From The "theophilus" Blog...

[latterdayteancum]

Well, very briefly:

1) The Bible doesn't speak of "Heavenly Parents", and IMO such is contradicted by all the "monotheism" Scriptures;

2) Jesus isn't only "first" born, but He is only-begotten.

3) The term translated "firstborn" ("prototokos") had evolved from referring to literal birth-order to meaning "pre-eminent" (cf. Col. 1:18)

4) The Bible doesn't teach that we were "begotten" of God, but that we are creatures (or "creations") of God (cf. Potter and the clay, a repeated metaphor). Humans become "children of God", not through alleged "birthright", but through adoption (Rom. 8:15, Gal. 4:5, Eph. 1:5).

Thank you for your explanation. From your posts I can see that you are much more educated than I am in theology so any rebuttal to your points are sure to fall short. But I will share them with you nonetheless.

1. I believe the Bible does speak of Heavenly Parents. Jesus Christ refers to God as Father. (Matthew 5:48, 6:9, 16:17, 26:39; Luke 2:49; John 8:18, 14:12, 17:21, 20:17). I trust you will let me know if the original meanings before the Bible's translation into english proves otherwise, but in the KJV the words "Father" and "Son" are used quite frequently. To me that signifies there must be a Heavenly Parent.

2. Latter-day Saints also believe Christ was the Only Begotten of the Father (see D&C 76:23). Only Christ can claim that our Heavenly Father is the Father of His Spirit as well as the Father of His flesh. I don't see how this strengthens the position that the belief in Heavenly Parents is not biblical. Please explain.

3. Evolved? When did this evolution take place? There must have been a reason the translators of the KJV chose "firstborn" instead of "preeminent."

4. The Bible teaches me that I am a child of God. In the same scipture you cited Paul goes on to say "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." Paul also teaches "For in him we alive, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." He also taught "Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?"

I am not familiar with Hebrew or Greek so when I read the KJV I have to put a lot of trust in the translation. With how the Bible reads now I believe the LDS teaching of Heavenly Parents, especially Heavenly Father is more in tune with the Bible than main-stream Christianity. Maybe you can help me see the strength of your points with more explanation, especially in regard to the true meanings of the word "Father", "firstborn", "begotten", "children" and others used in the Bible that denote a familial relationship.

Again, I appreciate you addressing my question and I'm eagerly awaiting your response to this post.

[freakin a man]

Well, very briefly:

3) The term translated "firstborn" ("prototokos") had evolved from referring to literal birth-order to meaning "pre-eminent" (cf. Col. 1:18)

No theo. It means firstborn. It does not mean pre-eminent.

"And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn [prototokos] from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence [proteuo]."

prototokos {pro-tot-ok'-os} http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/wor...95603-9000.html

1) the firstborn

a. of man or beast

b. of Christ, the first born of all creation

proteuo {prote-yoo'-o} http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/wor...95650-6146.html

1) to be first, hold the first place

If Paul meant what you said it would have been like this:

"And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the preeminence[proteuo] from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence [proteuo]."

[johnny]

latterdayteancum,

I wouldn't argue that Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus Christ was the First Born of our Heavenly Parents.

Jesus was not the First Born of Heavenly Parents. The Son is before all things. The Son created all things, the Son created angels like Satan.

Col 1

[3] We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,

[15] Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

[16] For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

[17] And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

More importantly I believe He was the First Born of our Heavenly Father.

Satan and Jesus are not brothers who were born of heaven parents. Satan is a creature who had a beginning. Jesus is the Creator who created Satan, Jesus is eternal, he is the beginning.

I would appreciate it if you explain how this teaching conflicts what is taught in the Bible (sincerely).

It appears the teachings of the Mormon Church conflict with the Bible.

I believe the Bible does speak of Heavenly Parents. Jesus Christ refers to God as Father.

God is called "Father" inasmuch as he is Creator of the world.

1Cor 8

[6] But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

To me that signifies there must be a Heavenly Parent.

Does "commanding" signify a human parent ... the Lord commanded and the angels were created. Can human parents command and create a firstborn? Clearly Adam and Eve were not born of a heavenly mother.

Psalm 148

[2] Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts.

[5] Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.

Gen 2

[7] And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

[21] And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

[22] And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Latter-day Saints also believe Christ was the Only Begotten of the Father

Is the Mormon Christ eternally begotten? 1John 1:2 relates the Son with "eternal life".

1John 1

[1] That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

[2] (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

There must have been a reason the translators of the KJV chose "firstborn" instead of "preeminent."

Maybe because his "firstborn" will be higher than the kings of the earth.

Psalm 89

[27] Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.

The Bible teaches me that I am a child of God.

We are his offspring because men are creatures created by a Creator. Men become adopted sons of God.

freakin a man,

No theo. It means firstborn. It does not mean pre-eminent.

Firstborn can mean pre-eminent (see Exod 4:22)

Exod 4

[22] And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

[Son]

Well, very briefly:

1) The Bible doesn't speak of "Heavenly Parents", and IMO such is contradicted by all the "monotheism" Scriptures;

2) Jesus isn't only "first" born, but He is only-begotten.

