Eternal Progression

[Bernard Gui]

QUOTE(calmoriah @ Feb 15 2008, 10:08 PM)

I don't think he cares about that. I'm thinking he's merely looking for more ways to make his work appear credible.

RUSS

Is that what you think?

I'm not grandstanding here, Calmoriah.

I'm not worried one iota about credibility in the eyes of those here present. I'll never have any anyway, as I'm not part of your system of belief. I'm an "outsider." A "Gentile." A "non-believer."

As I've said (trust me or don't), I'm looking to get my facts straight by asking LDS folks what they believe.

Isn't that what you want "anti's" to do?

Russ, you are dissembling here.

I look forward to a debate with you. Not because "my God can beat up your God" (although I do believe the Bible has the upper hand) but more because I'll learn something and I'll take away from our conversation a better means by which to show how and why Mormonism errs.

Which version is your real intention?

On the topic...

1John 3:2-3

"Consider how great is the love which the Father has bestowed on us in calling

us his children! For that is what we are. The reason why the world does not recognize

us is that it has not known him.

"Dear friends, we are now God's children; what we shall be has not yet been

disclosed, but we know that when Christ appears we shall be like him, because

we shall see him as he is.

"As he is pure, everyone who has grasped this hope makes himself pure."

When Christ appears, we shall be like him.

3 Nephi 28:10

"And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the

kingdom of my Father; yea, and your joy shall be full, even as the Father

hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even

as the Father, and the Father and I are one..."

We shall be even as Jesus, and Jesus is even as the Father, and they are one.

We shall be one with the Father.

2 Peter 1:3-4

"His divine power has bestowed on us everything that makes for life and

true religion, enabling us to know the One who called us by his own splendour

and might. Through this might and splendour he has given us his promises,

great beyond all price, and through them you may escape the corruption

with which lust has infected the world, and come to share in the very

being of God. "

Through the power and might of God, we will share his very being.

Next we can look at the greatest biblical evidence of the deification of man...

Revelation chapters 1-3 and the biblical doctrine of heirship...we are heirs

of God.

Bernard

[Calm]

Done.

Please be aware that I removed your quote as a courtesy to you personally.

There's nothing unethical about quoting somone anonymously.

Thank you.

If you began an conversation implying that you will only quote someone if they allow you to and they do not give you permission, then I would say it was unethical to quote them anonymously or not.

[Markk]

I must respond to the pure fallacy that when discussing a doctrine such as deification members of the church can do nothing but resort to name calling. This a the biggest falsehood that has been stated on this entire thread. While it is true that some people in this board who are LDS have moved somewhat that direction as imperfect persons, it is just as true, if not far more so, that the people on your side of the discussion do the same. I have witnessed and participated in numerous debates between the "Elders of Israel" and sectarian pastors and or ex-members. In every case any neutral party present has conceded that we, the Elders, had the stronger position. This is true even using only biblical passages.

I unnderstand that some of you out there disagree with our position, but to say that we can't defend it reasonably is utter crap. And you both know that.

In Russ's defence, it is fair to say that many people assumed (and based on that even myself suppossed) that he had no intention of actually aquiring knowledge from us on a subject, but simply wanted perhaps to start a fight or something of that sort. That was perhaps a bit unfair, and despite Russ's disagreement with our doctrine it is only fair to give him the benefit of the doubt and provide him with a straight answer about what we believe. If we indeed have nothing to fear, and I know I for one do not. What harm can it be to answer his question, as I did a few pages back.

I hope Russ comes out of this understanding that there are many LDS out there who believe strongly in the doctrine discussed and are perfectly willing to be forthwright in saying so, even if that can at times expose them to the distain or ridicule of those who may disagree. We do have the truth. Many of us know it. And we need to do better in standing for it while maximizing our respect for those who disagree even if they choose not to. That, indeed, is what I feel Christ would have us do. (even on a message board where relatively few neutral parties will have the chance to see the gospel in its strength and choose to accept the same)

I would gladly accept a debate with either Russ or Mark at any time on the subject of "weather or not the deification of man is a biblically supported doctrine" But at the same time I say:

"We claim the privelage of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may"

regards,

seishido01

Hi seishido,

I appreciate your take on this and although I disagree from a theological stand point, I agree and respect your straight forwardness for not being afraid to discuss core LDS doctrine.

