Psalms 90:2 and Joseph Smiths King Follet Discourse

[ELF1024]

Your Jesus is different than the Biblical Jesus. I mean, how many ways can the Bible say that Jesus is God.(John 1:1-14, John 8:58, John 10:30, Col.1:16,17, Hebrews 13: The mormons don't believe that. Therefore, if the mormon doctrine is not the same as Biblical doctrine then you have a different religion. Its not a restored gospel but a whole new religion which unfortunately is false. Jesus warned in Matt. 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." I say Joseph Smith fits the bill pretty well.

Still you have not proven otherwise that Joseph contradicted the Bible when he said that God has not always been God when the Bible clearly states that He has been God from everlasting to everlasting.

For the sake of Argument, God the Father has always been God (as far as we are concerned in this discussion). Jesus was a member of the Godhead before he recieved a body and came to Earth. He is still a member of the Godhead now that he has a body. The Holy Spirit is a member of the Godhead without a body.

That is where your nicean mental gymnastics cause you to be completely mistaken in your thinking.

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

What do you mean by "a member" of the Godhead? Also what did He mean by "the Father and I are one?"

One in purpose, not one in substance being the same Person. Evidenced by the scriptures which Elflord put up which you dismissed because in your own words, it was about the manly attributes of Christ (albeit Stephen's vision was a couple of years removed from the Ascension, and Paul's words about us being inheritors of God and coinheritors with Christ is from a couple of decades after Christ's mortal ministry.

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

John 17 in its entirety would be in sheer disagreement with the theology espoused by jesussavesbygrace...

[jesussavesbygrace]

ACtually we do, we just don't follow your rigid interpretations of the bible.

In other words you don't believe what the Bible says. My point exactly

Actually what you mean to say is that mormon doctrine is not the same as your doctrine. Well duh, I could have stated the obvious to, but I wont.

This is not my doctrine, its what the Bible says in plain english.

For there to be a warning of false prophets that would mean that there are real prophets. I think you are a false prophet brother.

Joseph Smith led people astray with his false ideas of God, Jesus etc. That by definition makes him a false prophet.

ACtually it is you that have utterly failed to make your case. Everlasting to Everlasting does not mean from eternity past to eternity futre. It never has and it never will.

Websters dictionary states that everlasting means "lasting or enduring through ALL time." Let me paint it this way so you can understand this time. From "lasting or enduring through all time" to "lasting or enduring through all time" thou art God. Looks like it means He has always been God. Sorry, Joseph was wrong.

.

[Vance]

Your Jesus is different than the Biblical Jesus.

No, He isn't. Your interpretation of the Bible is in error.

I mean, how many ways can the Bible say that Jesus is God.(John 1:1-14, John 8:58, John 10:30, Col.1:16,17, Hebrews 13: The mormons don't believe that.

Actually, we believe every single one of those, and in the way they were originally intended. You just don't have a correct understanding of what they really mean.

We could go through each and everyone of those if you like. But I suspect it would be a waste of our time as it is OBVIOUS that you have a closed mind.

Therefore, if the mormon doctrine is not the same as Biblical doctrine then you have a different religion.

Nice logic, BUT Mormon doctrine is consistent with Biblical doctrine. It is your doctrine that is incompatible with Biblical doctrine.

We can show you how, but I doubt you would open your eye to see it.

Its not a restored gospel but a whole new religion which unfortunately is false.

That is a false statement.

Jesus warned in Matt. 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

Yes he did. Why warn of false prophets if there were not going to be true prophets?

I say Joseph Smith fits the bill pretty well.

And you would be wrong. Nothing new about that.

Still you have not proven otherwise that Joseph contradicted the Bible when he said that God has not always been God when the Bible clearly states that He has been God from everlasting to everlasting.

You really aren't paying attention are you?

One more time, the hills are "everlasting". What is so difficult to understand about that?

[Vance]

How long is "everlasting"?

Genesis 49:26 The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren.

Habakkuk 3:6 He stood, and measured the earth: he beheld, and drove asunder the nations; and the everlasting mountains were scattered, the perpetual hills did bow: his ways are everlasting.

[jesussavesbygrace]

ACtually we do, we just don't follow your rigid interpretations of the bible.

Actually what you mean to say is that mormon doctrine is not the same as your doctrine. Well duh, I could have stated the obvious to, but I wont.

For there to be a warning of false prophets that would mean that there are real prophets. I think you are a false prophet brother.

ACtually it is you that have utterly failed to make your case. Everlasting to Everlasting does not mean from eternity past to eternity futre. It never has and it never will.