3) The term translated "firstborn" ("prototokos") had evolved from referring to literal birth-order to meaning "pre-eminent" (cf. Col. 1:18)

4) The Bible doesn't teach that we were "begotten" of God, but that we are creatures (or "creations") of God (cf. Potter and the clay, a repeated metaphor). Humans become "children of God", not through alleged "birthright", but through adoption (Rom. 8:15, Gal. 4:5, Eph. 1:5).

Theophilus

As do EV's.

EV's believe that as well. Go figure.

Another EV belief.

How do you figure?!

Completely Biblical.

EV's don't believe that at all.

While Oneness Pentecostals may believe it (ask alpha),

"Jesus is the Father" is considered a heresy by:

- Catholics;

- Baptists;

- Anglicans;

- Episcopalians;

- Lutherans;

- Methodists;

- Calvinists;

- Evangelicals.

Of course, this has already been explained on the FAIRboards many times...

Only that you don't know what "EV's" believe.

Theophilus

You are being needlessly rude to other posters. Stop! -mods

EV's = Evangelicals to me.

Every EV church I have ever walked into taught that Jesus is God Almighty. That you are washed in the blood of Christ and need do nothing, (so why attend).

That righteousness is not an attribute to be achieved, (Jesus did it all for us).

He didn't really mean be ye perfect. That Matt 5:48 is wrong. ( to me that is blasphemy).

Some of the Bigger churches I have attended that taught this doctrine.

Chuck Swindolls - EV free, originally in Fullerton CA. (went there in my highschool years.)

Chuch Smiths - Nation wide Calvary movement, in Costa Mesa Ca. which includes hundreds if not thousands of spinoffs.

Our local Baptist gone indie - now our largest local EV church

Our local Assembly of God gone indie - now our second largest EV church

I have asked the local pastors these direct questions and they have confirmed thier belief as such.

One even said Christ never taught perfection nor said go and sin no more. That He wouldn't tell us to be something we couldn't. BLASPHEMY!!!

[Theophilus]

If it is completely biblical that Jesus did it all and I don't need to to anything than I truely don't need to do anything or nothing then don't even need to believe that God exists to be saved.

That is correct.

Although God will certainly let you know He exists.

Indeed, Rom. 1-3 tells us that everyone knows that God exists, so there is "no excuse".

As that would be me having to do something? Nothing means nothing. To believe is something.

We disagree on that.

Belief ("faith") is a gift from God (Phil. 1:29, Eph. 2:8, Rom. 12:3, Matt. 16:17, etc.), so it is not something that comes from "us" (that we can "do"), it is something God gives to us.

So I imagine that you don't believe that I am saved.

I am not God, so I have no idea what your status is concerning salvation.

Theophilus

[johnny]

Son,

That righteousness is not an attribute to be achieved, (Jesus did it all for us).

No one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification.

He didn't really mean be ye perfect. That Matt 5:48 is wrong. ( to me that is blasphemy).

It is by grace that we are saved and it is by grace that our works can bear fruit.

Man's merit is due to God's grace and secondly to man's collaboration.

[Theophilus]

Every EV church I have ever walked into taught that Jesus is God Almighty.

As well they should.

But that wasn't what you said originally:

"Jesus is the Father" (is what you said they belived).

"Jesus is God Almighty" (is what they actually believe).

They do not believe that "Jesus is the Father".

That is a heretical teaching which directly contradicts the Bible, and the Trinity.

Even though we believe in only one God, there is a distinction between the persons of that God.

That you are washed in the blood of Christ and need do nothing, (so why attend).

- because we are commanded to;

- to praise God;

- to fellowship;

- to share our joys, and our sorrows;

- to learn and grow in the Scriptures;

It seems to me there are many reasons to "attend", even if it is not "required" for salvation. (And let me get this straight, are you actually trying to argue that Church attendence is a "requirement" for salvation?)

That righteousness is not an attribute to be achieved, (Jesus did it all for us).

I get the feeling that you misunderstood what was meant by that.

"Righteousness", in terms of saving righteousness, in terms of doing something to "contribute" to our salvation, that is not to be achieved.

But understanding that we are saved solely by the blood of Christ, and we need not, and cannot, add to that righteousness, we are still to live righteous lives, the "fruits" of our salvation, the "good works" which spring out from our salvation, are to continue.

He didn't really mean be ye perfect. That Matt 5:48 is wrong. ( to me that is blasphemy).

Again, I wasn't there during your conversation, but I find it incredibly difficult to believe that any EV told you "Matt. 5:48 is wrong" (could that possibly be your editorial comment to your interpretation of "he didn't really mean be ye perfect"?

The word "perfect" has a number of different connotations.

It is only modernistic society which generally understands "perfect" to mean "without error", "sinless", "exactly right in all ways", etc. etc.

The Greek from which the word is rendered is "teleios", which means "complete", and interestingly enough, if you look up the word "perfect" in a good dictionary, you will find that "complete" is one of its connotations (which justifies the choice of the word by the KJV translators)

Chuck Swindolls - EV free, originally in Fullerton CA. (went there in my highschool years.)

I've heard Chuch preach many times, and there is absolutely no way that he ever preached, "Jesus is the Father". Of course he taught that "Jesus is God Almighty" (that's Biblical), but I think we've seen it is your misunderstanding that interpreted "Jesus is God Almighty" incorrectly as meaning "Jesus is the Father" (which is heresy).