I would love to discuss this topic with you, on whether man can become a God in the context that the LDS church teaches, and what the bible teaches on the subject i.e. man is Gods Creation, while God is the Creator. Start a post and I will reply.

I have witnessed and participated in numerous debates between the "Elders of Israel" and sectarian pastors and or ex-members. In every case any neutral party present has conceded that we, the Elders, had the stronger position. This is true even using only biblical passages

I would totally disagree in my experience with that statment as would every Jew I know. I would give that most pastors wouldn't debate that well not understanding LDS definitions of terms, but again most "elders of Israel" do not understand Christian doctrine, so maybe me the ex member and a Christian can discuss this with you a active LDS member?

Anyway l really look forward to a discussion on any topic you choose.

Mark

John 1:12

[seishido01]

Hi seishido,

I appreciate your take on this and although I disagree from a theological stand point, I agree and respect your straight forwardness for not being afraid to discuss core LDS doctrine.

I would love to discuss this topic with you, on whether man can become a God in the context that the LDS church teaches, and what the bible teaches on the subject i.e. man is Gods Creation, while God is the Creator. Start a post and I will reply.

I would totally disagree in my experience with that statment as would every Jew I know. I would give that most pastors wouldn't debate that well not understanding LDS definitions of terms, but again most "elders of Israel" do not understand Christian doctrine, so maybe me the ex member and a Christian can discuss this with you a active LDS member?

Anyway l really look forward to a discussion on any topic you choose.

Mark

John 1:12

Well here is as good a place as any since the topic of discussion is "Eternal Progression". I guess we could start with you presenting your case as to where the bible supposedly refutes that I am a literal child of god and that I have the potential to become like him (you could call it deification I suppose, but I think it sounds better the other way)

[Markk]

Well here is as good a place as any since the topic of discussion is "Eternal Progression". I guess we could start with you presenting your case as to where the bible supposedly refutes that I am a literal child of god and that I have the potential to become like him (you could call it deification I suppose, but I think it sounds better the other way)

Lets start with John 1:12... But as many as received him, to them gave he power ( righ or authority) to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:

When one receives the free gift of Grace we are Adopted into the body of Christ ( 1 cor. 12:13) and at that point have God as our Father...

Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Rom 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Rom 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together.

Gal 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Gal 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

Gal 4:7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ

Mankind is always referred to as Gods creation, never in context are we anything but his creation, God created man, just as He created animals, same word in Genesis. We can debate what being created in His image means another time, but for this discussion the fact that we are created is a fact.

Col 1:16 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:

This verse is clear and you can not seperate all other this that were created from mans creation...same word, same context....man is Gods creation.

Here a start

Take care

Mark

John 1;12

[seishido01]

Lets start with John 1:12... But as many as received him, to them gave he power ( righ or authority) to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:

When one receives the free gift of Grace we are Adopted into the body of Christ ( 1 cor. 12:13) and at that point have God as our Father...

Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Rom 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Rom 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together.

Gal 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Gal 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

Gal 4:7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ

Mankind is always referred to as Gods creation, never in context are we anything but his creation, God created man, just as He created animals, same word in Genesis. We can debate what being created in His image means another time, but for this discussion the fact that we are created is a fact.

Col 1:16 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:

This verse is clear and you can not seperate all other this that were created from mans creation...same word, same context....man is Gods creation.

Here a start

Take care

Mark

John 1;12

Thank you for sharing how you feel about these scriptures. Here is how I feel about the same. Obviously we will see some scriptures differently, but I would strongly contend that I am not taking anything out of context. (or at least no more so than you are) Still, this is a good exercise and a chance for us to share how we feel while respecting another point of view.

First let me say I completely agree that we are Gods creation. In fact, we are his literal sons and daughters. Just as babies are born and become adults eventually, we Gods children have the potential to become like him. That doesn't mean we ARE like him. Just that we can be someday.

