other worlds as God is God for this world? |
Human beings may become Gods for other worlds as God is God for this world. Worthy Mormons may become gods to create, rule over and receive worship from their own worlds some day. They will do this exclusively as the god or the team of gods for that world or that set of worlds (like the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are for this world or this set of worlds), and thus the God of this world will not perform those functions there (Ibid; D&C 76:50-58 and 95, 132:15-23, 29, and 37; and Gospel Principles, 302 [1997 edition]). |
Human beings cannot become Gods for other worlds as God is God for all worlds. When all believers become what some Christians such as C. S. Lewis call "gods" in heaven (although the Bible never uses this language of glorified individuals), they are still dependent and human "gods," and not God by nature, who alone is eternally the Author and Sustainer of literally all that is outside Himself. He is the only God in this fundamental sense of the term (Ibid.; and Lewis, Mere Christianity [N.Y.: Macmillan, 1952], vi, 160, 172). |
| Was the God of this world once a man who became God? |
The God of this world was once a man who became God. God is an exalted man, who needed to do certain things in order to become God for this world (Ibid.; James Talmage, Articles of Faith, 430; and Gospel Principles, 41% [1997 edition]). |
The God of this world is the God for all worlds, so He never was a man who had to become God. God has always been God, and thus is not so needy (Ibid.). |
| Does the Father have a Father? |
The Heavenly Father has a Heavenly Father before Him. God the Father has a Father whom He followed as Jesus had followed His Father in order to become a god (Fielding Smith, The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 373 [pre-2002 edition]). |
There was no Heavenly Father before the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is no other God before God. He is not so weak that He needed to serve and receive counsel from some other God in order to become God; He always was God (Ps. 90:2; Isa. 40:12-20; and 43:10). |
| Does God need a wife to become God? |
God needs a wife to become God. God the Father has at least one wife that He needed in order to become exalted to Godhood, and by at least one wife we on this world were all literally born as spirit children prior to taking on our tangible bodies of flesh and bones via our mortal parents (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 516-7; Brigham Young, The Journal of Discourses 1:50; Gospel Principles, 15 [1997 edition]; and the popular hymn "O My Father"). |
God does not need a wife to become God. Since God is not a man by nature it is impossible for Him as the eternal God to even enter into a human marital relationship that He would need to become God and sexually produce us. It is just as impossible for God to lie. He does not need anything, let alone a wife, to become God. If it were even possible for the Father to strive to exaltation, then we would expect God's courtship and marriage to be a perfect one in which He received counsel from the other partner(s). But what kind of God would this be? As the All Perfect Being by nature, it is also impossible for God to receive any counsel (Ibid; 1 Kings 8:27; and Hebrews 6:18). |
| Is there anything that the Father did not create? |
There are things that the Father did not create. Thus God the Father did not create the planet that His Father had already created. No God for any world created all worlds. No God for any world created intelligence, matter, or the laws that govern them. These are eternal. Any person, including a God for any world, eternally existed as intelligence, and not as God (Fielding Smith, The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 373 [pre-2002 edition]; D&C 93:29-33; 131:7-8; and Abraham 3:18-28). |
There is nothing that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit did not create. There is only one Being who created and rules over everything in existence. LDS simply devalue and weaken God when they think that He did not create something like some other world (Gen. 1:1; Deut. 4:39; Isa. 40:12-20; 43:10; 44:6, 8, and 24; Jn. 1:1-3; and Acts 17:24-28). |
| Is there anything that the Son did not create? |
There are things that the Son did not create. Jesus being the literal son of exalted human gods obviously did not create all things either. For example, He did not create the planet He was born on as a spirit child (Ibid.; Gospel Principles, 17-20 [1997 edition]; and 27-29). |
There is nothing that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit did not create. Prior to becoming man, Jesus existed as "the only begotten God" (Jn. 1:18, New American Standard [NAS] and in the best Greek manuscripts). As such, He created everything that was ever created from the very beginning (Jn. 1:1-3). When LDS relativize His creation to only concerning the things of this world or this set of worlds--i.e., not literally all worlds, this devalues and cheapens Jesus, who has not only the nature of man (1 Timothy 2:5), but also the nature of "God over all blessed forever" (Rom. 9:5, emphasis added). |