I messed it up. This is the way I wanted to put it.

Point #1 In other words you don't believe what the Bible says. My point exactly

.Point #2 This is not my doctrine, its what the Bible says in plain english..

Point #3 Joseph Smith led people astray with his false ideas of God, Jesus etc. That by definition makes him a false prophet.

[Vance]

Websters dictionary states that everlasting means "lasting or enduring through ALL time." Let me paint it this way so you can understand this time. From "lasting or enduring through all time" to "lasting or enduring through all time" thou art God. Looks like it means He has always been God. Sorry, Joseph was wrong.

.

And what does the Bible say about "everlasting"?

Genesis 49:26 The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren.

Habakkuk 3:6 He stood, and measured the earth: he beheld, and drove asunder the nations; and the everlasting mountains were scattered, the perpetual hills did bow: his ways are everlasting.

So these "hills" and "mountains" are "lasting or enduring through ALL time"?

Is the Bible false or is your definition wrong?

[Vance]

Point #1 In other words you don't believe what the Bible says.

We believe what the Bible says. We just don't believe what you say the Bible says. We read what the words actually say, not the false interpretation you put upon them.

.Point #2 This is not my doctrine, its what the Bible says in plain english..

Wrong. It is your false interpretation that you put upon those words. We could go through each of those scriptures and show you where you are in error but would it do any good?

Point #3 Joseph Smith led people astray with his false ideas of God, Jesus etc.

Actually it was the council of Nicea that led people astray, that by definition makes them a false prophets.

[Vance]

Here is an example where you are wrong.

Let's look at John 1:1

In Greek, En archE en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ho theos kai theos en ho logos

In beginning was the word and the word was toward the god and god was the word.

From a previous thread.

Following is a short list of translations whose translators have understood the issues inherent in correctly translating John 1:1:

The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text

1808, LONDON

Rendering: "...and the word was a god"

The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History, According to the Four Evangelists

1829, BALTIMORE (by John S. Thompson)

Rendering: "...and the Logos was a god"

The Emphatic Diaglott

1864, NEW YORK, LONDON (by Benjamin Wilson)

Rendering: "...and a god was the Word"

The Bible - An American Translation

1935, CHICAGO (by J.M.P. Smith and E.J. Goodspeed)

Rendering: "...and the Word was divine"

New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures

1950, BROOKLYN (by Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.)

Rendering: "...and the Word was a god"

Das Evangelium nach Johannes

1975, GOTTINGEN (GERMANY) (by Sigfried Schulz)

"...und ein Gott (oder, Gott von Art) war das Wort"

Rendering: "...and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"

Das Evangelium nach Johannes

1978, BERLIN (GERMANY)(by Johannes Schneider)

"...und goettlichen Wesens war das Wort"

Rendering: "...and god-like sort was the Word"

Das Evangelium nach Johannes

1979, WURZBURG (GERMANY) (by Johannes Schneider)

"...und ein Gott war das Wort"

Rendering: "...and a god was the Word"

The preceding list is by no means exhaustive, but it is sufficient to indicate clearly that debate concerning the matter is alive and well.

Do you need more?

[jesussavesbygrace]

Here is an example where you are wrong.

Let's look at John 1:1

In Greek, En archE en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ho theos kai theos en ho logos

In beginning was the word and the word was toward the god and god was the word.

From a previous thread.

Following is a short list of translations whose translators have understood the issues inherent in correctly translating John 1:1:

The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text

1808, LONDON

Rendering: "...and the word was a god"

The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History, According to the Four Evangelists

1829, BALTIMORE (by John S. Thompson)

Rendering: "...and the Logos was a god"

The Emphatic Diaglott

1864, NEW YORK, LONDON (by Benjamin Wilson)

Rendering: "...and a god was the Word"

The Bible - An American Translation

1935, CHICAGO (by J.M.P. Smith and E.J. Goodspeed)

Rendering: "...and the Word was divine"

New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures

1950, BROOKLYN (by Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.)

Rendering: "...and the Word was a god"

Das Evangelium nach Johannes

1975, GOTTINGEN (GERMANY) (by Sigfried Schulz)

"...und ein Gott (oder, Gott von Art) war das Wort"

Rendering: "...and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"

Das Evangelium nach Johannes

1978, BERLIN (GERMANY)(by Johannes Schneider)

"...und goettlichen Wesens war das Wort"

Rendering: "...and god-like sort was the Word"

Das Evangelium nach Johannes

1979, WURZBURG (GERMANY) (by Johannes Schneider)

"...und ein Gott war das Wort"

Rendering: "...and a god was the Word"

The preceding list is by no means exhaustive, but it is sufficient to indicate clearly that debate concerning the matter is alive and well.