One even said Christ never taught perfection nor said go and sin no more. That He wouldn't tell us to be something we couldn't. BLASPHEMY!!!

Not if you understand what "perfect" (and the underlying root, "teleios") really mean.

It would seem that the mistake in interpreting this verse by too modernistic a context is on your part, not on the part of the Evangelicals.

Just a caution... Just because others reject your interpretation of certain passages, doesn't mean that they reject the passages themselves. All it means is that they reject your interpretation.

Theophilus

[latterdayteancum]

Johnny,

I appreciate your response. Respectfully, I don't feel you have answered my question. I'm not saying your points are wrong, I would just like more biblical evidence. You have explained why the LDS teaching of Heavenly Parents differs from your beliefs more than how it actually conflicts with the Bible.

Jesus was not the First Born of Heavenly Parents. The Son is before all things. The Son created all things, the Son created angels like Satan.

Col 1

[3] We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,

[15] Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

[16] For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

[17] And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

In the scripture you site it says "We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." To me that clearly states there is a Heavenly Parent, specifically a Father of Jesus Christ.

Also, you may already be familiar with this LDS teaching, but we do believe that by Jesus Christ "were all things created." This was done under the direction of our Heavenly Father. This principle is taught in the epsitle to the Hebrews:

"1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed cheir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds" Hebrews 1:1-2

I hope from this explanation you can see why I don't understand how your stated point and scripture support that the LDS doctrine of Heavenly Parents is not biblican. In fact, your scripture seems to support LDS teachings.

Satan and Jesus are not brothers who were born of heaven parents. Satan is a creature who had a beginning. Jesus is the Creator who created Satan, Jesus is eternal, he is the beginning.

Again, I know this is what you believe but you gave no biblical support showing this is the Bible teaches Satan and Jeses are not the spiritual offspring of the Father. Also, you did not give a biblical reference showing that Jesus created Satan.

God is called "Father" inasmuch as he is Creator of the world.

1Cor 8

[6] But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Respectfully, how does the scripture teach that the Father is not our Heavenly Parent but just the Creator of the world? Again, this scripture teaches that God is the Father supporting the LDS teaching of Heavenly Parents.

Does "commanding" signify a human parent ... the Lord commanded and the angels were created. Can human parents command and create a firstborn? Clearly Adam and Eve were not born of a heavenly mother.

Psalm 148

[2] Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts.

[5] Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.

Gen 2

[7] And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

[21] And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

[22] And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

I'm not understanding how these scriptures bear relevance to your point. You have proven that the LORD created angels. That does not prove or dissaprove we do not have Heavenly Parents. You also proven that the LORD formed Adam and Even and placed them on the earth. The LDS Church teaches this as well. The difference is we believe that everything existed spiritually before being physically placed on the earth, which is biblically supported:

"4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground." (Genesis 2:4-5)

Commanding does not signify a human parent. However the many bible verses that state we are children of God does denote of familial relationship. So does Jesus Christ repeatedly referring to His God as Father.

Is the Mormon Christ eternally begotten? 1John 1:2 relates the Son with "eternal life".

1John 1

[1] That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

[2] (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

Yes, Jesus Christ is eternally Begotten. The LDS Church teaches that we have always existed as eternal intelligence. Again, not seeing how this does anything but support the teaching of a Heavenly Parent.

We are his offspring because men are creatures created by a Creator. Men become adopted sons of God.

Some biblical support for this statement would be appreciated.

Firstborn can mean pre-eminent (see Exod 4:22)

Exod 4

[22] And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

CAN or DOES? Please explain how the biblical teaching that Jesus Christ was the Fistborn of the Father actually means preeminent.

I appreciate your feedback and do not wish to anger or offend you in any way. I was just hoping for biblical support that teaches we do not have Heavenly Parents. I don't feel you have done this.

[Theophilus]

1. I believe the Bible does speak of Heavenly Parents. Jesus Christ refers to God as Father. (Matthew 5:48, 6:9, 16:17, 26:39; Luke 2:49; John 8:18, 14:12, 17:21, 20:17). I trust you will let me know if the original meanings before the Bible's translation into english proves otherwise, but in the KJV the words "Father" and "Son" are used quite frequently. To me that signifies there must be a Heavenly Parent.

While the Bible refers to God commonly as "Father", Johnny has rightly pointed out that the term is a Hebrism meaning "Creator". Two passages which highlight this meaning are:

Mal 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

Isa 64:8 But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.

You have to remember that the Bible teaches that humans are "creations" of God. We were created by Him, not "begotten" from Him.

And yes, the metaphor of "Father" and "Son" between the Father and Christ is used to indicate aspects of the relationship, such as submission, etc. But it seems to me that your interpretation is coloured by your LDS belief that God, Jesus, and humans are all of the same "kind", and that all humanity are "children of God" (not taught in the Bible, cf. John 8:44, 17:9, etc.), and that humans can be "exalted" to become gods themselves. These concepts are not taught in the Bible.

2. Latter-day Saints also believe Christ was the Only Begotten of the Father (see D&C 76:23). Only Christ can claim that our Heavenly Father is the Father of His Spirit as well as the Father of His flesh. I don't see how this strengthens the position that the belief in Heavenly Parents is not biblical. Please explain.

