Jump to content

Are We The Offspring Of God


Billy

Recommended Posts

No Touch,

Scripture limits how many parties, the prophet Isaiah says God was alone and by himself (see below),

Isa.44

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;

The â??usâ? is â??the Wordâ? that was with God (John 1:1).

Interpreting that the way you wish to requires you to reject the use of the aforementioned word "us". If you directly interpret both these scriptures literally, you have to admit to the conflict between saying there was a single being working at the creation and then also having that single being referring to the creating party/parties as "us". But I guess that's where we have to diverge since you will interpret this using the Trinity, and I will not.

But you cannot be consistent and say that God was alone, and that he had the Word with him at the same time, without some more involved interpretation.

Link to comment
God is NOT introducing the spirit of man into the body of man, Gen 2:7 says "the breath of life" was introduced into him. God is not "snapping his fingers", he is forming the spirit of man within him (Zech 12:1).

I could be off on this one, but I do believe that the word for breath and spirit are the same word in Hebrew, so this distinction between God introducing breath vs spirit is likely not a part of the original text.

Link to comment
No. Heavenly Father is not the literal father of Mary in the flesh.

But she is the literal daughter of God in the spirit, right? Do I have this right...

FLESH PARENT

Jesus = God the Father & Mary

Mary = Mary's mom & dad

SPIRIT PARENT

Jesus = God the Father

Mary = God the Father

So Jesus and Mary are literally brother and sister in the spirit, right? Yet Mary is Christ's physical mom in the flesh, right? Somehow this seems incestuous??

Link to comment

This Visiting Teaching message published in the current Ensign (June 2008) may be of interest:

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne...mp;hideNav=true

If you are going to insist on the incestuous label, it will apply to everyone not only the Savior's family, as I am married to my spirit brother and giving birth to my spirit brothers and sisters, and my parents are my spirit brothers and sisters. As you might imagine, LDS are not going to categorize the family relationships we enjoyed in the pre-mortal world, and the family relationships we enjoy (or have the potential to enjoy) in this mortal world, as anything other than essential to happiness, ordained of God and holy.

Link to comment
But she is the literal daughter of God in the spirit, right? Do I have this right...

FLESH PARENT

Jesus = God the Father & Mary

Mary = Mary's mom & dad

SPIRIT PARENT

Jesus = God the Father

Mary = God the Father

So Jesus and Mary are literally brother and sister in the spirit, right? Yet Mary is Christ's physical mom in the flesh, right? Somehow this seems incestuous??

If you want to dissect it that far, remember that all of humanity is/are spirit siblings, and so I am my wife's spirit brother and she my spirit sister. Whether you believe in this or not, it doesn't imply anything uniquely "incestuous" about anyone. Get worked up about it and pretend it's sensational if you like.

Link to comment
But she is the literal daughter of God in the spirit, right? Do I have this right...

FLESH PARENT

Jesus = God the Father & Mary

Mary = Mary's mom & dad

SPIRIT PARENT

Jesus = God the Father

Mary = God the Father

So Jesus and Mary are literally brother and sister in the spirit, right? Yet Mary is Christ's physical mom in the flesh, right? Somehow this seems incestuous??

Why incestuous? Our physical bodies are very different from spiritual bodies. Was it incestuous, BTW, for Adam's and Eve's children or for Noah's grandchildren?

Suppose my grandfather, fifty times removed was somehow transported to today as a young man and he married my daughter, would that be incestuous? I realize that won't happen, but I'm trying to find out what you mean by "incestuous." Abraham married his niece, IIRC, would that be incestuous?

Link to comment
If you want to dissect it that far, remember that all of humanity is/are spirit siblings, and so I am my wife's spirit brother and she my spirit sister. Whether you believe in this or not, it doesn't imply anything uniquely "incestuous" about anyone. Get worked up about it and pretend it's sensational if you like.

Actually, if you define "incestuous" as a sexual relationship between a brother and sister, it makes more sense to just say, yes, it is incestuous, but then to follow that up by saying there is nothing wrong with it as long as God approves of it.

