Our Mormon Brothers?

Reformed Evangelist ^ | May 14th, 2007 | Jeff Fuller

[MHGinTN]

Ping ... you might find these Apologist’s assertion amusing.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

It's fairly easy to take a snippet of work here and there and label it according to one's presuppositions.

In truth, the doctrine of the Trinity is revealed on nearly every page of the New Testament (concealed yet still present in the OT) for those with ears to hear and eyes to see. To deny the Trinity is to deny Christianity.

"It would seem clear that we must recognize in the Old Testament doctrine of the relation of God to His revelation by the creative Word and the Spirit, at least the germ of the distinctions in the Godhead afterward fully made known in the Christian revelation. And we can scarcely stop there. After all is said, in the light of the later revelation, the Trinitarian interpretation remains the most natural one of the phenomena which the older writers frankly interpreted as intimations of the Trinity; especially of those connected with the descriptions of the Angel of Jehovah no doubt, but also even of such a form of expression as meets us in the "Let us make man in our image" of Gen. 1:26, for surely verse 27: "And God created man in his own image," does not encourage us to take the preceding verse as announcing that man was to be created in the image of the angels. This is not an illegitimate reading of New Testament ideas back into the text of the Old Testament; it is only reading the text of the Old Testament under the illumination of the New Testament revelation. The Old Testament may be likened to a chamber richly furnished but dimly lighted; the introduction of light brings into it nothing which was not in it before; but it brings out into clearer view much of what is in it but was only dimly or even not at all perceived before. The mystery of the Trinity is not revealed in the Old Testament; but the mystery of the Trinity underlies the Old Testament revelation, and here and there almost comes into view. Thus the Old Testament revelation of God is not corrected by the fuller revelation which follows it, but only perfected, extended and enlarged." -- B.B. Warfield from "The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity"

THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY
by B.B. Warfield

And...

THE BIBLE'S TEACHING ABOUT THE TRINITY
by James Montgomery Boice

And...

CHAPTER TWO
(Westminster Confession of Faith)
Of God and the Holy Trinity
by A.A. Hodge

And...

THE TRINITY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
by Peter Wise

Or as John Calvin's rightly noted distinction...

"God points Himself out by another special note also, by which He may be more particularly defined: for He so predicates unity of Himself that He propones Himself to be considered distinctively in three Persons; and unless we hold to these there is nothing but a bare and empty name of God, by no means the true God, floating in our brain."

[lupie]

haha.. you cannot use a book that was made up by Joseph Smith to give authenticity to extra-biblical doctrine espoused by Joseph Smith. Like any solid biblical doctrine, it will be found in several places throughout the old and new testament. Please cite the use of this word somewhere in Christian scriptures.

Also interesting is the supposed Hebrew word that Kolob would come from. It would be the Hebrew letters kaph, lamed, dalet. This word comes from an unsed root word, according to Strong's, which means to yelp, or else to attack; a dog, hence by idiom, a male prositute. There is no Hebrew word used in the scriptures that would put the o vowel (often the letter vav, which makes an o, u or a v sound) is found.

One could make the argument that the name, Kolob, according to the Hebrew shows that it is false, because of the meaning of the word being a dog, or male prostitute. And if it does have the letter vav in one or more places, then it is not found anywhere else in scripture. Both point to false doctrine using this.

[lupie]

...Why should I have to prove a negative.

I guess you didn't get the question when I asked you what you thought it did mean. Either that or you can't answer it. I don't want to reproduce the debate either. But there was more than one point. For one, the innerancy of scripture. You avoided discussing that - why?

[Uri’el-2012]

A Christian accepts that the god of the Jews is God, that he had a son named Jesus Christ, who was crucified, that Mary was an eternal virgin and was, along with Jesus, the only person on Earth to have never sinned. Those are the basic beliefs.

19 posted on 07/05/2007 7:41:42 AM MDT by AzaleaCity5691

A Christian accepts that the god of the Jews is God, that he had a son named Jesus Christ, who was crucified, that Mary was an eternal virgin and was, along with Jesus, the only person on Earth to have never sinned. Those are the basic beliefs.

Fixed by reading the Holy Word of Elohim.

b'shem Yah'shua

[adiaireton8]

How so? What’s wrong with the argument there?

[lupie]

It's fairly easy to take a snippet of work here and there and label it according to one's presuppositions. In truth, the doctrine of the Trinity is revealed on nearly every page of the New Testament (concealed yet still present in the OT) for those with ears to hear and eyes to see. To deny the Trinity is to deny Christianity.

Well said Doc. It is all about the person of Christ and the nature of God. It IS revealed on every page of scripture because He IS the Word and all of the Word is about revealing WHO God is (and who we are in comparison). He is God, we are not. He always was and always will be. There is none like Him. We are like grass that withers and fades. He is a triune God. We cannot fully understand that, but we must believe that by faith. And that is not of ourselves. Satan's fall was due to his pride in desiring to be like the Most High was that he wanted to be like God. (note it was not like all of the "most highs"). Why then should man be honored and exalted and be made "like a god" for doing the same thing?

