Jump to content

Are We The Offspring Of God


Billy

Recommended Posts

MormonMason,

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

Irenaeus was a second-century bishop who had a direct personal link with the generation of the apostles. His writings are contrary to the Mormon teaching that man was born of heavenly parents. Irenaeus wrote that God created all things, the only God, the only Creator, the only Father, Himself commanding.

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

Others, such as Tertullian, believed that "He who by His commanding word, His arranging wisdom, His mighty power, brought forth from nothing this entire mass of our world, with all its array of elements, bodies, spirits" and Origen taught "That there is one God, who created and arranged all things, and who, when nothing existed."

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.

That ancestor is our heavenly Father who is the Father of ALL THINGS. I do not follow the Mormon version of the interpretation that the common ancestor includes a heavenly Mother.

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.

The passage says the spirit if formed within him (see below):

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.

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.

The book of Genesis gives us the timeline, it says "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." (Gen 2:7).

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

The Jews crucified Christ, and disagreed with most aspects of his ministry, so the fact that the Jews believed in something that Christians don't believe in does not surprise me.

Link to comment
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 say the same thing about Joseph Smith who changed the Bible to say what he wanted it to say.

Please give us a list of all the intentional changes by scribes (one is the J----? Comma, I can't recall the name, but I am sure you know this one)

As far as the LDS evidence for being spiritual children of God, it seems to hinge on these two verse. Can you add any others.

Acts 17:

28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

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 manâ??s device.

Jer 1:5

5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew [a] you,

before you were born I set you apart;

I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

Link to comment
As far as the LDS evidence for being spiritual children of God, it seems to hinge on these two verse. Can you add any others.

Acts 17:

28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

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 manâ??s device.

Jer 1:5

5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew [a] you,

before you were born I set you apart;

I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

LDS belief on this subject, as on most things, hinges on modern revelation. The scriptures are a support and store of knowledge, not the source of knownledge. God is still God and we are still his children and it doesn't matter if it's 6000 years ago and no one has ever even heard of a Bible.

Link to comment

No Touch,

LDS belief on this subject, as on most things, hinges on modern revelation. The scriptures are a support and store of knowledge, not the source of knownledge. God is still God and we are still his children and it doesn't matter if it's 6000 years ago and no one has ever even heard of a Bible.

The modern revelation of Mormonism is contrary to what is revealed by the written Word of God. Scripture inspired by God is useful for doctrine, for reproof, and for correction (2Tim 3:16).

We are children of a heavenly Father because He is the Father of ALL THINGS, he created ALL THINGS. We are the offspring of a living God, not a god made of gold. Men are NOT the children of a heavenly mother like the Mormon Church teaches.

Link to comment
My point is that we are children by adoption not literal spirit children of God. If you are a literal spirit child, then why is there a need for you to be spiritually adopted?

If you have a son (assuming that it is yours), would you also adopt that son?

Because you believe that you are the literal spiritual offspring of God the Father, this would also imply that you have a Mother in Heaven. Is a Mother in Heaven ever mentioned in the Bible or other standard works? If not, why not?

When "born again" we become the seed of Jesus Christ, we become HIS children as well...

Mosiah 5: 7

7 And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.

Link to comment
Maybe you mean something to the effect of having a Heavenly Mother, which while it may be a matter of conjecture among members of the Church, I know of no authoritative/official teachings on it, so I'm not sure you can really say that it is what the Church teaches (if that is in fact what you are attempting to assert).

I think the Gospel Principles manual is pretty official as is the Proclamation on the Family:

We Are Children of Our Heavenly Father

God is not only our ruler and creator; he is also our Heavenly Father. â??All men and women are â?¦ literally the sons and daughters of Deity. â?¦ Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] bodyâ? (Joseph F. Smith, â??The Origin of Man,â? Improvement Era, Nov. 1909, pp. 78, 80).

Every person who was ever born on earth was our spirit brother or sister in heaven. The first spirit born to our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ (see D&C 93:21), so he is literally our elder brother (see Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 26). Because we are the spiritual children of our heavenly parents, we have inherited the potential to develop their divine qualities. If we choose to do so, we can become perfect, just as they are.

and
All human beingsâ??male and femaleâ??are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.
Link to comment
Irenaeus was a second-century bishop who had a direct personal link with the generation of the apostles. His writings are contrary to the Mormon teaching that man was born of heavenly parents. Irenaeus wrote that God created all things, the only God, the only Creator, the only Father, Himself commanding.