Responses:

John 1:12 - Those who recieve Christ recieve his teachings, and those who follow his teachings become sons and Daughters of Christ through the great sacrifice he made for us all. I see nothing here that says I cannot become like God. Though this scripture does not specifically say we will either. (I'll get to those)

1 corinthians 12:13 Here Paul is talking about the gifts of the spirit that are present among those who are members of the church. (note: only members of the church) Starting in verse 12 he says "for the body is one" meaning that it is one church. And that all members of the church (and their spiritual gifts) are necessary for the good of the whole church. No one part of the body (church) can say to the other it has no need of them. All of the members in their various positions and with their various gifts are important, even vital to the church. {there is nothing here, however, that contradicts the ability of man to become like his maker}

Romans 8:14-17 Here is a gread scripture, where verse 17 specifically lends credence to the doctrine of deification. In 13 - "For if ye live after the flesh ye shall die: but if ye through the spirit do mortify the deeds of the body ye shall live" Paul here contends with the early saints not to live a carnal life, but instead to live the gospel and "mortify the deeds of the body" by leaving the deeds which are unseemly to the LORD behind.

14 - Again, obey the gospel and become the sons of god (like John 1:12) I could say there is evidence here that being a "son of God" is enough to show that we could become like him, but that is weak in and of itself and could easily be taken another way (as many do, you being an example)

15 - continuation of 14, no reason to add here

16 - Here is a clearer passage that states explicitly that the spirit testifies to us that we are indeed Gods children, (not just another of his creations, but something entirely different)

17 - here is the big glowing yes we can become like him part of the text. "And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ" and heir is someone who inherits. It clearly states here that we will be heirs to gods kingdom. Joint-heirs with Christ even. (meaning everything he gets or has we will someday have. Thus becoming like him)

Galatians 4: 5-7

Here again it says we are sons and heirs. I fully believe this speaks more to becoming like God than not becoming like him. Still, it is obvious we disagree. But I am in no way taking the scripture out of context, purhaps just looking at it differently. (that can happen, and is why it is impossible to have one "true church" based solely on scripture. Any scripture)

Colossians 1:16

Here speaking of the creation. Again nothing refutes we could become like him, nor is there anything that supports it. Yet in verse 18 is proof of the fact that Paul compares a body to the church and supports my "interpretation" given in 1 corinthians about what Paul was actually talking about.

Review: I totally agree that man is Gods creation. I do not see how this has anything to do with us becoming like him or not. Many of these passages also identifies us as his children and heirs of his kingdom with Christ. This, in my oppinion strengthens my position that we can indeed become like Christ (and therefore, like the father, as Christ and the father are God)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here now are some scriptures that I feel show we can become like God:

Genesis 1:26 It's always good to start at the beginning

Here it expressly states that Man is created in Gods very image. This is strong evidence that God does have a form and that our form is just like his. Though not proof of becoming like him in itself, it does seperate us GREATLY from his other creations, and shows that we from the beginning were, in at least how we look, like him. Any other interpretation of this absolutely has to be suspect. It is clear and obvious.

Now we move to a scripture that specifically designates us as his offspring. That is not the same as creation.

In other words you could be his creation and not his offspring, but not so the other way around. That is why this doesn't conflict with your above statements, but is indeed lightly supported by them.

Acts17:28,29

Here Paul speaking about the "Unknown God" openly denounces idolatry and says we should not worship anything our hands have made for God is not like uto it. Indeed WE are like unto him, for we are his offspring. Again, the word here cannot be confused with "creation" as it is not the same, but much more. Paul says it twice so there is no way to mistake what he means or take it "out of context"

On to St John 10:33-35

Here "the jews" are looking to stone Christ because he calls himself the son of God. in 34 "Jesus answered them, is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods? [36] If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken." he goes on to basically say that if God called those people gods unto whom he gave the scripture Christ was quoting, then why are the wanting to stone him for saying he is the son of God.

The scripture he was quoting is: Psalms 82:6 Where God specifically equates the "children of the most high" to being Gods themselves. Here is a uniting link between the scriptures mentioned previously (some even by yourself) and the idea of the children of God being Gods themselves. Since it is obvious no one on this planet (but Christ) is a God right now then it stands to reason that the text speaks of our potential to become such.

1 John 3:2

Here John (speaking to the saints, or in other words members of the church) again talks about being sons of God saying that "WE KNOW that when he shall appear, we shall be LIKE HIM; for we shall see him as he is.

