Posted on 12/27/2008 11:10:30 AM PST by Gamecock
You stalkin’ me?
LOL
I’m following you as you follow Jesus...
:)
Read again DU, I said seeking better source. However, it appears that you have not really bothered to read the article, because if you had you would see that they cited the definition of modalism from 1830 edition of Charles Buck’s Theological Dictionary, a reference work that was known and used by early Mormons (check his footnotes)>
So going to a better source than the author's opinion is obfuscation and diversion? Why would you have that opinion? Maybe it's because the author bends his definition to include us and you are opposed to us. So much for intellectual honesty.
No, and this is more misdirection. The definitions are compatable, you attempted misdirection was not.
GZ - The bom clearly teaches god in a modalistic manner
So does the Bible, that's why it was such a difficult heresy to stamp out, so?
I see you couldn’t cite any of these modalistic verses.
ROTFLOL! It thought you were advocating actual scholarship, not this "I can string a bunch of quotes together", intellectual bottom feeding.
Those strings were cited adequately within their context.
Godzilla, are you so ignorant of the Bible that you could not string together quotes to make it seem to promote Modalism?
Sure, go a head and try – and we’ll see just how your intellectual honesty displays itself.
Wait, didn't you just say the article was proven correct that we are modalists?
No, I didn’t, I said (as does the article) that modalistic teachings were part of the teaching of smith from about 1830 – 1835. Smith also taught that heavenly father was a personage of spirit while the son had the tabernacle of flesh and bones too, as well as Jehovah was heavenly father. What this article shows it the evolution of smith’s theology from trinitarism to modalism to bitheism to polytheism.
BTW, the bible says "there be gods many, and lords many,", and it says "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Which two scriptures pretty much sum up the Mormon position on worshiping other gods and the existence of other gods, As for us and our house, we will worship the Lord.
ROFLAICGU! Not only are you satisified with taking a passage out of context, you further have to isolate it further. Lord love you DU and your foolish attempt to prove polytheism from 1 Cor 8:5.
1. The context is the consumption of food offered to idols (the meat markets of the day)
2. The portion of the verse immediately prior to you “quote” states: 5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,). Something that is called a god is not a true god in this context.
3. By claiming that as your polytheistic proof text – are you telling us that mormonism recognizes the Greek/Roman pantheion of gods and goddesses? These are the idols to whom the meat was being offered, and the gods many and lords many cited by Paul. Apparently you are clueless as to what an idol is.
Paul was a converted Jew, as such he was well aware of the following passages -
Isaiah 43:10 – “Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.”
-Isaiah 44:6 – “Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of Hosts; I am the first and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”
if God had a father who was a God, would he know him?
-Isaiah 44:8 – “….Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.”
GZ - Had you bothered to read the article (where have I heard myself saying that before), you would see that change began around 1835.
You say that a lot, because any time i see something that you don't want seen you claim I did not read. It's a pitiful lament to argue that anyone who disagrees with you has not read, or they would agree with your opinion, on an opinion piece.
The article sets out the progressive changes to the bom and doctrines and covenants that reflect this evolution from trinitarism to polytheism.
It's really simple, God does not fit into your pidgin holes, so neither does our definition of him.
Not really, your definition of God does not fit in the definition gained from the Bible.
We are not Modalists or Polytheists (depending on which of your personalities is dominant at the moment).
No, mormonite theology is pretty solidly polytheistic now – irregardless of what you think my personalities are – but then personal attacks are ok for you.
These pre-made Greek Hellenistic definitions do not apply to our definition of God because they did not know God. They and non Mormons IMHO incompletely understand him and none of their definitions is accurate, capisce?
As pointed out in my previous post – these definition are not pre-made hellenistic (Greek is redundant). Their understanding is mirrored by the practice of mormons.
Read the whole thing (I read at 1500 WPM remember?) and the point I was making is tha the meanings you keep trying to attach to waht we say are out of context. So finally, you get my point, but somehow, you think it supports your conclusion...
Perhaps you should slow down because your comprehension is not any where near that impressive.
It did, it was prophesied to, perhaps you don't know this scripture:
2 Thes. 2: 3
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
There had to be a falling away, this was a big piece.
Fine - if this is true – name who the man of sin / son of perdition is because that day is linked to the revealing.
By affirming the full divinity of Jesus, Nicea saved the church from the theological emphases, imbalances, and heresies of Greek philosophy and a Hellenistic worldview, whose supreme being, for example, so transcended the created world that no person or community could aspire to a loving relationship with such a deity.