Sin isn't what we don't like or agree with, you know. Sin is what God doesn't like or agree with.

We are not the judge, ultimately. God is.

Link to comment

No Touch,

Interpreting that the way you wish to requires you to reject the use of the aforementioned word "us". If you directly interpret both these scriptures literally, you have to admit to the conflict between saying there was a single being working at the creation and then also having that single being referring to the creating party/parties as "us". But I guess that's where we have to diverge since you will interpret this using the Trinity, and I will not.

But you cannot be consistent and say that God was alone, and that he had the Word with him at the same time, without some more involved interpretation.

Interpreting these scriptures literally is consistent with John 1:1 which reveals â??the Word was with God, and the Word was God.â? Malachi 2:1 says â??one God created usâ?. I am consistent with what scripture reveals.

I could be off on this one, but I do believe that the word for breath and spirit are the same word in Hebrew, so this distinction between God introducing breath vs spirit is likely not a part of the original text.

Breath and spirit can also be distinct, for example Job 27:3 says â??the spirit of God is in my nostrils and my breath is in meâ?.

Link to comment
Question: "Are we all God's children, or only Christians?"

Answer: The Bible is clear that all people are Godâ??s creation (Colossians 1:16), but that only those who are born again are children of God (John 1:12; John 11:52; Romans 8:16; 1 John 3:1-10).

All of us who have ever been born on this planet are spiritual children of our Father in heaven, but only those who are born again become sons and daughters of Jesus Christ by adoption.

... and you can know this by the spirit of God, for yourself, if you do what is necessary.

Link to comment
How does perfection give birth to imperfection? Seriously. How does that happen?

Start or look for a thread, or some other words, on the topic of the "fall" of Adam and Eve.

Link to comment
In other words, we are all punished for our own sins, AND Adam's transgression. Because God made it so in the Creation.

We were, or at least would have been, if God had not provided for the atonement.

We are also the children of Adam and Eve, and hence we got something from them by birth.

... and btw, if you really want to learn about this, there are places you can go to learn.

I'm just here to try to motivate you to start looking where you should be looking for answers.

Look to God and the words God has given us through his apostles.

Link to comment
...

I prefer NOT to twist the scripture so that it fits my doctrine. Zech 12:1 reveals that spirit of man is NOT placed within him but that the spirit of man is formed within him. The spirit of man did NOT pre-exist. The spirit of man is not the literal offspring of God.

But, twisting is exactly what you are doing. If you want to get technical about the syntax of the Hebrew of this passage, you would have to believe that the spirit is continuously being formed with him, as he continuously forms the earth and stretches the heavens. The verbs in their literal sense indicate continuing action if literally understood.

Furthermore, the Jews would disagree with you about the soul of man not "pre-existing."

Belief in Prenatal Existence . . . In Talmudic times (the first centuries of the Common Era) the belief was current among the Jews that man's soul was independent of his body, existing eternally in the past and in the future. Only for a short, limited time is it placed in the body of a certain human being. All the souls of the world pre-exist in heaven in a kind of a spiritual reservoir, and at first have no desire to enter the human bodies on earth. They do it only by force. God decrees that a certain soul shall enter a certain body, and God also decrees the moment when the soul shall leave the body.

(Hayyim Schauss, The Lifetime of a Jew: Throughout the Ages of Jewish History, Reprint, [1998, New York: Union for Reform Judaism/URJ Press], 63; ellipses in original)

God is the Father of ALL things, this includes being the father of spirits. The Spirit of God has made us, and the breath of the Almighty has given us life. Men are the offspring of a living God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver. Men are NOT the offspring of heavenly parents like the Mormon Church teaches.

...

God is the Father of our spirits as our eathly fathers are of our flesh. The comparison metaphor works better when understood literally. The passage does not say that God is our Father only spiritually, but it says that he is the Father of our spirits. Passages in Acts 17:28-29 clearly state that we are the offspring of God, the Greek word genos meaning "descendents of a common ancestor." Mormons prefer to take that literally.

Link to comment

MormonMason,

Furthermore, the Jews would disagree with you about the soul of man not "pre-existing."