You're wasting your time if you think we're going to totally agree with Irenaeus. He was a member of the apostate church, which is your church. He wasn't one of our Lord's apostles, and, hence, we see no good reason to look to him as someone with our Lord's authority over his church, generally.

Others, such as Tertullian, believed...

Also pointless.

... and it's also pointless if you expect us to agree with what one of your "popes" have said.

We do not recognize anyone in your church as someone with our Lord's authority.

... and Origen taught ...

yada yada yada

Think about how you feel when we talk about what Nephi, or Alma, or Mormon said.

We don't agree with your guys, and you don't agree with our guys.

... and btw, all the good people in the Bible are our guys, and on our side.

We are that Church.

Link to comment
You're wasting your time if you think we're going to totally agree with Irenaeus. He was a member of the apostate church, which is your church. He wasn't one of our Lord's apostles, and, hence, we see no good reason to look to him as someone with our Lord's authority.

Also pointless.

... and it's also pointless if you expect us to agree with what one of your "popes" have said.

We do not recognize anyone in your church as someone with our Lord's authority.

yada yada yada

Think about how you feel when we talk about what Nephi, or Alma, or Mormon said.

We don't agree with your guys, and you don't agree with your guys.

... and btw, all the good people in the Bible are our guys, and on our side.

We are that Church.

Well......THAT's gonna foster a strong ecumenical amity. Good job, PR. :P

To quote Brigham Young, "A good man is a good man- whether in this Church or out of it."

We do not recognize all of the teachings of the ECF's as binding, but we do believe that they were (by and large) good men- and will leave judging them to God.

We will also take their wisdom- their good, as one of our prophets called it, and add it to our own.

We will not, however, be bound by their errors- or for that matter- yours Paul Ray.

Link to comment
Well......THAT's gonna foster a strong ecumenical amity. Good job, PR. :P

Light will not cleave to darkness, and to try to make it so is an exercise in futility.

To quote Brigham Young, "A good man is a good man- whether in this Church or out of it."

True, but I think at this juncture we're simply stating who was in it and who was out of it.

We do not recognize all of the teachings of the ECF's as binding,

And that's good, too. Right?

We certainly don't want to recognize all of their teachings as binding, or have other people believe that we consider their teachings to be binding.

... but we do believe that they were (by and large) good men-

Maybe so, maybe not.

... and will leave judging them to God.

Amen.

We will also take their wisdom- their good, as one of our prophets called it, and add it to our own.

No, we don't add other people's good to our own. We invite others to bring the good they have with them, and then see what we (LDS) have to add to it.

All the good stuff is ours, already. We've got all of the good stuff.

We will not, however, be bound by their errors- or for that matter- yours Paul Ray.

That's good. I certainly wouldn't want you to be bound by any faults, whether they are my faults or someone else's.

See you around, selek. I hope you have a very good day. ;)

Link to comment
If Mary is the literal offspring of God the father, and Mary is the literal mother of Jesus... then that makes Jesus the product of incest?

Old Testament afficianados will tell you the Bible has long maintained Jesus is the product of incest.

Can you say Tamar?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Link to comment
Light will not cleave to darkness, and to try to make it so is an exercise in futility.

True- but you don't spread light with a fog machine either.

As someone wise recently said to me," Honey....vinegar....hint."

True, but I think at this juncture we're simply stating who was in it and who was out of it.

Except that you come across as arbitarily appropriating these people rather than addressing their ideas. Think of the outrage certain people feel when we baptize their ancestors by proxy. Those feelings- however misguided- are genuine, and you merely harden opposition and resentment by making such Jovian pronouncements.

All the good stuff is ours, already. We've got all of the good stuff.

This is easily the most asinine statement you've made in recent memory (and that's an acheivement).

The Church is a hospital for the sick, not a country club for the perfected. Yes, we've got a lot of good stuff, but we're not anywhere near "all".

CFR- give me one Prophet or GA who has made a statement supporting the rhetorical nonsense you just spouted.