Nowhere in the Bible does it refer to "Heavenly Parents" (plural).

Nowhere in the Bible does it refer to a "Heavenly Mother" (the second parent?)

Again, the Bible teaches that man is not "begotten" by God, but created by God.

To use the common Bibilcal metaphor, with God being the "Potter", we are the "clay" (pots), not the "potter's sons".

3. Evolved? When did this evolution take place? There must have been a reason the translators of the KJV chose "firstborn" instead of "preeminent."

Yes, language evolves. That's why we have to keep updating our dictionaries. Just two examples: Yesterday I showed my chemistry class a movie called "Madame Curie". It was made in the '40's, and one of the lines that Pierre Curie said was, "You'd like my mother; she's quite gay". Of course, he wasn't saying that she was a lesbian, but the word's meaning has "evolved", even in the short span of 40-50 years. Another example is the word "gentleman", which didn't used to have anything to do with "courtesy" or "manners", it simply meant "owner of land", hence the expression "gentleman farmer" (a farmer who owned his own farm property). Words evolve over time. (And this is precisely one reason why it's not always a great idea to use a 400 year old Bible translation like the KJV, and if you do use the KJV, you should use a "period" dictionary, rather than a modern one.

Now, as to why the KJV translators translated it "first-born", there are two reasons. First, "proto-" ("first") "tokos" ("born") is a compound word, and if you translate it based on its components, that's what you will get, "first" ("protos") "born". It's the same as if you translated a letter from a hundred years ago from someone who described himself as a "gentleman farmer" (ie. landowner). You'd recognize "gentle", and you'd recognize "man", and put it together as "gentle-man", and perhaps interpret it the way it wasn't intended and conclude he had "manners", rather than owning land. The other issue about the translation is that we've learned a lot more about the meaning of Greek words in the 400 years since the translation of the KJV, especially in the last 100 years.

If you want to understand how the term "prototokos" has evolved, and what it means in the New Testament, I would direct you to this excellent article

4. The Bible teaches me that I am a child of God. In the same scipture you cited Paul goes on to say "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God."

First of all, with all due respect, Paul was writing to the 1st century Christians in Rome. Unless you were part of the 1st century Church in Rome, you can't simply assume that it is referring to you. You are in fact begging the question, since he was describing Christians at that point (not humankind in general), and so humankind are not naturally "children of God". As I pointed out (and you seem to have ignored), that passage which speaks of being "children of God" is children through adoption, not through inherent "birthright" or any such thing.

Paul also teaches "For in him we alive, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring."

Yes, and "offspring" doesn't necessarily refer to "biological sons and daughters". Again I point you to God's initial relationship with humankind as Creator of us.

He also taught "Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?"

Again, this is referring to Christians, those who have been born of God, not to humankind in general.

Those who are "children of God", are so only through "adoption" (Rom. 8:15, Gal. 4:5, Eph. 1:5), not because they naturally "inherited" this role.

I am not familiar with Hebrew or Greek so when I read the KJV I have to put a lot of trust in the translation.

A lot of LDS read other translations as well when studying the Bible.

I don't believe you are "required" to limit yourself to the KJV.

Theophilus

[johnny]

latterdayteancum,

I appreciate your response. Respectfully, I don't feel you have answered my question.

Theophilus has given you some good answers to your questions. I will also touch upon some of your questions.

I'm not saying your points are wrong, I would just like more biblical evidence.

My point is that the Bible teaches that Jesus is the Son of God and Mormons teaches that Jesus is the Son of a Heavenly Mother. You have not shown any biblical evidence for a heavenly mother.

You have explained why the LDS teaching of Heavenly Parents differs from your beliefs more than how it actually conflicts with the Bible.

In your explanation you have avoided the obvious ... Adam and Eve did were not born of a heavenly mother.

To me that clearly states there is a Heavenly Parent, specifically a Father of Jesus Christ.

Clearly it does not state a Heavenly Mother like the LDS church teaches.

Also, you may already be familiar with this LDS teaching, but we do believe that by Jesus Christ "were all things created."

Do LDS believe Jesus is "of whom are all things" or do they believe "by"?

1Cor 8

[6] But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Again, I know this is what you believe but you gave no biblical support showing this is the Bible teaches Satan and Jeses are not the spiritual offspring of the Father.

How can Jesus be a spiritual offspring if the Son is before all things?

Col 1

[17] And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Respectfully, how does the scripture teach that the Father is not our Heavenly Parent but just the Creator of the world?

Below are other scriptures that support my point that the Father is our Creator.

Acts 17

[24] God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

[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.

Mal 2

[10] Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

Deut 32

[6] Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?

I'm not understanding how these scriptures bear relevance to your point. You have proven that the LORD created angels.

You have not proven that angels are born of a heavenly mother ... like you have said I have shown the the LORD "creates" angels.

You also proven that the LORD formed Adam and Even and placed them on the earth.

I have proven that Adam and Eve were not born of a heavenly mother.

The LDS Church teaches this as well.

Does the LDS Church teach that Eve was "formed" or that she was "born"?

1Tim 2

[13] For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

Gen 2

[22] And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

latterdayteancum,

Commanding does not signify a human parent.

I agree "commanding" does not signfy a human parent ... angels were not born of a heavenly mother.