| Are Jesus and Lucifer spirit-brothers? |
Jesus and Lucifer are spirit-brothers. Jesus was the first one born of heavenly parents, and Lucifer was a younger sibling. Jesus is referred to as Lucifer's, as well as our, elder brother in the pre-earth life (Ibid.; and Milton R. Hunter, The Gospel through the Ages, 15). |
Jesus created Lucifer. For LDS to think that Christ is simply our and Lucifer's elder brother in some supposed pre-earth life is blasphemous devaluing of Christ's divine nature. Christ may rightly be referred to as a brother in our humanity, but in addition to that, He is our Creator... and not simply of our bodies (Ibid.; Colossians 1:13-18; Heb. 1:2 and 6-14; and 2:6-18). |
| Has Jesus always been God? |
Jesus has not always been God. Jesus, like all other gods before Him, had to become a God. He is the literal Son of God like we are children of God, but He's without sin (Fielding Smith, The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 346-7 [pre-2002 edition]). |
Jesus has always been God. Jesus has always been the only God there is along with the Father and Holy Ghost (Ibid; Isa. 43:10; Mt. 28:19; Jn. 1:1-3 and 14; and 8:56-59). |
| Should the Son receive the same worship as the Father? |
The Son should not receive the same worship as the Father. Jesus is not worshipped equally with the Father, since Jesus is not our begetter. Jesus is not even directly prayed to. Prayer is directed only to the Father in the name of Jesus (Gospel Principles, 41 [1997 edition]; McConkie, BYU Devotional [March 2, 1982], 17, 19, and 20). |
The Son should receive the same worship as the Father. Since Jesus is God by nature, He is worshipped equally with the Father. Jesus receives both worship and prayer, and we are commanded to do so (Mt. 4:10; 28:16-20; Jn. 5:18-23; 14:14, NAS and in the best Greek manuscripts; Acts 7:59; 1 Cor. 1:2; and 1 Jn. 5:13-15). |
| Who is the Holy Ghost? |
The Holy Ghost is a man and son of God. "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that the Holy Ghost is a spirit man, a spirit son of God the Father. It is fundamental Church doctrine that God is the Father of the spirits of all men and women, that Jesus is literally God's Son both in the spirit and in the flesh, and that the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit separate and distinct from both the Father and the Son. The Holy Ghost is the third member of the Eternal Godhead, and is identified also as the Holy Spirit, Spirit of God, Spirit of the Lord, and the comforter" (Encyclopedia of Mormonism 2:649; cf. D&C 130:22-23; and "Holy Ghost" in the LDS Bible Dictionary). |
The Holy Ghost is God by nature. Since the Holy Ghost is the inseparable third person of the only Being of God there is, He is not a man by nature that became exalted into a separate god for a Godhead team (2 Samuel 23:2-3; Mt. 28:19; Acts 5:3-4; and Acts 13:2). |
| Is God a racist? |
God curses certain individuals with dark skin. The races are determined by how worthy individuals were prior to this mortal life. Blacks were not as faithful in their first estate. The Book of Mormon teaches that God cursed certain Israelite American Indians with dark skin, and this was meant to keep them from interbreeding with their white brethren. This scripture also teaches that God blessed some who repented with white skin. Nothing concerning the revelation in 1978 to give "all worthy males members" the priesthood invalidates these beliefs (Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:61-7; McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 527-8; Alma 3:6-9; 2 Ne. 5:21-4; and 3 Ne. 2:14-6). |
God does not curse anyone with dark skin. God blesses humanity with different colors of skin, and no skin color is more favorable to Him than another. Race is not the real issue anyway, for we are all one in Christ (Gal. 3:28). |
| Did Christ die for all sins? |
Christ did not die for all sins. Christ did not atone for the murderer, since there is no forgiveness for him "in this world, nor in the world to come." And Christ did not pay for more than a one-time offense of adultery, since such violators cannot be forgiven either (D&C 42:18 and 25-29). Actually, according to one apostle, Christ atoned simply for Adam's sin, and left "us responsible only for our own sins." This apostle goes on to quote the 2nd Article of Faith that claims "men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression" (Le Grand Richards, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder [1976], 98). Other LDS prophets have taught that there are certain "sins" that one may commit that are beyond the atonement of the Son of God, and one's own blood must be shed in such cases (Young, The Journal of Discourses 3:247; 4:53-54; 4:219-20; and Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:133-136). |