Link to comment
True- but you don't spread light with a fog machine either.

Were you confused about what I was saying? I tried to speak very clearly.

As someone wise recently said to me," Honey....vinegar....hint."

Yes, that's one way to do it, but not everyone will respond to that and there are times when we should try to issue a warning.

Try saying: There's some nice fresh air outside.

... very quietly.

... the nex ttime you see people in a burning building, eating and drinking, apparently trying to have a very good time.

Except that you come across as arbitarily appropriating these people rather than addressing their ideas.

Yes, and I'm doing that because the people, themselves, are not people we should be following.

If they were our Lord's apostles, I would encourage other people to follow them, but as they are not, and I know that they're not, I have no problem pointing out that they're not.

Think of the outrage certain people feel when we baptize their ancestors by proxy. Those feelings- however misguided- are genuine, and you merely harden opposition and resentment by making such Jovian pronouncements.

Yes, saying "we baptize other's people ancestors by proxy" can cause problems, and I can understand why some people might have a problem with that idea, so I think it's better to say that we baptize ourselves in temples and offer that baptism work to a person who has died just in case he/she might choose to accept that baptism as a baptims we have done on his/her behalf, while making sure to state that someone who has died can reject that work that we do just as easily as they can accept it.

Let's try to share our message as clearly as possible, shall we?

This is easily the most asinine statement you've made in recent memory (and that's an acheivement).

I'm sorry that you don't like it, but that doesn't mean what I meant is not true.

If people want access to all of the good stuff, they must join us and our Lord who is with us.

You seemed to be saying that we need other people to join us otherwise we won't have something that is good, and I can't think of any good thing we can't have from our Lord who is already with us.

The Church is a hospital for the sick, not a country club for the perfected. Yes, we've got a lot of good stuff, but we're not anywhere near "all".

Feel free to think outside the box, selek, but not to the extent that we do not have our Lord with us.

There is nothing good that we need from anyone who is now outside of our Lord's Church.

The Church will not be any less good if we don't get certain people who are now outside of the Church to join us, and there is nothing good that anyone can bring into the Church that we don't already have with our Lord, and God, with us.

Everything good comes from God, you know, and he is already with us.

CFR- give me one Prophet or GA who has made a statement supporting the rhetorical nonsense you just spouted.

I'm not in the business of doing anyone else's homework for them, but I can point you in the right direction. Check out what our Church leaders have said doing a search on lds.org, using key words like righteousness and goodness and truth, and other related words.

... and notice that I am not directing you to the website of some other organization, or people.

I'm referring you to our Lord's church who now has the fullness of the gospel and God's authority.

Link to comment
I'm not in the business of doing anyone else's homework for them, but I can point you in the right direction. Check out what our Church leaders have said doing a search on lds.org, using key words like righteousness and goodness and truth, and other related words.

... and notice that I am not directing you to the website of some other organization, or people.

I'm referring you to our Lord's church who now has the fullness of the gospel and God's authority.

You're the last person I'd expect to have to accuse of doing the "Eevie Duck-and-Weavie", but the shoe fits.

The board rules are very explicit: answer the CFR or retract the claim.

Link to comment
You're the last person I'd expect to have to accuse of doing the "Eevie Duck-and-Weavie", but the shoe fits.

The board rules are very explicit: answer the CFR or retract the claim.

Heh, okay. I'll play your little game for the moment.

Please tell me what you would like one of our Church leaders to say that I have already said they do teach. I'm sure I can find at least one of them who I agree with. :P

Link to comment
Heh, okay. I'll play your little game for the moment.

Please tell me what you would like one of our Church leaders to say that I have already said they do teach. I'm sure I can find at least one of them who I agree with. :P

My CFR is specific to two points:

The first is your claim that we have "all" good things:

All the good stuff is ours, already. We've got all of the good stuff.

The second is your claim that the other churches have nothing to teach us:

There is nothing good that we need from anyone who is now outside of our Lord's Church.

I would very much like to see a statement from a Prophet or GA that suggests that we as a Church and as a people still don't have a lot to learn.

Link to comment
My CFR is specific to two points:

The first is your claim that we have "all" good things:

Would a quote from a GA stating that we have, through Christ (who is already with us) the means to all good things be sufficient to satisify your CFR.