Some biblical support for this statement would be appreciated.

The verses below support the idea that men are creatures and God is our Creator.

Mal 2

[10] Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

Gen.1

[21] And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Rom.1

[25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

James 1

[18] Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

CAN or DOES? Please explain how the biblical teaching that Jesus Christ was the Fistborn of the Father actually means preeminent.

Christ was "made" the firstborn (Psalm 89) ... Christ was not the firstborn because he was born of a heavenly mother.

Psalm 89

[27] Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.

[Theophilus]

not saying your points are wrong, I would just like more biblical evidence. You have explained why the LDS teaching of Heavenly Parents differs from your beliefs more than how it actually conflicts with the Bible.

It seems to me that you are reading your LDS beliefs into the Bible, when they don't appear there to begin with. You see the phrase, "Father in Heaven", or "heavenly Father", or "Father of Jesus Christ", and it seems that you read into that a whole lot of LDS "baggage".

Now, from your perspective, this may be fine. You have your "other Scriptures", and you believe they are true, and you believe that together with the Bible they reveal God's truth. But even so, when discussing these things with people who only accept the Bible as God's word, you have to try to recognize what comes from the Bible, and what doesn't.

Yes, God (the Father) and Jesus Christ (ie. the Son) have a "Father" and "Son" relationship. But even so, you have to realize that even this isn't identical to the "Father-son" relationships that humans have, since Christ has existed eternally (He is God, after all), unlike human "sons" who were born into existence.

And that may be another stumbling block. With the exception of God, who has existed for eternity, the Bible doesn't teach a "pre-existence" of souls, of plants, or of anything else. So while you may believe in a pre-existence, and while the idea of pre-existence of human sons before they are born to human fathers may give you even more reason to equate the two kinds of "father-son" relationships, you must remember that "pre-existence" isn't taught in the Bible, and that it is an invention of the LDS religion.

Also, you may already be familiar with this LDS teaching, but we do believe that by Jesus Christ "were all things created." This was done under the direction of our Heavenly Father. This principle is taught in the epsitle to the Hebrews:

"1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed cheir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds" Hebrews 1:1-2

It's interesting that you quote this passage, since it (along with Luke 16:16-31, Matt. 11:13) is why I reject the LDS church with its "latter-day prophets". This passage teaches that prophets "spake in time past", and this is contrasted with "these last days" where God has "spoken unto us by His Son".

But this brings up another important issue, I think... You and other LDS keep bringing up "extra" teachings which you add to the Bible, such as "pre-existence", "heavenly parents", adding qualifiers right and left like "the only God who exists with which we have to do", or "only-begotten son in the flesh", etc. etc.

This penchant for adding to the teachings of the Bible is contradicted by the Bible itself, which teaches that it is complete and sufficient:

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Now, I realize that LDS believe that there were "plain and precious parts" missing from the Bible, but with all due respect there is zero evidence to support this, and in fact all the textual criticism supports that there is nothing "missing" from the Bible.

And since you seem to be asking for Biblical problems with your (LDS) beliefs, and since you keep talking about "heavenly parents". Are both these parents gods? And can you "progress" to become a god yourself? How many gods exist now? And how many gods will exist at the end of time, when all this "progression" has occurred? Are you aware of all the Biblical passages that proclaim that only one God exists (Deut. 4:35, 39, 6:4, 2 Sam. 22:32, 2 Kings 19:15,19, Psalm 18:31, 86:10, Isa. 37:16,20, 44:6,8, 45:5,21,22, 46:9, John 17:3, 1 Tim. 2:5, etc.)?

Again, this is one of the many reasons I must always reject LDS teachings.

I hope from this explanation you can see why I don't understand how your stated point and scripture support that the LDS doctrine of Heavenly Parents is not biblican. In fact, your scripture seems to support LDS teachings.

May I point out, please, that you have not yet demonstrated your belief in "heavenly parents" (plural) from the Bible? You take "Father" (which is not used in the conventional "human") way, and try to apply it to God, and multiply it into multiple "parents".

Again, I know this is what you believe but you gave no biblical support showing this is the Bible teaches Satan and Jeses are not the spiritual offspring of the Father.

Well, Jesus is repeatedly referred to as God's "only-begotten" son.

Around where I am, "only" means there are no others.

That means Satan is not "begotten" (ie. "spiritual offspring") of God.

Further, Satan is a created being, just as all the other angels are created beings.

Also, you did not give a biblical reference showing that Jesus created Satan.

Actually, you gave the Biblical reference for this, in this very post (Heb. 1:12)

- Satan (and the other angels) are created beings.

- Jesus created all things (Heb. 1:1-2, etc.)

- Therefore, Jesus created Satan.

Respectfully, how does the scripture teach that the Father is not our Heavenly Parent but just the Creator of the world?

Because "Creator" doesn't mean "heavenly parent".

And this leads to another reason why I must reject LDS teaching, in that many LDS teachings (or at least the apologetics defending those teachings) are based on nothing but speculation and assumption. Here you say, "I assume this, prove it isn't true".

The question is not, "show that Father is not the heavenly parent of all humankind",

but is, "show that the Father is the heavenly parent of all humankind".

And LDS simply cannot do this from the Bible.