Here again is evidence showing that we can become like him. And indeed, will be like him.

Revelations 3:21

Here is another clear scripture where Christ says we will become equal to him. "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." It specifically states that as Christ shares his fathers "throne" we can also share it with them. This is much more likely to support us being like him as oppossed to just being angels and serving him or being less than him in any way whatsoever. Someone can try to rationalize, or "interpret" the scripture in another way I suppose. But it says what it says and stands alone being impossible to take out of context. You either believe it or try to twist it into something else.

I think that what I have given shows without a doubt that while some may reject the doctrine of the LDS church that we can become like God, none of them can run around and say we go totally against the bible in believing so. The bible does indeed present evidence of deification. You can exept it or reject it. You can try to look at the scripture through another paradigm and reach some other conclusion if you wish. But you cannot say it is not there.

Thank you for this exercise, I'd be happy to continue the conversation if you wish

regards,

Seishido01

[JDErickson]

No, but what you are doing isn't acceptable either. You are rude, insulting and you are a flamer so clean it up or clear out. We have plenty of people to talk to so we don't need to import abusive posters. You won't be warned again you will just be escorted out so your choice, show minimal respect to take the act somewhere else.

I"m sorry but I don't see anything rude or insulting or abusive from Russ here but maybe I overlooked it.

Can you please post what things caused you to label Russ as such?

[Markk]

Hi seishido

Thanks for your response, one thing about this method of discussion is that posts grow and grow, So I am going to slow it down and lets try to get through it point by point, if I skip over a major point you feel is important to your position make sure to tell me so I can respond, also I am more or less a weekend poster so unless I have time during the week I may or may not respond for days at a time. I'm in construction and have been supervising a major project for over a year and have another year to go so I'm busy during the week.

1st John 1:12...

This verse is import to establish that man is not a literal child of God, your original question to me was..."I guess we could start with you presenting your case as to where the bible supposedly refutes that I am a literal child of god ", so we need to establish this first...fair?

John 1:12 - Those who receive Christ receive his teachings, and those who follow his teachings become sons and Daughters of Christ through the great sacrifice he made for us all. I see nothing here that says I cannot become like God. Though this scripture does not specifically say we will either. (I'll get to those)

Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:

The context of this verse/s has nothing to do with receiving His teachings, it has to do with receiving Jesus as God John 1:1, 14, 18, etc...it is in context with Christ being God and the LOGOS, the communicator and reveler of God, God in the Flesh, He is Immanual God with Us (Matthew 1:23).

John 1:12 says clearly that if a person receives Jesus that He (Jesus) gives those who do, the right, the power, and the authority to become Children of God. This is through "sonship" ( do a study on this) that this happens through adoption.

John 1:13 reads... Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

not of blood reads lit. bloods, which I believe means physical birth here on earth or genealogy, but it could refer to blood sacrifices but in either sense it does not qualify one to be a lit. child of God Nor the will of the flesh means no works [makes] us a child of God, the will of man means that man made rituals and ceremonies...etc...can not and will not make you a child of God. But of God is obvious in context with verse 12 that when a person receives Christ as God and receives His Grace Jesus gives them the right power and authority to become a child [of] God. (On a side note read 1st and 2nd John, I'm teaching through this know where I fellowship and John expound on the false teachers who were saying that God did not come in the flesh...a good study that goes with John chapter 1)

When you said above...Those who receive Christ receive his teachings, and those who follow his teachings become sons and Daughters of Christ through the great sacrifice he made for us all. are you conceding that man kind is not the lit. child of God? If not please explain how a lit. son or daughter can again become a son or daughter useing the Bible?

Lets take it slow and get through this verse, I want to make sure you understand this before we move on, then we can go in order through our points...fair?

Thanks

Take care

Mark

John 1:12

[seishido01]

Hi seishido

Thanks for your response, one thing about this method of discussion is that posts grow and grow, So I am going to slow it down and lets try to get through it point by point, if I skip over a major point you feel is important to your position make sure to tell me so I can respond, also I am more or less a weekend poster so unless I have time during the week I may or may not respond for days at a time. I'm in construction and have been supervising a major project for over a year and have another year to go so I'm busy during the week.