Thank you for noting that the decision freed the church from hellenistic world views – contrary to your earlier claims
Um, that is exactly what God has become in the trinitarian view, a being without Body Parts or Passions. A being who's relationship with us is not Father and God, exemplar of what we can become but GOD, un approachable, incomprehensible, inexplicable god who does things fro his purposes and you'd better not ask why or he'll notice you and crush you for your impudence.
See DU, here is a perfect example of you apalling lack of comprehension. The passaged you cited above says clearly that the Nicea definition freed Christianity from that interpretation.
That is the God of the trinitarian world as explained to me by priests and theologians.
DU, DU, DU, you don’t bother to really read that which you cite. Please go back, reread and retract.
ROTFLOL! Oh please, I offended someone by asking for a citation, heaven forbid, what next will the Mormons actually expect to SPEAK at their inquisition?
The exchange has been saved.
With the scorn and abuse that is heaped on Mormons, I find it hard to muster much sympathy for those who take offense where none was intended. Maybe if they have such thin skins they should stay off the religion threads.
Tsk, tsk du, it was fully intended.
This was on the internet, Here. So the "Not available on the internet" excuse just went out the window.
Facts are facts Du, you complained that the links from the origional refrence in the thread were not valid. Second, you demanded that the citation cease unless it can be linked. Third you only found it after we, or rather Sandra Tanner found it for you.
You edit my words just as you edit the Bible, and written words of my prophets.
BWAAAAHHHHH, show where it was out of context verses wasting space because of two different subjects being addressed.
If you have to hide eve a part the actual words of person's post to make your point, then you sir are no scholar.
DU – you must believe lurkers here are too stupid to be able to follow a thread back. But then your clintonian argument against me continues to fall flat, as you do exactly what you accuse me of.
There was no link given to be broken. IF my link is broken, then of course I will find an alternate link, or stop using a resource. It is patently ridiculous for you to presume to assign your opponent to clean up your inacurate links.
There was a broken link, that is what started your little tyrade that got that thread locked. Is that what you are going to do here too?
If these posts were a paper being presented before a forum of Scholars these kinds of actions would get anyone run out of the college as a fraud.
Careful Du, your emphasis on using wilkipedia as a scholarly source already discredits much of your credability.
Momrons accept all who call on Christ as their redeemer as Christian.
Right. . . . . Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist . . . . ? Oh, I forgot, these are all apostate and teach the word of the devil
DU - We don't care what your definition is, only ours and Jesus' matter and what matters is that he accept ours, at least to us.
A careful reading of what I said will reveal the you must have been wearing your excrement colored glasses again to get that from what I said.
I reposted what you said again for all to see. They can never see enough of this kind of material. Jesus has to accept mormonism’s definition – your words.
I think most people avoid these posts between you and I because they have already "seen enough" of your words.
My, my, getting pretty testy there DU.
I believe you made that comment in a FM to me. Please tell me how to link to a FM... (which is why I said in another communication, not another post)
In either case I stand by what I said.
GZ - because God had already defined Himself in the OT and NT. They only took that definition from scripture and put words to it.
That is called interpretation, and I don't believe anyone who has read About the , would ever believe that compared to the apostles or a prophet's communication, it is not of God.
Which apostle or prophet are you talking about DUh? Mormonite? I have yet to see a fulfilled prophecy from them. If those in the bible, then their teachings and messages fit nicely into the doctrine of the Trinity. However, since your sentence is so garbled it is hard to decide what you are saying here.
You keep saying that, yet where the Bible disagrees with you, you just close your eyes and ears like Golumn "Not listening, Not listening, Go away!" The truth just won't go away and when Jesus Comes and all the Trinitarians are the ones hearing, "I never knew you, depart from me" you will wish you had read the Book of Mormon all the way through, and prayed about it.
Now who is interpreting. You have yet to show where the bible disagrees with me. You’ve babbled, twisted words to their shearing point, totally ignored the fundamental Greek behind the scriptures as well taken the material totally out of context. Your word comes from mormonite prophets and apostles. I have nothing to fear for Deut 18:22 says:
22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
Your prophets are false DU, they carry no power or authority over me. I know His response to me will be “well done, thou good and faithful servant.”
ROTFLOL! Wow how far seeing Joseph Smith was, he even knew to put Jesus Christ's name on the church so that later ("in the last ten years or so") we could decide to be Christian. (Do you know how bad this sounds... For you?)