Christ did die for all sins. Christ atoned for all sins (Adam's as well as everyone else's). The Lord Jesus took the punishment of everyone on the cross. The debt we could never pay has been completely paid by the Lamb of God, and to those who receive this gift, they are declared "justified" or "not guilty." This is the good news (the gospel) for everyone, including the adulterer and the murderer (Isa. 53:3-12; Mt. 18:21-22; Rom. 3:24; 4:5; 5:1-2; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; 15:3; 2 Cor. 5:14-21; 1 Pt. 2:24; and 1 Jn. 1:8-2:2). |
| What role do good works play with our standing before God? |
Good works are meritorious for right standing before God. Good works are a necessary requirement of salvation and right standing before God (1 Ne. 3:7; 2 Ne. 25:23; Alma 5:27-28; 11:37; 34:33-35; Moroni 10:32; D&C 1:24-33; 25:15-16; 42:18-29; 58:34-43; 82:5-7; 3rd Article of Faith; Gospel Principles, 74-78 [1997 edition]; and 122-127). |
Good works are not meritorious for right standing before God. Salvation is a free gift that must be received through faith alone, and this automatically is demonstrated by the overall good life produced by it (Ibid.; Rom. 11:6; Gal. 3:11, 23-26, and 5:6; Eph. 2:8-10; and 1 Jn. 5:10-13). |
| Baptism for the dead? |
Baptism for the dead is required. Baptism in place of the dead is an essential ordinance done in LDS temples on behalf of those who died not receiving the benefit of LDS baptism (Gospel Principles, 255-262 [1997 edition]). Joseph Smith said, "The greatest responsibility in this world that God has laid upon us is to seek after our dead" (Fielding Smith, The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 356 [pre-2002 edition]). |
Baptism for the dead is not Christian. Baptism for the dead is done by those outside of Christianity, since the Apostle Paul made a contrast between what "they" do and what "we" do. Paul said that even those who do baptism for the dead believe in the resurrection. How much more should we, who do not baptize for the dead and are led by apostles who were eyewitnesses of Christ's resurrection, believe in the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:29-30). |
| The Priesthood? |
The Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods are offered to worthy male members. There are two forms of the priesthood: the Aaronic (the lesser one) and the Melchizedek (the greater one). Without the authority of the priesthood no man can see God and live. It is available for all worthy male members of at least a certain age, who desire to act legally in the name of the Lord. This was extended to those males with black ancestry in 1978 (D&C, Official Declaration--2; 84:6ff.; and Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 3:80). |
The Aaronic priesthood was done away at the cross and the Melchizedek priesthood is unique to Christ. The Aaronic priesthood was done away at the crucifixion of Christ, since He has become our permanent high priest. There is no more need for Levitical priests to offer imperfect sacrifices on behalf of the people in the temple. Jesus alone is worthy to hold the Melchizedek priesthood. Any believer today who has been called out of darkness into the light, regardless of age, race, or sex, is a member of the holy and royal priesthood. The believer operates in the highest authority that is offered today, viz., that of being a child of the Lord Omnipotent. Christians have the true priesthood, since they have the true God who gives it to them (Jn. 1:12; Gal. 3:26-29; 1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 4:14; 5:9-10; 7:11-8:2; 9:24; and 1 Pt. 2:5 and 9). |
| The Bible? |
The Bible is unreliable and incomplete for faith. The Bible is the word of God only as it is translated correctly (8th Article of Faith). Evidently, it was not translated very well since Joseph Smith's translation (JST) is quite a bit different from all other versions (also cf. 1 Nephi 13:23-42 where the Bible is corrupted after the founding 12 apostles). Nonetheless, LDS use the King James Version. LDS also have three other books of Scripture--the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price (cf. 2 Nephi 29:3-14). Joseph Smith taught that only LDS believe the Bible and "all other sects believe their interpretations of the Bible, and their creeds" (History of the Church 3:28). |
The Bible is reliable and complete for faith. The Bible claims to be the word of God, and the Bible--including Jesus--promised that it would be faithfully preserved. The general consistency of the Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the thousands of other ancient manuscripts, lectionaries, and citations from early Church Fathers all attest to this fact. The Bible is by far the best attested work of antiquity. The Bible is archeologically, historically, prophetically, and scientifically accurate. And since the Bible contradicts all the other scriptures of the LDS Church, they should all be damned (Ps. 12:6-7; Proverbs 30:6; Isa. 40:7-8; Mt. 5:17-19; 24:35; Jn. 10:35; 17:17; and Gal. 1:6-9). |
I do hope I've been improving.