1st John 1:12...

This verse is import to establish that man is not a literal child of God, your original question to me was..."I guess we could start with you presenting your case as to where the bible supposedly refutes that I am a literal child of god ", so we need to establish this first...fair?

Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:

The context of this verse/s has nothing to do with receiving His teachings, it has to do with receiving Jesus as God John 1:1, 14, 18, etc...it is in context with Christ being God and the LOGOS, the communicator and reveler of God, God in the Flesh, He is Immanual God with Us (Matthew 1:23).

John 1:12 says clearly that if a person receives Jesus that He (Jesus) gives those who do, the right, the power, and the authority to become Children of God. This is through "sonship" ( do a study on this) that this happens through adoption.

John 1:13 reads... Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

not of blood reads lit. bloods, which I believe means physical birth here on earth or genealogy, but it could refer to blood sacrifices but in either sense it does not qualify one to be a lit. child of God Nor the will of the flesh means no works [makes] us a child of God, the will of man means that man made rituals and ceremonies...etc...can not and will not make you a child of God. But of God is obvious in context with verse 12 that when a person receives Christ as God and receives His Grace Jesus gives them the right power and authority to become a child [of] God. (On a side note read 1st and 2nd John, I'm teaching through this know where I fellowship and John expound on the false teachers who were saying that God did not come in the flesh...a good study that goes with John chapter 1)

When you said above...Those who receive Christ receive his teachings, and those who follow his teachings become sons and Daughters of Christ through the great sacrifice he made for us all. are you conceding that man kind is not the lit. child of God? If not please explain how a lit. son or daughter can again become a son or daughter useing the Bible?

Lets take it slow and get through this verse, I want to make sure you understand this before we move on, then we can go in order through our points...fair?

Thanks

Take care

Mark

John 1:12

Mark,

I have no problem slowing it down. And I also may not be available all the time, so we'll go as we can.

Let me respond again to John 1:12 or more importantly to the "do you concede" question.

First I differentiate greatly between being a son or daughter of the father (actual literal spiritual seed) and a son or daughter of Christ. (accepted Christ AND strive to live his teachings) Unfortunately this hinges on another disagreement we likely have, that being the nature of the Godhead. Since I see the father and son as two completely seperate personages who are agreed in one (thus being one god) It is not contradictory for me to be born a spirit child of the father but not be a son or daughter of christ (which has an entirely different meaning) As for showing how we can become a literal son or daughter of Christ I would point you to the scripture in acts that says we are his offspring. Paul was speaking to non-members in this text and he clearly included them in the offspring comment. They had not even heard of Christ, much less accepted him, but they were still offspring of God as per Paul. That meant to Paul they were already literal sons or daughters of the father (or again his offspring, which I cannot see any differentiation between the two) and did not need to accept Christ to qualify for what he was speaking of.

Becoming a son or daughter of Christ is another issue altogether and totally hinges on accepting him and his gospel. (here again is an area where we may disagree, I'm not sure) For me it is Utterly Impossible to truly accept Christ if you are not willing do follow his teachings. The two go together one way or the other. Just saying "I accept Christ as my savior" has in my oppinnion (again another seperate topic we would have to discuss) absolutely no value whatsoever and I do not believe Christ or any of the appostles taught as such. But I don't want to get too far off point here as you suggested.

review:

The question is if I conceeded if we were not a literal child of God. No I do not. And yes we can be a literal child spirit progeny of the Father and still need to accept the gospel and become as it says "sons and daughters of Christ"

All people ARE spirit offspring of the father (acts 17: 28,29)

Only those who accept him (again for me means strive to keep his commandments) BECOME sons and daughters of Christ St John 1:12

Notice the place where I put ARE and BECOME in caps. For me this fully explains the question you asked me to explain using the bible. I won't be surprised of course if you disagree. And such of course is the point and entertainment of this exercise

I look forward to hearing from you.

God bless,

Seishido01

[Markk]

Mark,

I have no problem slowing it down. And I also may not be available all the time, so we'll go as we can.

Let me respond again to John 1:12 or more importantly to the "do you concede" question.