If Christ’s name is so important – why wasn’t it used from the very beginning of the mormonite religion? It was origionally called the church of christ, then the church of latter day saints, before its current design. If joey knew so much after he came out of the grove (depending upon which of the dozens of different first visions accounts one wants to believe), it would not have morphed as it did either.
Actually, we believe God was consistent in his use of he word one, as my page points out with The Oneness of God. In order for your use of one to be consistent, married couples have to become one person, the apostles have to have joined together into one giant super apostle (Because Jesus drew analogy between their oneness and his and Gods John 17: 11, 21-22.) The Bible defies you, the definition in the Bible is at odds with your "words" to define (or redefine) God.
Yawn, DUh Trinitarian doctrine and understanding of the nature of God recognizes that there will be a unity in purpose. Where you err is in trying to make that the only defining factor. In that passage Jesus offers the unity in the Trinity (three persons, but one God) as the model for believers. That they may be one (ina wsin en). Purpose clause with ina and the present active subjunctive of eimi (that they may keep on being). Oneness of will and spirit (en, neuter singular), not one person (eiv, masculine singular) for which Christ does not pray (RWP). Thus your analogy is flawed because it does not discuss the ontology of God, just a single aspect of the relationship.
2 Ne. 25: 23-25 23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.
OOPS! I'm sorry, i quoted too much and tuined your point, I keep doing that by bringing that gol durned context in to it, gosh darn, I apologise.
Well, you left out the bolded from the origional – you were embarrassed by that – sorry
James 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
What James says here must be viewed in the light of other passages on the subject:
(Ephesians 2:8-9) - "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, that no one should boast."
(Rom. 3:20,28) - "because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin...28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law."
(Galatians 2:16) - "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."
Works are the fruit of faith and a faith that is alive will produce works. Key word in James is say. James is examining two kinds of faith: one that leads to godly works and one that does not. One is true, and the other is false. One is dead, the other alive; hence, "Faith without works is dead," (James 2:20). Mormonites place the cart before the horse on this again by placing works before faith as a requirement for grace. One could go further into the context and outline of Jame’s epistle to further prove Du’s and mormonism’s flawed interpretation of this passage, but the above is more than adequate.
it does, and the first words the official account has him saying after ht left the grove was “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” to his mother. See here/
Remarkable, because his mother’s recollection of that event had him receiving the vision in his bedroom – not a grove. And there is the fact that there are other contradictions which cast doubt on the "first vision," such as the Smith family joining the Presbyterian church AFTER God has supposedly told Joseph that all churches were corrupt.
Joseph was a story teller, most people were in the frontier days, it was expected, and it was the way people entertained themselves. FYI, there was no TV. Joseph, like any good story teller adjusted his story to his audience, going into detail where there was interest and skipping over parts that were not interesting.
Yep, I’ll agree that what he did was spin a yarn. Remarkable that you would admit he would be decitful in changing the details – changing the details of key events is a hallmark of a false story DUh. Secondly, I have not cited anything that wasn’t fully documented. Who was he telling the story to in his 1832 personal diary? Who was he telling the story to in 1834/35 Messenger and Advocate, supposedly covering all of the important points related to mormonism’s beginnings?
Joseph was also not a learned man, he had a third grade education, at best, and yet according to you, he wrote the Book of Mormon complete with monetary systems groups of people moving about, wars, etc. all withouth making a major blunder.
Oh Du, du. Not only is it evident that there are a number of sources he incorporated into the creation of the bom, he didn’t do it all by himself but in collaboration with his scribes. It contains KJV translation errors, mentions plants, animals and metallurgy/technology being present here in america when it is know they didn’t exist until after European contact. It fails to mention common new world animals and food plants that were here. It contains anachronisms out the wazzo, greek words and phrases that had to be present in the ‘reformed egyptian’ in order to be translated into King James english.
As a reader of science fiction, I know how hard it is, entire dictionaries and web sites are devoted to the errors made by authors, while the Book of Mormon is proving to be more and more accurate the more we learn about the Americas before Columbus.
If you are relying on that pitifully boring FAIR youtube presentation with its vague and undocumented claims – ah, typical mormon apologetic (non) schlarship. Anthropologists and archaeologists in the new and old world correctly disagree with these interpretations.