The early Christians would agree with me that the soul of man DID NOT pre-exist.

God is the Father of our spirits as our eathly fathers are of our flesh. The comparison metaphor works better when understood literally. The passage does not say that God is our Father only spiritually, but it says that he is the Father of our spirits. Passages in Acts 17:28-29 clearly state that we are the offspring of God, the Greek word genos meaning "descendents of a common ancestor." Mormons prefer to take that literally.

God is the Father of ALL THINGS, he is the Father of our spirits, we are the offspring of God. I prefer not to believe the Mormon teaching that "Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents" because this is not what the Bible reveals.

Link to comment
In other words, we are all punished for our own sins, AND Adam's transgression. Because God made it so in the Creation.

No, we are not punished for Adam's transgression, only for our own sins unrepented. We suffer the effects of the fall, which is part and parcel of mortality--all part of God's ultimate plan for his children.

Link to comment
MormonMason,

The early Christians would agree with me that the soul of man DID NOT pre-exist.

God is the Father of ALL THINGS, he is the Father of our spirits, we are the offspring of God. I prefer not to believe the Mormon teaching that "Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents" because this is not what the Bible reveals.

It is your choice to 'prefer' which teachings you will accept and reject. But that isn't any kind of authoritative reference.

Link to comment
...

The early Christians would agree with me that the soul of man DID NOT pre-exist.

Not all of them. :P They disagree amongst themselves over this. Their being influenced by the kind of philosophy Paul told the Christians to avoid was partially responsible for this, however. They should have listened to Paul. Perhaps then the apostasy would not have gotten such a foothold.

God is the Father of ALL THINGS, he is the Father of our spirits, we are the offspring of God. I prefer not to believe the Mormon teaching that "Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents" because this is not what the Bible reveals.

The Bible has been rewritten and portions thereof discarded by vain men and scribes who wanted to make them say what they wanted them to say. The Greek word genos means "descendents of a common ancestor" in Acts 17:28-29, so I am sticking with the literal meaning of the passage, contra later Greek philosophy mingled with scripture which disparages such an idea.

You can prefer to believe what you want but the Bible implies descent from God by man and new revelation further supports the idea. Reject the literal teachings of scripture in the Bible and reject some of the words of the Lord if you must, but for me and for my house, we will believe what he says and serve the Lord rather than the trappings of fourth century theology. ;)

Link to comment

MormonMason,

Not all of them. They disagree amongst themselves over this. Their being influenced by the kind of philosophy Paul told the Christians to avoid was partially responsible for this, however. They should have listened to Paul. Perhaps then the apostasy would not have gotten such a foothold.

Some of the early Christians were influenced by the apostles of Christ such as Irenaeus who wrote:

Irenaeus,Against Heresies,2,10:4(A.D. 180),in ANF,I:370

"For, to attribute the substance of created things to the power and will of Him who is God of all, is worthy both of credit and acceptance. It is also agreeable [to reason], and there may be well said regarding such a belief, that 'the things which are impossible with men are possible with God.' While men, indeed, cannot make anything out of nothing, but only out of matter already existing, yet God is in this point proeminently superior to men, that He Himself called into being the substance of His creation, when previously it had no existence."

The Bible has been rewritten and portions thereof discarded by vain men and scribes who wanted to make them say what they wanted them to say. The Greek word genos means "descendents of a common ancestor" in Acts 17:28-29, so I am sticking with the literal meaning of the passage, contra later Greek philosophy mingled with scripture which disparages such an idea.

I am sticking sticking with the literal meaning that DOES NOT reveal heavenly parents like the Mormon Church teaches.

You can prefer to believe what you want but the Bible implies descent from God by man and new revelation further supports the idea. Reject the literal teachings of scripture in the Bible and reject some of the words of the Lord if you must, but for me and for my house, we will believe what he says and serve the Lord rather than the trappings of fourth century theology

I prefer to believe the Bible which does not reveal the Mormon revelation that man is a descent from a heavenly mother. I accept the literal teaching that the spirit of man is formed with him (Zech 12:1).