But in this case, we can in fact show that God is not the Father of all (John 8:44).

The LDS Church teaches this as well. The difference is we believe that everything existed spiritually before being physically placed on the earth, which is biblically supported:

"4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground." (Genesis 2:4-5)

No, this passage does not support "pre-existence".

The passage you quote simply says that God created the plants and herbs, and brought rain upon the ground before they grew. And that simply makes sense, it's hard to grow when you're not even created yet. God's point here is simply that God created everything; If anything, it is an anti-Evolution argument, not a "pre-existence" argument.

Perhaps this is one of those times you might want to check other modern translations to clarify the obsolete wording of the out-dated KJV.

But other than that, I find your claim that even the plants "pre-existed" to be fascinating. Is this your own personal belief, or do other LDS believe the "pre-existence" of plants as well. Are there any other LDS references?

Commanding does not signify a human parent. However the many bible verses that state we are children of God does denote of familial relationship.

As I already pointed out, the Bible repeatedly (Rom. 8:15, Gal. 4:5, Eph. 1:5) explains that those humans who become (since they weren't before) "children of God", do so through adoption, not because God was their "natural" "heavenly Father".

CAN or DOES? Please explain how the biblical teaching that Jesus Christ was the Fistborn of the Father actually means preeminent.

http://www.ondoctrine.com/2jwh0005.htm

Theophilus

[johnny]

latterdayteancum,

I was just hoping for biblical support that teaches we do not have Heavenly Parents.

The Bible does not support a heavenly mother ... The Prophet Isiah says that the Lord was alone and my himself during creation.

Isa 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.

[8] Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

[24] Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself

Theophilus,

you must remember that "pre-existence" isn't taught in the Bible, and that it is an invention of the LDS religion.

Theophilus, I agree with you ... "pre-existence" isn't taught in the Bible.

No, this passage does not support "pre-existence".

The Bible does not support the LDS teaching of "pre-existence" (see verses below).

Jer 1

[5] Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

John.9

[2] And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

[3] Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

Luke 1

[13] But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.

[15] For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

Zech 12

[1] The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.

Jer 38

[16] So Zedekiah the king sware secretly unto Jeremiah, saying, As the LORD liveth, that made us this soul, I will not put thee to death, neither will I give thee into the hand of these men that seek thy life.

Job 33

[4] The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.

[6] Behold, I am according to thy wish in God's stead: I also am formed out of the clay.

Job 10

[8] Thine hands have made me and fashioned me together round about; yet thou dost destroy me.

[9] Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay; and wilt thou bring me into dust again?

[10] Hast thou not poured me out as milk, and curdled me like cheese?

[11] Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast fenced me with bones and sinews.

[12] Thou hast granted me life and favour, and thy visitation hath preserved my spirit.

[13] And these things hast thou hid in thine heart: I know that this is with thee.

Psalm 139

[15] My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

[latterdayteancum]

Johnny and Theophilus,

Thank you for your comments. It is going to take me some time to reply. But I did want to make a few comments that came to mind during my first read:

1. Johnny claimed the LDS teaching of Heavenly Parents was non-biblical. Because of this, I wanted to ask him to express biblical support for this claim. I promise I am not intentionally dodging giving evidence that there our Heavenly Parents. I feel I have in a small part during my responses to you. Maybe you don't feel they are sufficient but as I said you appear to be more educated than I am, and my explanations are bound to fall short. I am simply asking Johnny and yourself to express why you dont feel the teaching of Heavenly Parents is biblical. Prior to these last posts you haven't ask me to provide you with biblical support of my beliefs.

2. It seems to foundation of our disagreement is the word "Father" which you state means "Creator." You have provided me with a lot of great information and I promise to respond to it. However, what is the original word "Father" in Greek and what does it denote in the Greek language at the time it was written? Why did the authors of the four Gospels choose the word "Father" (or whatever it may be in Greek) instead of "Creator"? I will research this on my own as well.

I will respond to your posts soon. I have some Child Development homework I have been neglecting and must give it attention.

[johnny]

latterdayteancum,

Johnny claimed the LDS teaching of Heavenly Parents was non-biblical. Because of this, I wanted to ask him to express biblical support for this claim.

Clearly the Bible supports that Eve was not born of a heavenly mother.

1Tim 2

[13] For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

Gen 2

[22] And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

I promise I am not intentionally dodging giving evidence that there our Heavenly Parents.

The only evidence you have shown is of a Heavenly Father.

I feel I have in a small part during my responses to you.

You have not shown one verse the mentions a Heavenly Mother like the LDS church teaches.

Maybe you don't feel they are sufficient but as I said you appear to be more educated than I am, and my explanations are bound to fall short.

I would hope the LDS church has explanation that would support their teaching of a Heavenly Mother.

I am simply asking Johnny and yourself to express why you dont feel the teaching of Heavenly Parents is biblical.

Again their is no verse in the Bible that supports a Heavenly Mother like the LDS church teaches.

It seems to foundation of our disagreement is the word "Father" which you state means "Creator." You have provided me with a lot of great information and I promise to respond to it.

For more information I would suggest you study the Early Church Father like Ignatius because he personally knew the apostle John.

Why did the authors of the four Gospels choose the word "Father" (or whatever it may be in Greek) instead of "Creator"?