Yours must be a daunting task saddled with more and more evidences for the Book of Mormon, people like Keith Crandall, who when enlisted to check the DNA studies of the Book of Mormon, since they were using his work as their basis, Kieth reads the book of Mormon as part of his research and joins the church and now works at BYU. WOW What a setback for you guys!
As P.T. Barnum said “A fool is born every minute”. Yep, the crawdad man, even wrote a article in the Encyclopedia of Evolution. Not suprising is the fact that there is not ONE single paper/article/book that supports the mormonite claim that the native americans originated from the Lamanites. Meanwhile, study after study after study proves as reported
First Americans All Came From Siberia, DNA Suggests
Americas Settled 15,000 Years Ago, Study Says
First Americans Arrived Recently, Settled Pacific Coast, DNA Study Says
Native American DNA Links to Six "Founding Mothers"
Polynesians Descended From Taiwanese, Other East Asians”
Part 1 The Book of Mormon and New World DNA
He starts losing right out of the blocks. Mentions middle eastern haplotypes in the mayans out of the blocks. The data Crandall cites is from a 2005 paper by Noah Rosenberg and colleagues, who examined variations in human chromosomal DNA. Southerton exposes the thinness of Crandall’s analysis – An important oversight of Crandall’s is the pink chromosomal DNA among the Maya, which is an important clue to where the blue DNA may have come from. If we were looking for a population likely to be more closely related to the Maya, it would be logical to consider populations that have portions of blue and pink chromosomes. In addition, it would make sense to look at populations that we already know from mitochondrial and Y chromosome studies12 to be related to American Indians. About 10,000 American Indians have been DNA tested and over 99% have a maternal DNA lineage derived from Siberia in Central Asia.13 Consequently, it would be prudent to take a closer look at Central Asian chromosomes. If Crandall had not been so preoccupied with the Middle East, he would have seen that in Central Asian populations we find abundant blue and pink DNA (Fig. 1). This is consistent with the idea that Mayan DNA is largely derived from Central Asian populations, exactly as the mitochondrial and Y chromosome data revealed.
Crandall also claims there “are Middle Eastern haplotypes where we as Latter-Day Saints would expect them to be in this Mayan population, as opposed to across all North and South America.” He makes this statement on the basis of a single North American population, the Pima, and three South American populations (Fig. 1), an alarming conclusion for a population geneticist to make given the small number of populations studied. The recent publication of a much more comprehensive study of American Indian populations by Sijia Wang in 2007 has revealed just how wide of the mark Crandall’s conclusion was.14 Wang expanded the number of populations studied from 5 to 29 and included about 500 individuals. As Fig. 2 shows, DNA variation in the Maya does not stand out from other American Indian groups.
Just like Dee F. Green said referring to bom archaeology - The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists…. If one is to study Book of Mormon archaeology, then one must have a corpus of data with which to deal. We do not(Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1969, pp. 77-78)
Guess it is time mormons gave up genetic / DNA support for the Lamanite heritage of the native americans, because it is a myth that simply does not exist.
Especially since many of these accounts are taken from other peoples writings, I do note that your site, like your posts does not have anything positive about the Book of Mormon. (they could find nothing good to say? why is that?)
What good can one find about a piece of 19th century fiction? Well if a table leg is too short, it could prop it up – hows that?
Having had an experience that came direct from God over twenty years ago, I can tell you that I can still smell the smells that were there in that room when I think of it. Experiences with God are more real than reality. I completely disagree with your fading over time thing. I think it shows you have a lack of experiances with God.
Oh DUh, don’t play the mind reading game lack of experiances with God nonsense. If that memory was so vivid for smith – why so many contradictory accounts? If so vital for proper faith, why wasn’t it taught for 22 years AFTER it happened?
actually, the details come and go with the differing audiences, if all you read are anti sites you don't get all the information.
Actually, I have read the actual accounts and electronic transcription of the writings. They by themselves tell the ever changing story of the first vision.
Now you offer your opinion on Joseph Smiths development neurologically? Is there anything you will admit you are not qualified to offer an opinion on?
Bwwaahhhhaaaahhhh. You get old - you forget things, that is the neurological development being mention here – quit being obtuse.
The Bible and the Trinity are obviously incompatible to any one who wants to read the Bible, not just interpret it. IMHO Tainting the Bible with the Trinity removes plain and precious truths from it.
Oh really – oh so devistating an attack DUh. The components of the doctrine of the Trinity are better substantuated than mormonites out of context citations in defense of their heritical teachings.