Link to comment
But she is the literal daughter of God in the spirit, right? Do I have this right...

FLESH PARENT

Jesus = God the Father & Mary

Mary = Mary's mom & dad

SPIRIT PARENT

Jesus = God the Father

Mary = God the Father

So Jesus and Mary are literally brother and sister in the spirit, right? Yet Mary is Christ's physical mom in the flesh, right? Somehow this seems incestuous??

It would only seem incestuous for those who mistakenly conflate the spirit and the flesh. We LDS do not conflate the two, so the sacred conception of Christ in mortality is not viewed by us as incestuous.

However, if you are intent on finding incestuous relations in the LDS faith (or your own Christian faith for that matter), there are several mentioned in the Bible--not the least of which are Adam and Eve (Eve was created "from Adams rib", so it would be difficult to have a closer relation to marry than that), Adam and Eve's children (see Gen 4), Abraham and Sarah (see: Gen. 20:11-12), Lot and his daughters Gen. 19:1-7), and Judah and his daughter-in-law Gen 38:1-5). It is presumed that Joseph and Mary were cousins, but I am not sure how far removed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
MormonMason,

The early Christians would agree with me that the soul of man DID NOT pre-exist.

God is the Father of ALL THINGS, he is the Father of our spirits, we are the offspring of God. I prefer not to believe the Mormon teaching that "Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents" because this is not what the Bible reveals.

Again, you are entitled to that dogmatic opinion. However, we LDS do not recognize you as an authority to tell us what the Bible reveals. Rather, we are pleased to get that instead from God as revealed through his Holy Spirit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
MormonMason,

Some of the early Christians were influenced by the apostles of Christ such as Irenaeus who wrote:

Irenaeus,Against Heresies,2,10:4(A.D. 180),in ANF,I:370

"For, to attribute the substance of created things to the power and will of Him who is God of all, is worthy both of credit and acceptance. It is also agreeable [to reason], and there may be well said regarding such a belief, that 'the things which are impossible with men are possible with God.' While men, indeed, cannot make anything out of nothing, but only out of matter already existing, yet God is in this point proeminently superior to men, that He Himself called into being the substance of His creation, when previously it had no existence."

1. Irenaeus was not alive when the apostles were around. The connection is claimed only but cannot be proven.

2. Others, such as Justin Martyr, believed that the creation came from previously existing matter and Origen taught that the soul of man pre-existed his body. Interestingly enough, Lactantius for some odd reason used the word for procreation when speaking of the spirits of Jesus and of his brother who fell. Go figure. :P

I am sticking sticking with the literal meaning that DOES NOT reveal heavenly parents like the Mormon Church teaches.

You are not sticking to the literal meaning of the scripture if you do not accept the meaning of the Greek words in the passage, which literally mean "descendents of a common ancestor." What does it mean when God is said to be our ancestor and that we are his descendents? Rather, you follow the philosophized version of the interpretation of scripture rather than its literal meaning. Deny it all you want but you follow vain philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

I prefer to believe the Bible which does not reveal the Mormon revelation that man is a descent from a heavenly mother. I accept the literal teaching that the spirit of man is formed with him (Zech 12:1).

If you accept the literal meaning of Zechariah 12:1 to its full conclusion, you must believe that God continually forms said spirits. Trouble is, the passage does not say where the spirit is formed, only that the formed spirit is within the man. The rest must be implied. This is why you must accept philosophy instead.

Additionally, look at the timeline of the passage. Three elements of creation are spoken of here, creation of heaven, creation of earth, and creation of the spirit that is in the midst of man. We know that the heavens and the earth pertaining to this earth were finished long ago. The tenses of the verbs are the same and refer to the events of creation. There is no verb indicating when the spirit was in the midst of man or when it was formed. The creation happened long ago, so by implication, the creation of spirits of man also occurred long before the introduction of men on the earth.

Rather than what is allowed by the Bible, you would rather believe craftily fashioned philosophies of men mingled with scripture. That much has been made apparent in your misinterpration of scripture via late Catholic dogma.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...