Go back and see some of my earlier work and you WILL see less than good manners.
It's taken others (on both sides of the aisle) to point out my bad stuff that I was to close to, to see.
Browse among the lilys indeed!
In the NT, there are many references to 'scripture' prophecies and many of them are refered to by Jesus Himself:
NIV Matthew 2:4-7
4. When he had called together all the people's chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Christ was to be born.
5. "In Bethlehem in Judea," they replied, "for this is what the prophet has written:
6. "`But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.' "
7. Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared.
NIV Matthew 11:7-10
7. As John's disciples were leaving, Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John: "What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed swayed by the wind?
8. If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear fine clothes are in kings' palaces.
9. Then what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet.
10. This is the one about whom it is written: "`I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.'
NIV Matthew 26:24
The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."
NIV Matthew 26:31
Then Jesus told them, "This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written: "`I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.'
NIV Mark 1:1-4
1. The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
2. It is written in Isaiah the prophet: "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way" --
3. "a voice of one calling in the desert, `Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.'"
4. And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
NIV Mark 7:5-7
5. So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with `unclean' hands?"
6. He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: "`These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
7. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'
NIV Mark 9:11-13
11. And they asked him, "Why do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?"
12. Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah does come first, and restores all things. Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected?
13. But I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done to him everything they wished, just as it is written about him."
NIV Luke 20:17-19
17. Jesus looked directly at them and asked, "Then what is the meaning of that which is written: "`The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone ' ?
18. Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."
19. The teachers of the law and the chief priests looked for a way to arrest him immediately, because they knew he had spoken this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people.
NIV Luke 22:37
It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."
NIV Luke 24:44-45
44. He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."
45. Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.
NIV John 2:17-18
17. His disciples remembered that it is written: "Zeal for your house will consume me."
18. Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?"
NIV John 12:14-15
14. Jesus found a young donkey and sat upon it, as it is written,
15. "Do not be afraid, O Daughter of Zion; see, your king is coming, seated on a donkey's colt."
16. At first his disciples did not understand all this. Only after Jesus was glorified did they realize that these things had been written about him and that they had done these things to him.NIV John 15:24-25
24. If I had not done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both me and my Father.
25. But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: `They hated me without reason.'
NIV Matthew 8:17
This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: "He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases."
NIV Matthew 16:13-17
13. When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14. They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15. "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16. Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17. Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
NIV Luke 3:15
The people were waiting expectantly and were all wondering in their hearts if John might possibly be the Christ.
NIV Luke 7:17-27
17. This news about Jesus spread throughout Judea and the surrounding country.
18. John's disciples told him about all these things. Calling two of them,
19. he sent them to the Lord to ask, "Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?"
20. When the men came to Jesus , they said, "John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, `Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?'"
21. At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, sicknesses and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind.
22. So he replied to the messengers, "Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor.
23. Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me."
24. After John's messengers left, Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John: "What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed swayed by the wind?