The Tanners are fake and made up. The Fall of the Tanner's Arguments Against the Book of Abraham,
Thesis of this polemic is the mormon claim (actually joey’s claim) that the scroll was an origional autograph. Author makes flawed argument that the scroll translates into the boa a priori, in spite of the fact it doesn’t, the scroll was a common prayer. It is a typical mormonite misdirection on minutia while obfuscating the real truth that joey’s translation was spurious and grossly false as proven by translations by real egyptologists.
Joseph Smith and His Accounts of the First Vision: Fatal Contradictions??,
Lindsey is a contortionist of the nth degree. When in doubt, try to besmudge Paul’s accounts. The he goes off and cites accounts that critics don’t use – a strawman. Perhaps one would like to read the core accounts and a mormon’s take on the issue here
Or read the actual text and transcripts in full context here
Lawrence Foster, an associate professor of American history at Georgia Institute of Technology, a scholar who is non-Mormon and who has spent a decade in intensive work on Mormonism, has said of the Tanners:
Yep, critizes their methods from a historian’s – but doesn’t critize the facts that they produce.
LOL! I do not claim all the sources at the tanners site are fake indeed, linking to the LDS.org site, is probably the most accurate of the material they've got! However, the way the put things together (1 part scripture, 2 parts philosophies of men) should give any serious scholar pause, then again, IMHO Anti's of any stripe are only serious about being anti, not about scholarship.
Tells me you haven’t visited their site in a while then.
You are specifically telling people what I believe, that is both making it personal, and Mind reading, especially since I disagree with what you said I believe. Stop the mind reading posts.
So to state what you repeat over and over is mind reading?
GZ - Well, already showed that modalism is not necessarly hellenistic, but simplly descriptive. Sabellianism was named after Sabellius who taught it in Rome. Really DU, you need to get out and read more before you make these claims
I am quite sure that there are many "descriptive" terms that would not fit the person being described either. The point was that when someone such as yourself runs into a concept or a perspective they don't understand it's quite normal for them to try to use terms they are comfortable with to describe it, even if those terms are not accurate.
DUh, it goes back to very simple definitions that I know you have the capability to look up. So to throw up a strawman that it is an evil anti- plot to define mormonism, when in reality the definition is very simple and apparent to all. Remember, google can be your friend.
You apparently lack the perspective or knowledge of perspective to see that your statement is false, I am sure that to you, it fits your narrow concepts perfectly.
Nope, it is easily apparent from the text of the bom. Particularly when the extended passage of Alma 11:26-40 is posted for all. The claim that the Son is the very Eternal Father is very descriptive of modalism DUh. For one who accuses me of lacking schlorship, perhaps you need to review the article again.
actually polythiesim is the worship of more than one god.
Come on Du, intellectual honesty for once. I provided a reference citation once already, polytheism is the belief that there are more than one god – irregardless of whether on not only one is worshiped out of the pantheon.
polytheism – worshiping or or believing in more than one deity, especially several deities (Encarta World English Dictionary)
Whoops! I guess by your standards the Bible just became a polytheistic book.
Woops, guess you showed the world your ignorance again – see early discussion on that passage.
My example was that polytheistic religions have more than one god they worship, while we worship the one God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Your example is flawed – see dictionary definition above. Do you worship heavenly father or Jesus?
GZ - You are breaking my heart DU, I thought you would say I was some partaker of filthy lucre again. But then a personal attack at this stage is right about on schedule.
You missed it! you already attacked me personally with the mind reading section of your post.
Do you want me to call a waaaaaaaaabulance for you?
Since Mormons are Christian, and I just said you don't speak for us, let me clarify. If you want to speak on behalf of your church (a church, not a faith) then I will have no problems with that and will applaud you, and defend you when anti's for your church show up.
Right – like I can put that in the Kirkland bank. Fact is DU, none of all these other churches recognize mormonites as being Christians. We have a corpus of mormon doctrine, teachings and practices to indicate that mormonism is not Christian by any biblical standard.
As for speaking for all Christians, not even the pope can pull that one off, who are you?
Though not the pope, the late John Neuhause
To say that Jews, Muslims, or Buddhists are not Christians is no insult. It is a statement of fact, indeed of respect for their difference. The question is whether that is a fact and a difference that applies also to Mormonism.