First I differentiate greatly between being a son or daughter of the father (actual literal spiritual seed) and a son or daughter of Christ. (accepted Christ AND strive to live his teachings) Unfortunately this hinges on another disagreement we likely have, that being the nature of the Godhead. Since I see the father and son as two completely seperate personages who are agreed in one (thus being one god) It is not contradictory for me to be born a spirit child of the father but not be a son or daughter of christ (which has an entirely different meaning) As for showing how we can become a literal son or daughter of Christ I would point you to the scripture in acts that says we are his offspring. Paul was speaking to non-members in this text and he clearly included them in the offspring comment. They had not even heard of Christ, much less accepted him, but they were still offspring of God as per Paul. That meant to Paul they were already literal sons or daughters of the father (or again his offspring, which I cannot see any differentiation between the two) and did not need to accept Christ to qualify for what he was speaking of.

Becoming a son or daughter of Christ is another issue altogether and totally hinges on accepting him and his gospel. (here again is an area where we may disagree, I'm not sure) For me it is Utterly Impossible to truly accept Christ if you are not willing do follow his teachings. The two go together one way or the other. Just saying "I accept Christ as my savior" has in my oppinnion (again another seperate topic we would have to discuss) absolutely no value whatsoever and I do not believe Christ or any of the appostles taught as such. But I don't want to get too far off point here as you suggested.

review:

The question is if I conceeded if we were not a literal child of God. No I do not. And yes we can be a literal child spirit progeny of the Father and still need to accept the gospel and become as it says "sons and daughters of Christ"

All people ARE spirit offspring of the father (acts 17: 28,29)

Only those who accept him (again for me means strive to keep his commandments) BECOME sons and daughters of Christ St John 1:12

Notice the place where I put ARE and BECOME in caps. For me this fully explains the question you asked me to explain using the bible. I won't be surprised of course if you disagree. And such of course is the point and entertainment of this exercise

I look forward to hearing from you.

God bless,

Seishido01

Hi

Where does it say " "sons and daughters of Christ" , your adding something to the text that just isn't there?

In the Acts verse you quote do a little home work and tell me who the poet was Paul was quoteing, but first lets get through John 1:12?

Mark

John 1;12

[seishido01]

Hi

Where does it say " "sons and daughters of Christ" , your adding something to the text that just isn't there?

In the Acts verse you quote do a little home work and tell me who the poet was Paul was quoteing, but first lets get through John 1:12?

Mark

John 1;12

In the John verse I added Daughters to sons just to include all the nice ladies out there

In this case I also could have said "God" instead of "Christ" to not be confusing I suppose. Though since Christ is God (even if it be God the Son) I didn't even think to make the differentiation. I see it as the same thing.

On the Acts issue it totally doesn't even matter who wrote the poem because Paul is agreeing with it and then re-stating it of his own accord. Even so the punctuation of the verse does not guarantee the wording in 28 about offspring is the wording of the poets, but that it is the preceding phrase. And even if that is not the case Paul explicitely states in 29 of his own authority and completely seperated from the poets that we indeed are the offspring of God and "ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold" ect.... so there is no reasonable arguement that Paul is not saying exactly that in and of himself, even if he is likening the issue to something they may have heard before to create some common ground. (all good Gospel teachers do that when possible, kudos to Paul)

[LifeOnaPlate]

Thank you.

If you began an conversation implying that you will only quote someone if they allow you to and they do not give you permission, then I would say it was unethical to quote them anonymously or not.

Disingenuous, in fact. But what did we expect from "Russ".

[seishido01]

Disingenuous, in fact. But what did we expect from "Russ".

I am slightly confused here on that statement. I will feely admit that I only joined this board a few days ago, but my contact with Russ was quite descent (I am strong LDS, just to clarify) Now I did throw some darts at Carmella becase she was one serious piece of work.

Russ e-mailed me personally today and we have so far had a descent conversation. Anyhow, I was just wondering what conflict has caused such feelings for him? (not arguing, just curious)

[LifeOnaPlate]

I am slightly confused here on that statement. I will feely admit that I only joined this board a few days ago, but my contact with Russ was quite descent (I am strong LDS, just to clarify) Now I did throw some darts at Carmella becase she was one serious piece of work.