25. If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear expensive clothes and indulge in luxury are in palaces.
26. But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet.
27. This is the one about whom it is written: "`I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.'
NIV John 10:24-26
24. The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."
25. Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me,
26. but you do not believe because you are not my sheep.
NIV John 10:37-38
37. Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does.
38. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."
NIV John 14:11
Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.
Now you may say that these 'prophecies' are open to interpretation, and I'll agree; but I will also say that I take JESUS' acceptance of them as evidence enough for me.
You'll note that even those who were directly in His presense sometimes did NOT believe the 'prophecies'. This did not seem to upset Jesus, He merely told them, "Well; what about these MIRACLES that have happened before your very eyes?"
He asked the same questions of us today. We may not have seen any of them, but we DO have the evidence of those who DID see them:
Luke 1
1. Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,
2. just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
3. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
4. so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
and
John 20:19-31
19. On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"
20. After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
21. Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you."
22. And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
23. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
24. Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came.
25. So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
26. A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"
27. Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
28. Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
29. Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
30. Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.
31. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
I hope this adds a bit you what you wanted to see.
If that hypothesis is correct then we pretty much have to throw out all of our physics to date. Stuff that we have tested and use every day.
On the other hand ^_^ "If you use 3C273 as an example, a German microwave radio telescope shows that a colliding object is moving through another larger galaxy. Collisions create high energy radiations that explains why the quasars are radiating high energy wavelengths that I consider to account for their higher redshifths. See page 197 in the book Universe, edited by Byron Preiss. Published by Bantam Books."
That explanation accounts for the the higher redshifts and lets us keep all the physics we have grown to accept. It is also an explanation that adequately accounts for Halton Arps 3 primary observations that he uses to support his hypothesis.
I believe that the Big Bang is a house of cards that is being held up by the old guard scientists. These guys control where the research money goes and anyone doing research questioning the status quo is left out in the cold. History repeats itself. This same situation has occurred over and over again in the world of science. A revolution is afoot but it is difficult to say how long it will be before the world is rocked with the shocking news that the Big Bang was a bust.
You don't have to go searching for weird anomalies. We know that Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are incompatible. Both have rock solid theories and experimental evidence to back them up, and yet it is as if they are operating in different universes. That is where the real research is occurring today and when some Genius pops up and explains it all we will all go, "Of Course, it was obvious!"
Just a lot of ‘it is written’ won’t cut it.
One of the fundamental principles of Science is reliable predictability. Shouldn’t God be able to do better than Science?
Yes. It is an attempt to explain what he has observed. There certainly could be other explanations.
If that hypothesis is correct then we pretty much have to throw out all of our physics to date. Stuff that we have tested and use every day.
I'm not sure I follow you here. The physics we use on a daily basis are germane to the environment that planet earth is traveling through. If we found ourselves in another part of the galaxy things might be different. There are certainly many areas where we couldn't even survive. It is an assumption on our part that the universe behaves exactly the same way at all locations. The plasma guys have some ideas in this area. What portion of our physical science would Arp's hypothesis invalidate?
If you use 3C273 as an example, a German microwave radio telescope shows that a colliding object is moving through another larger galaxy. Collisions create high energy radiations that explains why the quasars are radiating high energy wavelengths that I consider to account for their higher redshifths.
In an expanding universe how is it that galaxies can collide? Aren't we all supposed to be moving away from each other as a result of the Big Bang? How does a far distant quasar end up in front of a relatively close galaxy? I believe some of the galaxies in our local group are blue shifted. That would indicate we are moving towards each other. What caused the change in directions? On the other hand if redshift has something to do with age, then it would just indicate that we have some older companions. Perhaps our parent galaxy. I really don't know LeGrande, but I find the study stimulating and I appreciate the time you are taking to respond.
It is also an explanation that adequately accounts for Halton Arps 3 primary observations that he uses to support his hypothesis.
I don't think you are giving Arp a fair shake here. There are many more than 3 perculiar observations that have been made. His hypothesis is based as much on quantized redshift and relative location of galaxies and quasars throughout the universe.