The question as asked by Mormons is turned around: are non-Mormons who claim to be Christians in fact so? The emphatic and repeated answer of the Mormon scriptures and the official teaching of the LDS is that we are not. We are members of "the great and abominable church" that was built by frauds and imposters after the death of the first apostles. The true church and true Christianity simply went out of existence, except for its American Indian interlude, until it was rediscovered and reestablished by Joseph Smith in upstate New York, and its claims will be vindicated when Jesus returns, sooner rather than later, at a prophetically specified intersection in Jackson County, Missouri.
. . . . . Christians disagree about precisely where that Church is to be located historically and at present, but almost all agree that it is to be identified with the Great Tradition defined by the apostolic era through at least the first four ecumenical councils, and continuing in diverse forms to the present day. That is the Christianity that LDS teaching rejects and condemns as an abomination and fraud.
With respect to the real existing Christianity that is the Church, the words apply in spades to Joseph Smith. He knew, of course, that he was rejecting the Christianity of normative tradition, and he had an explanation. On the creation ex nihilo question, for instance, he declared only weeks before his death: "If you tell [critics] that God made the world out of something, they will call you a fool. But I am learned, and know more than all the world put together. The Holy Ghost does, anyhow; and he is within me, and comprehends more than all the world; and I will associate myself with him." By definition, he could not be apostate because he spoke for God. It is an answer, of sorts.
(Is Mormonism Christian? A Respected Advocate for Interreligious Cooperation Responds)
Oh yeah, an anonymous poster on an internet forum purporting to speak for all Christians. Right...
To another anonymous poster on an internet form purporting to speak for all mormonism.
Fine, call yourself an apostate if you want to, but don't say that we said so.
Mormonism defines my church as apostate, and I am a member of that church that makes me what DU – an apostate by mormonite definition
actually, that is the definition I quoted... (Apostate).
Definition 2 - or characterized by apostasy. Now use you same source for. polytheism
Since you again decided you have to try to define our beliefs for us, let me state that you are wrong and not get into specifics because this post will be quite long enough without following all the inaccuracies down and killing them. Please show where the bible says God created Jesus Ex Nihlo. (actually, that definition was created Ex Nihlo).
God never created Jesus ex nihlo. The bible clearly states that Jesus was the eternal God that was housed in the body of Jesus for a period. 100% God, 100% human – a concept I doubt you can understand at this time. John 1:1 states this.
Still awaiting your definition of A) Eternal and B) God and C) Created being. Oh, and Godzilla, leave us out of it, what is your definition?
Generically eternal is existing through all time: lasting for all time without beginning or end; unchanging: unaffected by the passage of time. You already know my definition of God – so why ask. A created being is a being that is brought into existence.
Oh, Godzilla, I always read what you write, I am I guess your biggest fan. I'll bet nobody else reads all the stuff you write to me.
Not judging by the FM’s I receive :)
LOL! If the Trinity was taught by the disciples, whe didn't they use the word Trinity? (because that is not what they were teaching.)
Phil 2.6-11: Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death -- even death on a cross! 9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
This incredible hymn is one of the OLDEST witnesses to what the very early church believed. Although it is used in Philippians (which was written around 60ad), Paul probably picked it up in his early years in the churches in which he worshipped--late 30's (MNT:74). This passage is so heavily trinitarian that it is amazing. In this hymn, we have a pre-existent Jesus who is the very nature (gk: morphe, "outward manifestation that corresponds to the essential nature") of God, as contrasted with a mere appearance ( 2.7, gk: schema, "outward appearance, which may be temporary") [Refs: Kent/EBC, DNTT s.v. 'morphe', EDNT s.v. 'morphe, et. al.] He was 'equally God' (the word 'equal' is the adverbial form, yielding 'he did not consider the being equally God to be something to be held on to..."), but did not consider that status something to be 'selfishly protected'. Instead, He descended to the utmost humility. This pre-existence as equally-God is stated in the present tense (i.e. participle), indicating continuing existence in this state--it was NOT a temporary state. After the steps of descent to humiliation, God (the Father, v. 11) exalts Him, giving him the Name that is above all Names (i.e. YHWH!). This brief hymn contains the most exalted description of Christ's nature (even more so than a simple 'god' --theo-- word-choice would have done)!
The baptismal "formula"--Mt 28.19: Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (Notice: this is an explicit statement of three-in-one: it is ONE 'Name', but THREE agents! This linking of the Son with the divine names of God and Holy Spirit is quite a statement!)