Russ e-mailed me personally today and we have so far had a descent conversation. Anyhow, I was just wondering what conflict has caused such feelings for him? (not arguing, just curious)

Mostly his disgusting behavior on other boards where he likes to post photos of "Mormon underwear" (egregiously over-sized for the models wearing them, by the way) as well as blaspheming LDS temple content.

[seishido01]

Mostly his disgusting behavior on other boards where he likes to post photos of "Mormon underwear" (egregiously over-sized for the models wearing them, by the way) as well as blaspheming LDS temple content.

Hmm. Well if he tries that with me our "private conversation" will end in a hurry. Thanks for the heads up.

[Calm]

Disingenuous, in fact. But what did we expect from "Russ".

I expected that he would not quote me unless I gave him permission to...and though he did, probably thinking it was okay since it was not a belief he was quoting, he removed it when I requested so I have no complaints in this case.

I have complaints that he is still using a discredited ward teaching message as the foundation of his criticism of the Church, but that is a different matter.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I expected that he would not quote me unless I gave him permission to...and though he did, probably thinking it was okay since it was not a belief he was quoting, he removed it when I requested so I have no complaints in this case.

I have complaints that he is still using a discredited ward teaching message as the foundation of his criticism of the Church, but that is a different matter.

It's not a shock. Whatever he can use, without regard to context, he likely will.

[Markk]

In the John verse I added Daughters to sons just to include all the nice ladies out there

In this case I also could have said "God" instead of "Christ" to not be confusing I suppose. Though since Christ is God (even if it be God the Son) I didn't even think to make the differentiation. I see it as the same thing.

On the Acts issue it totally doesn't even matter who wrote the poem because Paul is agreeing with it and then re-stating it of his own accord. Even so the punctuation of the verse does not guarantee the wording in 28 about offspring is the wording of the poets, but that it is the preceding phrase. And even if that is not the case Paul explicitely states in 29 of his own authority and completely seperated from the poets that we indeed are the offspring of God and "ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold" ect.... so there is no reasonable arguement that Paul is not saying exactly that in and of himself, even if he is likening the issue to something they may have heard before to create some common ground. (all good Gospel teachers do that when possible, kudos to Paul)

Hi Seishido

In this case I also could have said "God" instead of "Christ" to not be confusing I suppose. Though since Christ is God (even if it be God the Son) I didn't even think to make the differentiation. I see it as the same thing.

That is just not the context, and it makes no sense at all, even in context with LDS theology that Jesus is the older brother everyone.

Nowhere does the Bible say we are children of Jesus, it is not the same thing, is your heavenly Father Jesus?

Please tell me more how Jesus is the Father of those who receive Him? Give me some more CF for that from the Bible?

more later

Take care

Mark

John 1:12

[Markk]

Hi Seishido

On the Acts issue it totally doesn't even matter who wrote the poem because Paul is agreeing with it and then re-stating it of his own accord. Even so the punctuation of the verse does not guarantee the wording in 28 about offspring is the wording of the poets, but that it is the preceding phrase. And even if that is not the case Paul explicitely states in 29 of his own authority and completely seperated from the poets that we indeed are the offspring of God and "ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold" ect.... so there is no reasonable arguement that Paul is not saying exactly that in and of himself, even if he is likening the issue to something they may have heard before to create some common ground. (all good Gospel teachers do that when possible, kudos to Paul

It is a retorical question, which is very common in apoligentics, I can give you hundreds of examples here on this site just read some of my posts. I argue useing LDS points here all the time while not believing them myself, as a example to drive a point, and those who I use this type of arguement with know very clearly that I do not believe that for one minute. It is a classic form of debate. Paul was quoting the Greek Poet Aratus to make a point. The Bible is clear that Man is God creation...over and over again, you can not ignore this fact.

When the Bible uses the word creation for animals, plant life, the heavens...etc, and uses the same Word for the creation of man and Women, then the burden of proof is on you to prove that creation here means something else, which you have not done.

In Genesis it reads God "made" women. This word means to "build", it does not refer to a natural birth. It also reads that God fasioned man, just as the potter forms his work.

Isa 29:16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?

God is the Potter and we are the clay, we are created, not a literial offspring.

Anyway explain to me how all these different words mean a literial birth and not the definition of the actual word?

Mark

John 1:12