It just doesn't make sense, does it? It makes God out to be a liar.

[restornu]

Abr ... Abr? and Bwahahaha

****

This is so pitiful even your retorts have no substance just disapproval and the only one who gets to disapprove is the Lord!

At this stage you have an opinion and that is as far as it can go you can neither approve nor disapprove until you receive a revelation from the Lord.

[Rameumptom]

>>you cannot use a book that was made up by Joseph Smith

Lets see, I can't quote my own scripture to discuss my own belief system. That's ridiculous. Should we discuss Jewish theology without discussing the Old Testament? How about we discuss the founding of America without discussing the Constitution (Oh wait, I guess liberals do that).

Anyway, I believe in extra-biblical scripture such as the Book of Mormon, another testament of Jesus Chirst which acccounts his visit to the Americas and his calling prophets there anciently to testify of his Divinity. No suprise there, to anyone who is halfway knowledgeable about mormon beliefs.

What I am interested in on this thread is the fact that those who seek to exclude mormons from "orthodox" Christianity invariably do so relying on extra-Biblical creeds while saying I can't use any extra biblical source. It's hypocritical.

In my belief system God has revealed more scripture (man hasn't "added it", God has). There is no inconsistency in my stated belief system.

However, some who have posted on this thread have claimed sola scipture, the innerancy of the bible, God Breathed word and then insisted on using extra biblical creeds and the words of secular greeks to describe how they interpret the Bible. That is not consistent with their own stated belief system.

Back to kolob, some scholars have tried to explain it as a Hebrew word (as it sounds like you have been reading the wiki account). So what? Jospeh Smith never claimed it was a hebrew word. It is a straw man argument.

Interestingly, there is proof that Joseph Smith's account of Abraham wasn;t "made up" as you say. In Facsimile 3 has Abraham sitting on the throne of Pharoah teaching him astronomy. There was no other evidence of this "quaint little notion" of Joseph Smith's until 1947 when other docuements were discovered that showed the same thing.

___________________________________

Facsimile No. 3

Facsimile No. 3 from the Book of Abraham.Smith believed this image represents Abraham sitting on the Pharaoh's throne teaching the principles of astronomy to the Egyptian court. Smith stated that the figure behind "Abraham in Egypt" is "King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head." The figure before "Abraham" is "Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt". The dark character is "Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince" and in between is "Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters".[15]

Egyptologists interpret this as the judgment of the dead before the occupied throne of the Egyptian god, Osiris.[16] The picture of Osiris shows his typical headdress or crown and his arms are placed in a typical position in which he holds a sceptre and a flail. Examples can be found in several tombs.[17] In front of Osiris, but with her face turned away, is Ma'at, the Egyptian goddess of justice, truth and order wearing her traditional feather on her head.

_______________

This is Part 2 of a three-part series on the Book of Abraham, a volume of ancient scripture translated by Joseph Smith.

Joseph Smith explained that Facsimile 3 represents Abraham sitting on the pharaoh's throne teaching principles of astronomy to the Egyptian court. Critics have pointed out that the second figure, which Joseph Smith says is the king, is the goddess Hathor (or Isis). There are, however, examples in other papyri, not in the possession of Joseph Smith, in which the pharaoh is portrayed as Hathor. In fact, the whole scene is typical of Egyptian ritual drama in which costumed actors played the parts of various gods and goddesses....

A number of pseudepigraphic texts purporting to be accounts from the life of Abraham have come to light since Joseph Smith's day, such as the Apocalypse of Abraham and the Testament of Abraham, documents that exhibit notable similarities with the book of Abraham. For example, in chapter 12 of the Testament of Abraham there is a description of the judgment of the dead that matches in minute detail the scene depicted in Facsimile 3 of the book of Abraham and, incidentally, chapter 125 of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. In fact, parallels to almost every verse in the book of Abraham can be found in the pseudepigraphical writings about Abraham.

[Utah Binger]

Also there are several of the doctor’s ex-patients who are on this very website who try to tell the truth regarding the doctor. They are repeatedly called liars too.

Ouch! Sorry I'm late to the party. The damn doctor failed to call in my prescription as I was out of the drugs. Silly little man wanted me to come in for an interview. First thing he asked is if I was taking my blood sugar daily..Of course I lied as usual. Can't get along with dumb bastards if you don't tell a fib now and then.

[Rameumptom]

>>>innerancy of scripture

I believe the scriptures were "innerant", as you say, when God spoke. I just don't believe they remained so after having been passed through the hands of men for thousands of years and translated numerous times.

Besides show me in the Bible where it says they are "innerant". I believe the sciptures are the Word of God. God is perfect. The scribes who translated the bible over thousands of years were not.