By calling God "Father", the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children. We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God.

[Theophilus]

1. Johnny claimed the LDS teaching of Heavenly Parents was non-biblical. Because of this, I wanted to ask him to express biblical support for this claim.

Once again, "non-Biblical", by definition, means "not in the Bible".

If it's not in the Bible to begin with, there is nothing we can "show" you.

All we can do is point to the entire Bible and say, "it's nowhere in there".

Quite the contrary, you need to demonstrate that it is "Biblical", by showing where the Bible teaches Heavenly "Parents" (a term never used in the Bible for God), a "plurality" of heavenly "parents" (when the bible only teaches of a singular, "Father"), or the existence of a heavenly "Mother" (which again, the Bible never teaches).

I promise I am not intentionally dodging giving evidence that there our Heavenly Parents. I feel I have in a small part during my responses to you. Maybe you don't feel they are sufficient but as I said you appear to be more educated than I am, and my explanations are bound to fall short.

To claim that you don't want to show your beliefs to be Biblicaly by appealing to humility, "my explanations are bound to fall short", seems to imply that your beliefs are Biblical, only you don't feel capable of demonstrating such. Such an assertion seems disingenuous to the extreme. If you cannot demonstrate that such beliefs are Biblical, is it not at least a possibility that the reason you cannot do so, is because they aren't Biblical?

I am simply asking Johnny and yourself to express why you dont feel the teaching of Heavenly Parents is biblical.

Because it's not Biblical.

If you disagree, show us "parents", or "plural" or "heavenly mother" from the Bible.

Prior to these last posts you haven't ask me to provide you with biblical support of my beliefs.

I guess we thought it was obvious, and went without saying, that a claim that something is "Biblical" has the burden of proof to demonstrate it from the Bible.

2. It seems to foundation of our disagreement is the word "Father" which you state means "Creator."

That is one of its meanings, to be sure.

It is not its only meaning, of course.

You have provided me with a lot of great information and I promise to respond to it. However, what is the original word "Father" in Greek and what does it denote in the Greek language at the time it was written?

That depends on the context.

That's why Johnny and I showed you the contexts where it was used of God, in the context of "creator" (Mal. 2:10, Isa. 64:8, etc. etc.)

Why did the authors of the four Gospels choose the word "Father" (or whatever it may be in Greek) instead of "Creator"?

You are equivocating a number of different meanings of the term.

God is:

"Father" - in the sense that He is creator of all humankind (Mal. 2:10, Isa. 64:8, etc.)

"Father" - in His relationship with His only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ;

"Father" - becoming so in a developed spiritual relationship with those He adopts (Rom. 8:15, Gal. 4:5, Eph. 1:5) as His "children".

Theophilus

[Theophilus]

By calling God "Father", the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children. We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God.

Num 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

1Sa 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.

Job 9:32 For he is not a man, as I am, that I should answer him, and we should come together in judgment.

Theophilus

[Teancum]

Teancum,

I dwelt with your scriptures ... you were silent in that you did not quote verse D&C 93:21 which reveals that The first spirit born to our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ.

The LDS church teaches and LDS scriptures reveal "the Word" is a spirit born of heavenly parents which is very different than what the Bible and the Early Church writers reveal.

How imemnsely dishonest of you. The verse states:

21 And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the abeginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn;

Which is certianly comparable to Col. 1:15:

15 Who is the aimage of the invisible God, the cfirstborn of every creature

The verse in the D&C says nothing about Jesus being the firstborn of heavenly parents. You have failed miserably once again. Also, You have now born false witness as far as what our scripture teaches and you need to repent.

Teancum

[johnny]

Teancum,

How imemnsely dishonest of you. The verse states:

What is your point ... what is dishonest ... is quoting scripture dishonest?

The verse in the D&C says nothing about Jesus being the firstborn of heavenly parents. You have failed miserably once again

The offical LDS church failed miserably ... I quoted directly from the LDS book Gospel Principals. The Gospel Principals states: "The first spirit born to our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ (see D&C 93:21)"

Chapter 2 of the Offical LDS Gospel Principals

http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-5,00.html

Also, You have now born false witness as far as what our scripture teaches and you need to repent.

You might want to take that up with the teaching office of the LDS church ...

[Teancum]

Teancum,

What is your point ... what is dishonest ... is quoting scripture dishonest?

The offical LDS church failed miserably ... I quoted directly from the LDS book Gospel Principals. The Gospel Principals states: "The first spirit born to our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ (see D&C 93:21)"

Chapter 2 of the Offical LDS Gospel Principals

http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-5,00.html

You might want to take that up with the teaching office of the LDS church ...

I know what the manual says. Personally I disagree with the manaul referening that verse.

Now I gave you official teaching, from LDS canon. And you when you tried to deal with it you were were not honest in what the verse said. Now you back peddle to a lesson manual. I have my own views about lesson manuals, popular LDS theology and official LDS theology. I want to stick to LDS canon here. And I have done so and you cannot dispute what I have presented. And in what I presented there is not one whit of a comment about Jesus being the first spirit child of heavenly parents. So you have failed.

Teancum

[freakin a man]

We disagree on that.