Faithful saying -- Tit 3.4-7: But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. 8 This is a trustworthy saying. (Notice: this saying is VERY trinitarian--with all three agents playing separate roles in the redemptive process--with echoes of John 14-17! Notice also that 'God our Savior' and 'Jesus Christ our Savior' are in this passage together, and that the Holy Spirit is responsible for our renewal.)
Rom 11.36: For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen. (Notice this is to the Father, but the phrase 'through him' is also applied to the Son in I Cor 8.6.)
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, (Col 2.9)--This is generally considered a strong witness to the deity of Christ (even using the abstract noun 'deity'). He is said to have ALL the fullness of the Godhead in His body!
Christian think-tank
There are doctrines being taught that you interpret as being trinity, but actually, they are talking about the God head, a word that does actually appear in the Bible because that is what they are talking about.
And from where do we derive the word “Godhead” DUh? The greek work theotes - the state of being God. Fullness of the Godhead du – Did heavenly father stuff himself into Jesus at the same time as the Holy Spirit? No, but the manifestation of the Triune God was still present. Paul here asserts that "all the plhrwma of the Godhead," not just certain aspects, dwells in Christ and in bodily form. Once again, the greek underlying the english translation fails to support mormon polytheism, but endorses Trinitarianism.
Was the doctrine of the trinity being discussed before First Council of Nicea? If not there would have been no Arian controversy to settle!
Yes it was, proven by the scriptural citations above as well as by the writings of church fathers hundreds of years before Nicea. Arius was a new comer, the doctrine of the Trinity was what he was challenging – therefore the doctrine of the Trinity had to predate arianism.
Obviously, herises such as the Trinity were one of the reasons Paul wrote so many epistles, he was heading off apostasy with each letter, but then the letters stopped, the revelation stopped and the church fell. It's a sad story actually.
Show me one example where Paul wrote specifically against the doctrine of the Trinity, (crickets)
But God's plan as recorded in the Bible was to rebuild his church in the latter days. And what do you know, here it is
Put forth by a convicted divinator and conman, who’s contradictory accounts of the origins of mormonite religion beg the question of both that and the unsubstantiated history alledged to be within the pages of the chloroform in print (bom).
Your keyboard is stuttering again... and I did not say polytheism = fertility worship, that's just editorial malpractice on your part again. I used fertility gods as an example of a god that might be worshiped alongside of other gods in a polytheistic religion. We worship the one God og Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob.
Your words - Polytheistic religions are typified by Fertility God's rain God's and basically any Religion which assigns specific events to God's of one type or another. I gave you a link to an online reference source you appear to be familiar with – I’d recommend you use it as it pains me to see you continually embarrass yourself on this point.
Preemptive misquote? followed by Geek Greek, just to obfuscate? You are full of surprises, but they won't help.
Can you offer some other scholarly opinion on the foundation greek involved in the passage (cricket), so I’m stuck with your little display of ignorance.
Acts 17: 29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.
So since we are the children of God we should not think the God head is made up of anything not like us.
Context, context, context DUh. Paul was speaking to the greeks at Mars hill. Paul was discussing idols and unless mormonism is accepting the greek / roman pantheion of gods and goddesses as real. So the God head is made up of anything not like us in the context of the passage would be a reference to idols – not God Himself
So, beware of men who are learned, lest they elad you away into worldly (or wordy ness) Jesus is the fullness of the Godhead.
And as I’ve already dispelled your mythological interpretation of the passage earlier, I’ll address the others you raise here
What is a fullness? Jesus in the Bible went from Pre-Mortal, to Mortal, to resurrected being.
Ahhh, ‘cuse me Mr.du. somewhere in there didn’t Jesus jump the line and become a god before getting his body, being married polygamously, performing all that temple stuff? In reality, pleroma has absolutely nothing to do with any form of eternal progression by Jesus.
Oh yeah, you guys don't have that example because to you the resurrection is a fake, God can't have a body, that's why we are supposed to be happy he is cursing us with one for being good. The resurrection either means God has a body (problem for the Trinitarians) Or it was a trick and Jesus shed his immortal body somehow.
Well, an new avenue of intellectual dishonesty – you continue to surprise me on your ignorance of Christian doctrine. Trinitarians have no problem with a bodily resurrection. But that body is not tangible as flesh and bones just as man’s. Jesus had no difficulty entering locked houses or my heart, a feat a man’s body cannot accomplish. One that heavenly father doesn’t have that kind of body either. That is what Jesus taught as well as joey in the early years, before his ego glommed onto the polytheism angle to maintain power.
