Posted on 07/13/2007 7:28:01 PM PDT by restornu
"Ba'al" was really a catch-all word meaning "lord," which was applied to any number of statues, but none of them was viewed as a "pluralistic" god in the Egyptian sense.
You contradict yourself and give the answer in the same sentence, well done.
"... Jesus declaring unity with God makes him God."
"Any group of people declaring themselves to be one is a declaration of unity NOT of being identical with each other."
Exactly so. Alabama is not New York, but we are the U.S.A.
"Why is it that you can’t tell the difference between God and Jesus?"
John 10:30 may have something to do with it.
"not the god Christ Jesus"
John 8:58
Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM."
(This is the part where you pick up the stone, blasphemous Pharisee.)
John 8:59
So?
You really don't understand much about what is written, do you? You just take what has been spoonfed to you and take it without furhter examination.
Context is everything in this case. And the context is a confrontation between Jesus and the religious leaders of his day. They were not satisfied with his religious life and were claiming linneage to Abraham as proof of their holiness.
Jesus came to fullfill the law. All of it. He was the true passover lamb, of the flock, of the first year, and had no bone broken. He was the fulfillment of the law.
Obviously you're referring to Exodus 3:14 and you don't understand that the Hebrew doesn't have a verb "to be" as we do in English. Words like "am" and "become" are not easily translated and you can see that from Genesis 1 where the earth 'became' without form and void (you'll see the the words "was" are italicized) because it wasn't created that way.
Anyway, God tells Moses that 'I will become what I will become' meaning that god would fulfill the appropriate role for the need...as in Jehova Shalom, Jehova Raffa, etc. (Look at 'redemptive' names of God).
Back to Jesus. He is blasting the religious leaders and telling them that if they truly were of Abraham they'd know. They relied on links to Abraham. But before, prior to this, Abraham was. But Jesus tells them that today, right now I am.
I am in that verse no way relates back to IAM in Exodus 3:14.
Now wait...Jesus once told Peter, get behind me satan! Now did that mean that Peter was literally Satan? LOL...no way!
You need a better understanding of the principles of Biblical interpretation. In the verse, in the context, figures of speech, etc.
Wrong.
Wrong.
But as one who undoubtedly observes Easter, how to you square the observance of a fertility god with Christian doctrine?
Roman Catholics have incorporated so much idolatry as a routine part of their doctrine that they cannot even see where they are wrong. That’s right, they don’t think that it is wrong to worship pagan gods as long as they change the name to a ‘Christian’ name, and with Easter they don’t even bother doing that!
LOL...y’all just a bunch of lovable pagan idolators, aren’t ya?
Why would Jesus say it then?
I celebrate Christ's sacrifice and resurrection, of course.
"Roman Catholics have incorporated so much idolatry..."
Yeah, let's attack the Catholics now, that always works...
"... lovable pagan idolators, aren’t ya?"
Mormons are polytheistic, not Christians.
Actually it says “that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them”
So where in the Bible does it say that God didn’t turn the Lamanite’s skins dark, or that he did so but NOT for that reason? Nowhere, so this verse doesn’t contradict the Bible. If that really is the best you got, you have nothing.
“I personally do not hold the LDS to be theologically Christian; nevertheless, there are no doubt many, many Mormons that are truly Christians”
I don’t get how you arrive at that conclusion. If following Mormonism results in an individual being Christian, how can it not be a Christian church?
In the case of Mormons (and other non-Catholics), their response to the saving Grace of Our Lord comes in spite of the flawed theology of their "home" faith.
The Lord works in His own way with each person. How He makes Himself known to members of theologically incorrect faiths is His own business; the fact that He does is evident by the way the people He reaches live their lives. "By their fruits shall ye know them".
“How He makes Himself known to members of theologically incorrect faiths is His own business; the fact that He does is evident by the way the people He reaches live their lives. “By their fruits shall ye know them”.”
I’m glad that you recognize that many, many Mormons exhibit Christian fruits in their lives. I can assure you from a lifetime of personal experience that it is because of the teachings of the church, not in spite of it, which is why those fruits are most evident in the more faithful members. Men do not gather figs of thistles.
From the Bible, we know that Noah’s son Ham was the first black man and that his appearance had nothing to do with a curse.
There’s your contradiction.
The definition of Christian would come from either God or else His Church on Earth, not some jailbird convicted of defrauding gullible people with pretend soothsaying by looking in a hat at some weird crystals gotten from a total stranger who lent him his in order so that he could find his own.
The leader of that Church is a gentlemen by the name of Benedict XVI. I’d defer to him and to the Vatican.
You make no sense whatsoever.
Ham has nothing to do with the Lamanites.
same essence = Homouosis, was a Greek Philosophy addition to what the scriptures mean.
Your unkind retorts have no effect on the truth that this is the Lord’s Restored Church on earth again today and until one is meek and humble they will not receive a witness to know for themselves!
Exactly. Ham walked the earth as a black man long before them, so black skin cannot be the sign of a curse. You may as well say that beards are the sign of a curse, it would make just as much sense.
In other words, he began the discussion by saying, “We win. Therefore we can define anyone who is not us as ‘the losers.’”When he defines “traditional Christian orthodoxy” as “the orthodox consensus of the Christian church [as] defined in terms of its historic creeds and doctrinal affirmations” he is ignoring the fact that these creeds were the result, not of revelation, but of debate and political maneuvering.
Arians and Athanasians got along about as well as Shiites and Sunnis; the Athanasians generally prevailed by the authority of the Roman state and force of arms. It is hard for us Mormons to understand why ancient force and bloodshed, rather than revelation from God, should be the basis for defining the doctrinal consensus of Christianity today.
As I said, it is not our province as fellow sinners to judge the eternal destiny of any man. No one knows the heart but God. Instead, let us form alliances where we can to drive back the Enemy here in this life, and in so doing cooperate in the wonderful salvation Our Lord purchased for us at the price of His Blood.
A Christian is a person who follows and obeys the teachings of Christ. THAT is the hard part and separates true Believers from those who only say they are Christians, but never follow nor obey Him!
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.