We know that Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are incompatible. Both have rock solid theories and experimental evidence to back them up, and yet it is as if they are operating in different universes. That is where the real research is occurring today and when some Genius pops up and explains it all we will all go, "Of Course, it was obvious!"
That is a possibility and I hope that it happens. My fear is that our cosmologists are locked into some seriously flawed ideas. When they get observational data that goes against the preferred model they invent some new untestable and exotic phenomenon to explain the new observations. Dark energy and matter fall into this category. We can't detect it, we can't explain it, yet we must believe that it exists in great quantities in order to maintain the status quo of a Big Bang universe. We are expected to take it on faith. Sounds like religion to me.
The dissidents feel that the weight of new observational data coming in from our space probes and telescopes will eventually tip the balance. What the plasma guys lack is an encompassing theory to replace the old worn out theories we are currently fed. I agree that there are some bright young minds on both sides of the issue that are working towards this end. It will be revolutionary for sure and Quantum Mechanics and Relativity may both end up in the scrap heap. I hope it happens sooner rather than later so that our tax dollars can be utilized in truly productive science.
Basically he is hypothesizing white holes, repulsive gravity, changes in the way the electromagnetic frequencies work, matter moving at the speed of light, etc. Now it may be true that other parts of the universe have different rules, but almost all of our observations indicate that our galaxy is typical (and that is what the Hubble observation was all about). By extrapolation, that means that the rest of the Universe should operate under the same rules as our own galaxy does.
In an expanding universe how is it that galaxies can collide? Aren't we all supposed to be moving away from each other as a result of the Big Bang? How does a far distant quasar end up in front of a relatively close galaxy? I believe some of the galaxies in our local group are blue shifted. That would indicate we are moving towards each other. What caused the change in directions? On the other hand if redshift has something to do with age, then it would just indicate that we have some older companions. Perhaps our parent galaxy. I really don't know LeGrande, but I find the study stimulating and I appreciate the time you are taking to respond.
Just like locally, because of the Sun, we can 'violate' the laws of thermodynamics. 'Locally' in terms of the Universe collisions between systems happen all the time. I don't recall but our galaxy and another one are on a collision course (Andromeda?) It is just that the farther away something is, the less likely it becomes for us to run into it. At a certain distance it becomes impossible for to members to ever meet up. Also like I mentioned earlier, Hawking is speculating that there may have been multiple Big Bangs and that would certainly account for galaxies smashing into each other : ) I think this stuff is fun too.
I don't think you are giving Arp a fair shake here. There are many more than 3 perculiar observations that have been made. His hypothesis is based as much on quantized redshift and relative location of galaxies and quasars throughout the universe.
I haven't read his book and he hasn't been proven wrong, yet. The big problem is that he is dealing with stuff that is at the extreme limits in both terms of resolution and time. He may very well be right, it is just that the odds of some Patent clerk coming along and turning decades of physics upside down is astronomical : ) As our observational abilities increase we will either verify his observations or discredit them, but we are probably 10 to 20 years away from being able to do that.
One of the big problems with science today is that the Scientists have gotten 'smart' and a lot of the research is in areas that are not experimentally verifiable, like string theory and the plasma theories (at least not yet). The scientists have found Religion : ) If you can't prove them wrong then you have to keep funding.
. I hope it happens sooner rather than later so that our tax dollars can be utilized in truly productive science.
If you look at history, most of the ground breaking work wasn't done at research facilities. Research facilities are good at applying and expanding the principles someone else developed. Our money is generally better spent on specific projects, we tend to get a much better bang for the buck. The other thing that I have noticed is that sometimes we have to wait for the old guard to die off to give the new ideas opportunities.
As a gambling man though, I wouldn't bet on either QM or Relativity getting bumped off. Just like Einstein didn't disprove F=MA (he just refined it) the next theory will do the same. That is the truly awesome thing about science, tiny improvements can make huge changes in our world.
'Fraid I can't help you then.