As another aside, those who belive in "inerrancy" do not even agree on what it means. Once again you holding Mormons to a litmus test on Christianity that even "orthodox" Christians do not agree on.

Wiki - Biblical inerrancy

There are over 5,600 Greek manuscripts containing all or part of the New Testament. Most of these manuscripts date to the Middle Ages. The first complete copy of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus, dates to the 4th century. The earliest fragment of a New Testament book is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52 which dates to the mid 2nd century and is the size of a business card. Very early manuscripts are rare.

No two manuscripts are identical, except in the smallest fragments[9] and the many manuscripts which preserve New Testament texts differ among themselves in many respects, with some estimates of 200,000 to 300,000 differences among the various manuscripts[10]. According to Ehrman,

Most changes are careless errors that are easily recognized and corrected. Christian scribes often made mistakes simply because they were tired or inattentive or, sometimes, inept. Indeed, the single most common mistake in our manuscripts involves "orthography", significant for little more than showing that scribes in antiquity could spell no better than most of us can today. In addition, we have numerous manuscripts in which scribes have left out entire words, verses, or even pages of a book, presumably by accident. Sometimes scribes rearranged the words on the page, for example, by leaving out a word and then reinserting it later in the sentence.

Many inerrantists believe that the authorial recensions of New Testament texts are not only accessible, but accurately represented by modern translation.[citation needed] Though some inerrantists often prefer the traditional texts used in their churches to modern attempts of reconstruction, arguing that the Holy Spirit is just as active in the preservation of the scriptures as he was in their creation. These inerrantists are found particularly in non-Protestant churches, but also a few Protestant groups hold such views.

[restornu]

"total depravity"

Another favorite of their is filthy rags they love to wallow in this low level force, feeling it is some form of being humble.

But a child who is born again in the Lord is not deprave or a filthy rage.

A child of God is one who submits to the Lord will.

Thy will be done oh Lord on earth, as it tis in Heaven.

[restornu]

I just wonder maybe she just doesn’t realized it but she is true to form as hostile ex LDS.

What a transformation since she removed her name!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Amen, lupie.

As the Holy Spirit indwells us, we become Christ-like.

We do not become another Christ.

To read Joseph Smith and the teaching of the Mormons is to understand just how far that church is from Biblical truth.

"God himself, the Father of us all was once a man like us." (History of the Church, Vol 6, Joseph Smith p 305).

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!" (Teachings of the Prophet, J. F. Smith p 345).

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's" (Doctrines and Covenants 130:22).

"There is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus Gods." (Mormon Doctrine, McConkie pp 576-577)

But what do the Scriptures say?

"A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." -- Matthew 12:35-37

[greyfoxx39]

placemark

[colorcountry]

LOL....

I think they expect you to fib. Even train you to. We can’t all be as perfect as a true blue Mormon now can we? ,-)

[DelphiUser]

A young monk is assigned the prestigious task of joining the older monks in the copy room copying books of scripture. After being there for only a week, he goes to the head of his order and ask him how often they check against the older manuscripts for accuracy. The Head responded that to his knowledge it had never been done. The Head then suggests that the young monk take his keys, go down in to the crypts under the monastery and check the current copies against the older preserved copies. The young monk goes happily off to his new task. A couple of days later, he does not come to supper. The head goes down into the crypt to look for him and finds the young monk repeatedly bashing his head into the wall while crying in frustration. The head asks him “What’s wrong? Did me miss something?” The young monk says, an “R”. The head says “It’s just one letter, how bad can it be?” The young monk replies the word was supposed to be “celebrate”…

I love that joke, and IMHO it illustrates the point rather nicely.

[restornu]

You are mixing apples an oranges some is doctrine some of your stuff is from a sermon which is not doctrine!

This one is the only Doctrine

“The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (Doctrines and Covenants 130:22).

The rest is discourse or opinion!

[lupie]

You can use whatever you want to discuss your beliefs. BUT, you are the ones who claim this so-called truth about the planet kobol. As I said, and is true, any important doctrine will be found in several different places in scripture. Your kobol thing only comes from Smith. Therefore, it is unable to be confirmed. I am so very sorry you can't seen the circular logic, that your claim on that is illogical.

And actually, I don't ever use Wiki. It would be the last place I would go on a subject such as this. You know what they say about assuming. ;)

I will bow out of this conversation with you. It doesn't seem like you want to answer question posed to you. It is appearant that you have been trained thoroughly, but it is also appearant that you aren't really willing to discuss. Instead of answering questions and discussing, you bring in very questionable resource that has accountability, you can't show any other supporting evidence. You seem to avoid my questions by throwing in some stuff about what other people say. I don't have the time nor the wherewithall to follow your rabbit trails. Sorry. My eyes are already crossed and glazed over.

[restornu]

Huh?

planet kobol

luupiiieeeee did you find another planet?