Do you need more?

There really is no debating with you because its like debating with a brick wall. You have no substantial reasoning in your debate. To say that I am wrong or what I say is false without logical points is not debating. When you said earlier that I have built a "strawman argument" but yet don't back it up with anything to prove your point than why debate.

Hopefully you'll realize that Mormonism is nothing more than a counterfeit Christianity.

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

There really is no debating with you because its like debating with a brick wall. You have no substantial reasoning in your debate. To say that I am wrong or what I say is false without logical points is not debating. When you said earlier that I have built a "strawman argument" but yet don't back it up with anything to prove your point than why debate.

Hopefully you'll realize that Mormonism is nothing more than a counterfeit Christianity.

Predictable response. More predictable than the antis on the Spanish board that I frequent...

So you don't want to go through the documentation, or Vance's posts on everlasting mountains and hills, or my musing on John 17, or the other posts by Elf, Mola and the others?

All right. Now just to be intellecually honest, you are conceding defeat. The Creation story, John 17, the words of Paul, Stephen's vision, Mary of Magdalene's experience, all of them are against your interpretation (or should I say it, the Nicene version) of the Trinity.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

There really is no debating with you because its like debating with a brick wall. You have no substantial reasoning in your debate. To say that I am wrong or what I say is false without logical points is not debating. When you said earlier that I have built a "strawman argument" but yet don't back it up with anything to prove your point than why debate.

Hopefully you'll realize that Mormonism is nothing more than a counterfeit Christianity.

Ok, we have givin you very susbtasitive posts. You have vitrually ignored everything we have said. Vances last post to which you just responded is a case in point. You ignored the main thrust of scholarship on what the bible actually says in favor of how you currently view things and with the wave of your hand just asserted that it is wrong.

BTW What does real Chrisianity look like?

Do you know what a straw man is? I suggest you educate your self.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I messed it up. This is the way I wanted to put it.

Ok lets take a look at your new post.

Point #1 In other words you don't believe what the Bible says. My point exactly

Your interpretaion is not what the bible says. It is exactly that, your interpretation of what you think the bibles says.

.Point #2 This is not my doctrine, its what the Bible says in plain english..

Acutally no, it is your interpretaion. We have shown you why everlasting to everlasting does not mean eternity past to eternity future. Vance and others have quoted other scriptures to illistrate the point that ever lasting just means a long time.

Point #3 Joseph Smith led people astray with his false ideas of God, Jesus etc. That by definition makes him a false prophet.

That is your opinion and your assertion. You have not even come close to demonstrating this.

[Rock_N_Roll]

There really is no debating with you because its like debating with a brick wall. You have no substantial reasoning in your debate. To say that I am wrong or what I say is false without logical points is not debating. When you said earlier that I have built a "strawman argument" but yet don't back it up with anything to prove your point than why debate.

Hopefully you'll realize that Mormonism is nothing more than a counterfeit Christianity.

Wow! This really made me laugh. I followed this thread through from the OP reading each post as Vance, Elf, Mola and Muc'ul gave "substantial reasoning" and hundreds of "logical points" for their opinions, and this is what you write in response? I'm no religious scholar, so I don't jump into debates like this, but I like reading debates with intelligent points coming from both sides, but so far, the intelligence seems very one sided.

PS. Do you even know what a "strawman argument" is?

[jesussavesbygrace]

Predictable response. More predictable than the antis on the Spanish board that I frequent...

So you don't want to go through the documentation, or Vance's posts on everlasting mountains and hills, or my musing on John 17, or the other posts by Elf, Mola and the others?

All right. Now just to be intellecually honest, you are conceding defeat. The Creation story, John 17, the words of Paul, Stephen's vision, Mary of Magdalene's experience, all of them are against your interpretation (or should I say it, the Nicene version) of the Trinity.

First of all why don't you let Vance speak for himself. Second, I have not conceded defeat. Its quite the opposite.

Ok then, you tell me what Psalms 90:2 means.

The Book of Mormon and the D&C have a trinitarian view of God.

Doctrine & Covenants 20:17,19, 28

17

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

First of all why don't you let Vance speak for himself. Second, I have not conceded defeat. Its quite the opposite.

Ok then, you tell me what Psalms 90:2 means.

The Book of Mormon and the D&C have a trinitarian view of God.

Doctrine & Covenants 20:17,19, 28

17

[jesussavesbygrace]

When the term "one God" is used it means they are one in purpose. It does not mean one in a monothesitic sense or one in a metaphysical or one in essance. It never has and it never will. We have cited numerous scripture that back this up.