Mormons don't believe God resorts to tricking us, nor does he lie. as a wrap up to what I am sure is too long of a post,
Ok, who was telling the truth about Adam/god – the Prophet Young or Wilford Woodruff.
Joseph looked into the hat in which he placed the stone, and received a revelation that some of the brethren should go to Toronto, Canada, and that they would sell the copyright of the Book of Mormon. Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery went to Toronto on this mission, but they failed entirely to sell the copyright, returning without any money. - Did God lie or trick joey?
I'll post an "evidence" for the Book of Mormon
That will be a very short post indeed.
An example of neurological development at work.
Interesting point. From the mormonite viewpoint, all of us, including Jesus, were born spiritually in heaven. What then sets us apart from him other than his first born position? Apparently it was the circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth.
In relation to the way in which I look upon the works of God and his creatures, I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my Saviour Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it. Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, 8:211
Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term lawful Wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Saviour unlawfully. It would have been unlawful for any man to have interfered with Mary, who was already espoused to Joseph; for such a heinous crime would have subjected both the guilty parties to death, according to the law of Moses. But God having created all men and women, had the most perfect right to do with His own creation, according to His holy will and pleasure; He had a lawful right to overshadow the Virgin Mary in the capacity of a husband, and beget a Son, although she was espoused to another; for the law which He gave to govern men and women was not intended to govern Himself, or to prescribe rules for his own conduct. It was also lawful in Him, after having thus dealt with Mary, to give Mary to Joseph her espoused husband. Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time and eternity, we are not informed. Inasmuch as God was the first husband to her, it may be that He only gave her to be the wife of Joseph while in this mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity. Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 158
Since Eloheim is impregnating one of his spirit children - the term incest comes to mind.
Placemarker
for the law which He gave to govern men and women was not intended to govern Himself, or to prescribe rules for his own conduct
____________________________________
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Since the mormons believe that...
What does “righteous” and holy” etc mean as in
But the LORD of hosts shall be exalted in judgment, and God that is Holy shall be sanctified in Righteousness. Isaiah 5:16
God is a Righteous God...
Gracious is the LORD, and righteous; Yes, our God is compassionate. Psalm 116:5
There is no other God except me. There is no other righteous God and Savior besides me. Tsaiah 45:21
the LORD our God is righteous with respect to all His deeds which He has done Daniel 9:14
O LORD God of Israel, you are righteous Ezra 9:15
And they give the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and full of wonder are your works, O Lord God, Ruler of all; true and full of righteousness are your ways, eternal King. Revelation 15:3
God is a Holy God...
Here is the reason: I am the LORD your God. You must live Holy lives. Be Holy because I am Holy Leviticus 11:44
The LORD our God is Holy Psalm 99:9
the Lord GOD, the Holy One of Israel; Isaiah 30:15
And the four living creatures, each one of them having six wings, are full of eyes around and within; and day and night they do not cease to say, “HOLY, HOLY, HOLY is THE LORD GOD, THE ALMIGHTY, WHO WAS AND WHO IS AND WHO IS TO COME.” Revelation 4:8
for the law which He gave to govern men and women was not intended to govern Himself, or to prescribe rules for his own conduct
____________________________________
Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am Holy. Leviticus 19:2
because it is written, “YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY.” 1 Peter 1:16
So much for
Dont do as I do ...
just do as I say...
Yeppers the mormon god is not the God of The Bible...
remember this link
Me too ;)
Or the difference between plagiarized Masonic rituals and commands of God.
ROTFL!...I post one to your 50 spam posts and you kindly pass the award on to me? Thanks. I shall treasure it in the spirit in which it was given. ;) However, I'm sure it will bounce right back to you as if it were a tether ball!
So when the Prophet speaks he has no authority because what he has said does not become Canon. He speaks in error.
That would make him a false Prophet. Wouldn’t it?
Interesting point, Young made the following claim as being the inspired teaching from God
“Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken – He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later!”
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 1, p. 51
I haven't seen the mormon church in any hurry to remove his name from a university campus located in Utah.
BTTT
Don’t you all know that the D&C, History of the Mormon Church, talks of past Mormon Presidents, etc is not Mormon doctrine. The “True” Mormon doctrine I have determined is posted on a site by a guy named DelphiUser. I think he should change his name to Delphi_the_Oracle.
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.