If the record of folks who SAW the miracles and WROTE them down, and later DIED for their beliefs won't sway you; then I guess GOD Himself will have to intervene in your life.
I is my prayer that He does.
If he exists. I hope so too : )
Wow there, that is some more html coding! Interesting chart. Why didn’t you ping me?
I'm not aware of him getting into that kind of speculation although I'm sure others have looked at his observations and done so. Arp is an observational astronomer. From what I've read he is saying that quasar ejection is what appears to be happening but he has not described any mechanism. In my opinion the idea of white holes and repulsive gravity is just fanciful thinking. It sounds good in a science fiction novel but I don't think there is such a thing in our universe. I'm also not a fan of black holes. You might want to give me some flack on this point so let me explain first.
I do admit that while you can't directly observe a black hole there are some compelling secondary observations that clearly support the idea of black holes. There was a recent study of the stars at the center of our galaxy. If gravity is king then the orbits they exhibit make a strong argument in support of a massive black hole (lots of gravity but no visible light) at the center of the Milky Way. The plasma cosmologists are not convinced. Their view is that traditional cosmologists use the weakest force in the universe (gravity) to explain everything that is going on. In order to make their model work they have to conjure up entities that have huge gravitational fields (black holes and dark matter). Never mind that you can't detect them, you just have to have faith that they exist. I don’t think that God wants us to use faith when it comes to exploring the physical world we experience. That is an area where He wants us to use our intellect in our search for truth. Mathematical constructs have their place as they can be very helpful in pointing the way in our research efforts. The problem comes when the theorists become so enamored with their equations that they refuse to let go of bad ideas in the face of contradictory observations.
The electrical force is exponentially more powerful than the gravitational force. The plasma folks make a reasonable case that many of the observations we see can be better explained using the plasma (electrical) model. I think that one of the reasons the model has not gained a wider following is that it is incomplete. The description of the ‘galactic circuits’ they envision doesn’t point to what the source of this power might be. A theory needs to be presented that can either be built up or knocked down by observational research. Another factor that slows the progress in this field is that the traditional cosmologists are not required to study plasma physics. The traditional guys have a hard time understanding the plasma guys because they don’t speak the language (or the difficult math) of plasma physics. The old guard could fix this problem with the stroke of a pen, making the subject required for new astrophysics graduate students, but since the old guard got by without an understanding of plasma they see no need for the young turks to learn it. As you said, maybe another young patent clerk with the needed skill set will come along to make sense of it all. This brings to mind the light of Christ which is an entirely different subject that I won’t go into today. There is too much already on the plate in our discussion.
To move our conversation along we can look towards the earlier example of the engine that runs our galaxy and point out another possible solution. Anthony Peratt of the Los Alamos National Laboratory is one of the leading plasma scientists in the world. His work in the area of galactic engines is most interesting. One advantage that plasma research has is that it is scalable. Because of this you can take known absolutes from the lab to gain some insight as to what the effects would be at larger and larger scales. As you can imagine, an electric force needed to run the galaxy is way beyond what we could ever produce in the lab.
The following was clipped from his Wikipedia write up.
Peratt developed a computer simulation of galaxy formation, based on research concerning Birkeland currents using (at the time) the fastest supercomputer available. Peratt was investigating laboratory scale Birkeland currents and used experimentally justified scaling laws to see what would happen at galactic scales. The book "The Big Bang Never Happened" (1991) by Eric Lerner gives an account of this. Peratt discovered the dynamic effects that occur in intense Birkeland currents, named Peratt Instabilities. These arc discharges occur in plasma torches, z-pinched plasma filaments, and high energy density electrical discharges. Peratt claims that evidence exists that the instability can also be found on astrophysical scales.
As I said, the language of the plasma guys is not what we see very often on Nova or in our popular science magazines. Peratt’s web page has a short flash video of the simulation spoken of in the Wikipedia article. Look in the upper left hand corner here.