Why didn't Joseph say in the D&C or in the Book of Mormon that they are one in purpose but three separate gods. That is a rediculous argument. Sorry.

BTW D&C 20:17 just backs up what I have been saying all along about who God is. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

First of all why don't you let Vance speak for himself. Second, I have not conceded defeat. Its quite the opposite.

Ok then, you tell me what Psalms 90:2 means.

The Book of Mormon and the D&C have a trinitarian view of God.

Doctrine & Covenants 20:17,19, 28

17

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Why didn't Joseph say in the D&C or in the Book of Mormon that they are one in purpose but three separate gods. That is a rediculous argument. Sorry.

BTW D&C 20:17 just backs up what I have been saying all along about who God is. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!

This is ridiculous.

John 17:20-22. We have been over this.

Jesus desires us to be one as He and His Father are one. In what sense is Jesus one with His Father?

That is the key to understand what being "One" means, or being One God means. It never meant they are numerically one. He doesn't mean they are 1 God metaphsycially. That is how you understand the verse.

[Vance]

First of all why don't you let Vance speak for himself.

His response was perfect. I could not have improved upon it.

Second, I have not conceded defeat.

Your failure to acknowledge our responses and address them point by point is an implicit admission of defeat.

Do you know what "implicit" means?

The Book of Mormon and the D&C have a trinitarian view of God.

Doctrine & Covenants 130:22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man

[volgadon]

Point #2 This is not my doctrine, its what the Bible says in plain english..

A pity that the original languages of the Bible are archaic forms of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

[JohnOneOne]

Here is an example where you are wrong.

Let's look at John 1:1

In Greek, En archE en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ho theos kai theos en ho logos

In beginning was the word and the word was toward the god and god was the word.

From a previous thread.

Following is a short list of translations whose translators have understood the issues inherent in correctly translating John 1:1:

The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text

1808, LONDON

Rendering: "...and the word was a god"

The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History, According to the Four Evangelists

1829, BALTIMORE (by John S. Thompson)

Rendering: "...and the Logos was a god"

The Emphatic Diaglott

1864, NEW YORK, LONDON (by Benjamin Wilson)

Rendering: "...and a god was the Word"

The Bible - An American Translation

1935, CHICAGO (by J.M.P. Smith and E.J. Goodspeed)

Rendering: "...and the Word was divine"

New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures

1950, BROOKLYN (by Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.)

Rendering: "...and the Word was a god"

Das Evangelium nach Johannes

1975, GOTTINGEN (GERMANY) (by Sigfried Schulz)

"...und ein Gott (oder, Gott von Art) war das Wort"

Rendering: "...and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"

Das Evangelium nach Johannes

1978, BERLIN (GERMANY)(by Johannes Schneider)

"...und goettlichen Wesens war das Wort"

Rendering: "...and god-like sort was the Word"

Das Evangelium nach Johannes

1979, WURZBURG (GERMANY) (by Johannes Schneider)

"...und ein Gott war das Wort"

Rendering: "...and a god was the Word"

The preceding list is by no means exhaustive, but it is sufficient to indicate clearly that debate concerning the matter is alive and well.

Do you need more?

Regarding Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation" Bible and its rendering of John 1:1, it may interest you to know that there is soon to be published a 19+ year study (as of 11/2010), a thoroughly researched reference work in support and explanation of their wording of this verse (especially within the third clause with "a god"), as it will be entitled, "What About John 1:1?"

To learn more of its design and expected release date, we invite you to visit:

Good Companion Books

When finally published, apart from discussing many other topics and scriptures related to the Trinity, you will discover that there are some 400+ scholarly reference works (including those by Trinitarians) which have opted to say something other than, "and the Word was God," and that, among these are included over 100 which had chosen to use "a god" (as by a number Trinitarians as well) within the third clause of their renderings.

As you might expect, we are very excited at the opportunity to share our findings with others.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

[Kenngo1969]

... Joseph Smith led people astray with his false ideas of God, Jesus etc. That by definition makes him a false prophet.

QED. So let JSBG say it, so let it be done! Shut 'er down, Clancy! She's pumpin' mud! I don't know about anyone else, but JSBG has me convinced. Will the last person to leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints turn out the lights?

[Kenngo1969]

... [Y]ou said earlier that I have built a "strawman argument" but yet don't back it up with anything to prove your point than why debate.

Hopefully you'll realize that Mormonism is nothing more than a counterfeit Christianity.

Is there a mirror anywhere near you? Pot, meet kettle?