Belief ("faith") is a gift from God (Phil. 1:29, Eph. 2:8, Rom. 12:3, Matt. 16:17, etc.), so it is not something that comes from "us" (that we can "do"), it is something God gives to us.

Ok so Belief is a gift. So the atheist can continue to be an atheist and be saved then?

[johnny]

Teancum,

I know what the manual says. Personally I disagree with the manaul referening that verse.

I find that amusing ... a Mormon disagree with their own offical church teaching ...

And in what I presented there is not one whit of a comment about Jesus being the first spirit child of heavenly parents.

Are you saying that the offical LDS teaching is teaching something that is bearing "false witness"?

So you have failed.

It appears the LDS church has failed to teach what their own scriptures reveal.

[Theophilus]

Teancum,

I find that amusing ... a Mormon disagree with their own offical church teaching ...

Are you saying that the offical LDS teaching is teaching something that is bearing "false witness"?

Unfortunately, Johnny, Teancum is going to tell you that Gospel Principles isn't "official teaching". It appears that he belongs to a church that doesn't have a problem with publishing errant teaching.

That's one place where I think the Catholic Church wins out. I think the LDS church would do well to adopt a system similar to the RCC's "Imprimatur" and "Nihil Obstat" system.

Theophilus

Ok so Belief is a gift. So the atheist can continue to be an atheist and be saved then?

Freakin, you seem to have not noticed that you have tried to create a hypothetical situation which is contradictory.

You set up a situation where someone ("an atheist") is given faith ("belief"), yet you stipulate that he continues to not believe (although he was given "belief") in the one in whom He now has (been given) "faith".

Surely you can see the paradox?

Theophilus

[DH]

David Waltz,

Clearly Mormons believe in a different Christ than who is revealed in the Bible.

Mormons believe the Son was born of a heavenly Father and a heavenly mother prior to the incarnation.

Apostolic Christians believe the Son was the Word of God, begotten of the Father, prior to the incarnation.

Er, is there a contradiction here?

Yes, we believe Jesus was born spiritually of the Father and the Mother before the incarnation. (What could possibly make more sense?) How, exactly, does this make "our Jesus" different from the "Apostolic Christians' Jesus?" We LDS believe that in addition to being born of the Father and the Mother, the Son was also the Word by which God created the world.

If the problem you have is with the notion of Jesus having been begotten by the Father and the Mother, as "opposed to" being begotten by the Father, take a quick look at Matthew, chapter 1. Here, as in many other places in the Bible, you will find a genealogy, a list of men who begat children. Does this mean the children leaped out of their fathers' thighs or foreheads, with no feminine involvement? No, it just means the Bible doesn't list the mothers.

My friend, if you believe in the Biblical Jesus, then you believe in the same Jesus we do.

Daniel

[johnny]

Daniel Heath,

Yes, we believe Jesus was born spiritually of the Father and the Mother before the incarnation. (What could possibly make more sense?)

For me, it makes sense to believe the Bible. The Bible does not reveal a Heavenly Mother.

How, exactly, does this make "our Jesus" different from the "Apostolic Christians' Jesus?"

The Apostolic Christian believes Jesus is the only begotten of the Heavenly Father.

Mormons believe Jesus is the Son of a Heavenly Mother.

We LDS believe that in addition to being born of the Father and the Mother, the Son was also the Word by which God created the world.

Could you describe "the Word" ... Is the "word" a spirit person ... is "the Word" a angel like Satan?

Does this mean the children leaped out of their fathers' thighs or foreheads, with no feminine involvement? No, it just means the Bible doesn't list the mothers.

It means that the Bible does not list a heavenly mother, the Bible does not support the Mormon teaching of a Heavenly Mother.

My friend, if you believe in the Biblical Jesus, then you believe in the same Jesus we do.

I believe in the Jesus who was not born of a heavenly mother because this is what the Bible reveals.

[Theophilus]

Er, is there a contradiction here?

Er, yes.

We don't believe that He was "born" prior to the incarnation, let alone that a heavenly "mother" was involved.

Yes, we believe Jesus was born spiritually of the Father and the Mother before the incarnation. (What could possibly make more sense?)

Truth isn't determined by "what makes sense":

Pro 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Pro 16:25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

When the "noble Bereans" were testing Paul's teachings, they didn't use "did it make sense" as their litmus test, but rather:

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

It seems to me that "what could possibly make more sense?" is nothing more than rationalizing speculation.

As Johnny and I have both pointed out from the Bible, God is not a "man", there is no "male and female" in deity, so one cannot assume that "Heavenly Father" needs a "Heavenly Mother".

How, exactly, does this make "our Jesus" different from the "Apostolic Christians' Jesus?"

The apostolic Christians never taught "heavenly mother".

The apostolic Christians never taught that the word was "born prior to the incarnation".

If the problem you have is with the notion of Jesus having been begotten by the Father and the Mother, as "opposed to" being begotten by the Father, take a quick look at Matthew, chapter 1. Here, as in many other places in the Bible, you will find a genealogy, a list of men who begat children. Does this mean the children leaped out of their fathers' thighs or foreheads, with no feminine involvement? No, it just means the Bible doesn't list the mothers.

Again, you are trying to compare God to human males.

God is not a human male.

God does not have a "sex".

(Hmmm... I guess that would be yet another difference now, wouldn't it?)

Theophilus