So now that we have two models for our galactic engine, gravitational and electrical, neither of which can be seen in visible light. Which model is better supported with the observable data? Does the copious amount of x-rays and radio waves pouring out of the center of many galaxies give us a clue? The black hole crowd claims that they are thrown off as a result of matter going over the event horizon. This is another unverifiable theory as there is no way of testing it (just have faith brother). The plasma proponents say that x-rays and radio waves are routinely produced in the lab using the electrical force. We would have no x-ray machines if we needed to shield a little piece of a black hole to make it work.
By extrapolation, that means that the rest of the Universe should operate under the same rules as our own galaxy does.
Even though there is no proof, it does make sense that all galaxies behave the same way. My earlier comment was geared more towards the different areas within any given galaxy. In particular, the center of the galaxy is a vastly different place than our neighborhood regardless of which model you use. It would be extremely violent in either case, perhaps more so in the electrical model. The fundamental laws that we observe here on earth may become distorted in such a charged environment. Superconductivity is an example where this occurs. It went undiscovered until we had the technology to cool things to absolute temperatures. I’m confident that we’ll be surprised at how the galactic center works once it’s all been hammered out.
If you can't prove them wrong then you have to keep funding.
The main stream media get’s their stories from the old guard elites. My fear is that this group isn’t ready to give up their turf to a bunch of dissident scientists, many of whom come from an electrical engineering background. Oh the horror of it. I’m not sure they will ever gracefully accept the egg on their faces for leading us down a dead end path for the better part of a century.
The other thing that I have noticed is that sometimes we have to wait for the old guard to die off to give the new ideas opportunities.
This is so true. The Internet is changing the dynamic here. It gives the dissidents more of a voice.
As a gambling man though, I wouldn't bet on either QM or Relativity getting bumped off.
I will have to disagree with you here. I’m a grand unified theory kind of thinker. It remains the holy grail of physics and it is nowhere in sight yet but I do think that one day we will have a theory in place that ties it all together. Cheers.
Sorry about that oversight. I lifted the entire comparison from another thread and posted it on a couple of other threads. It wasn’t my work I was posting. Click on any of the red links and the source site is identified.
You are right. He says that in the pictures it looks like a galaxy is budding a quasar. If he is right then all of our physics are wrong. Why should we reject the simpler explanation that it is two galaxies in collision? If there is a good simple explanation why pick an extreme explanation that has no theoretical backing.
The electrical force is exponentially more powerful than the gravitational force. The plasma folks make a reasonable case that many of the observations we see can be better explained using the plasma (electrical) model.
The primary problem with the Theory of Gravity is that the spiral arms of galaxies are rotating too quickly. The plasma guys may actually be right. I think that it will be combination of Gravity and electricity. The great breakthrough of the 1800's was Maxwell's Equations that combined Electricity, Magnetism, and Light. They are all the same thing.
So now we have 4 forces, Strong, Weak, Electrical and Gravity. Einsteins dream was to unite them and give us the GUT (grand unified theory). We are missing something and we don't know what it is : ) That is why they invented the mythical dark energy and dark matter. They are just a constant that they can throw into their equations to make them consistent with the observations of the Universe. Much like Einsteins famous mistake.
All of the history of Physics is pointing to a GUT. That means that the Plasma boys probably have part of the picture right and the Gravity boys have part of the picture right. Both are missing something. That something is probably going to come from the strong and weak forces. Someone is going to see the connection between the small and large forces and then the rest of us will say aha it is obvious : )
I will have to disagree with you here. I’m a grand unified theory kind of thinker. It remains the holy grail of physics and it is nowhere in sight yet but I do think that one day we will have a theory in place that ties it all together. Cheers.
Maxwell's Equations unified what were thought to be 3 separate things is the guide for the GUT. The GUT won't disprove them, it will explain the relationships. Just like Einstein didn't disprove F=MA he just refined it. That is what is going to happen. I think we just don't have enough pieces of the puzzle yet. Or the right question : )
Are you on the Physics ping lists?
Not much. It seems to be mostly a breaking news kind of thing and everyone laughs at how much we don't know : )
I take it you are a portfolio manager. Any good stock tips? ^_^ I manage a small portfolio myself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.