Just checking, before I search for something, not being sure if what I would find is sufficient for you... even though I think it should be considering how I know that you now have all access to every good thing you will ever need or desire that is good.

The second is your claim that the other churches have nothing to teach us:

Would a quote from a GA stating that we stand independent of all other churches, with no need to depend on them for support of our desire to acquire all good things that are available to us from God.

Again, just checking, before I search for something, not being sure if what I would find is sufficient for you... even though I think it should be considering how I know that you now have all access to every good thing you will ever need or desire that is good.

I would very much like to see a statement from a Prophet or GA that suggests that we as a Church and as a people still don't have a lot to learn.

I never said that. I said that we have it all, which includes all the means necessary to gain what we stand in need of.

We're not dependent on any mere mortal for any good thing. We have God to help us.

Savy?

Oh, what's the use. Feel free to ignore what I say, if you do not like it. :P

Link to comment
Would a quote from a GA stating that we have, through Christ (who is already with us) the means to all good things be sufficient to satisify your CFR.

Just checking, before I search for something, not being sure if what I would find is sufficient for you... even though I think it should be considering how I know that you now have all access to every good thing you will ever need or desire that is good.

It would not. "Having" and "having access to" are two different things.

I have a hundred dollars in my wallet. It is mine. Through my work, I have access to several thousand more, but it is not mine. We as a Church have access to all good things. That doesn't mean they are necessarily ours.

Would a quote from a GA stating that we stand independent of all other churches, with no need to depend on them for support of our desire to acquire all good things that are available to us from God.
It would not- for the same reason above.
I never said that.
You DID say that. I quoted you.
Oh, what's the use. Feel free to ignore what I say, if you do not like it. :P

Done and done.

Considering your willingness to accuse Mopologists of being anti-Mormons, your list of allies grows thin.

Link to comment
You can say the same thing about Joseph Smith who changed the Bible to say what he wanted it to say.

Please give us a list of all the intentional changes by scribes (one is the J----? Comma, I can't recall the name, but I am sure you know this one)

As far as the LDS evidence for being spiritual children of God, it seems to hinge on these two verse. Can you add any others.

Acts 17:

28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

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 manâ??s device.

Jer 1:5

5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew [a] you,

before you were born I set you apart;

I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/p/162

Link to comment
The Jews crucified Christ, and disagreed with most aspects of his ministry, so the fact that the Jews believed in something that Christians don't believe in does not surprise me.

I would agree with your there but the evidence that the earliest Christians also held a similar view that was not corrected by Christ when it was brought up is in the Bible and in some of the earliest Christian writings outside of the Bible known. A form of this doctrine can also be seen amongst the Essenes.

Link to comment
The modern revelation of Mormonism is contrary to what is revealed by the written Word of God. Scripture inspired by God is useful for doctrine, for reproof, and for correction (2Tim 3:16).

We are children of a heavenly Father because He is the Father of ALL THINGS, he created ALL THINGS. We are the offspring of a living God, not a god made of gold. Men are NOT the children of a heavenly mother like the Mormon Church teaches.

Again, you are entitled to your personal opinion. But, we do not recognize you as an authority to tell us what may or may not be contrary to what is in the Bible. Such dogmatic pronouncements like the above, while perhaps self-satisfying, are only so much hot air to us, and thus of negative value in discussions with us.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
You can say the same thing about Joseph Smith who changed the Bible to say what he wanted it to say.

Or, we can believe--as he claimed--that God told him what to write. Either God said and did it or he did not. There are only two ways to go on this. I prefer the former. :P

Please give us a list of all the intentional changes by scribes (one is the J----? Comma, I can't recall the name, but I am sure you know this one)

Not all of them can be known by the nature of the manuscript evidence. However, the list is too extensive to list here. Discussion of it would take the length of a 400-page or greater book. I do not care whether you believe it or not. I have seen the manuscripts for myself, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, and know of a surety for myself.

As I said, there are too many examples to discuss here but one of my favorites is the change that was made by scribes to Deuteronomy 32:8. See the NRSV for an English rendition of Deuteronomy that was found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls and supported by the earliest manuscripts of the Septuagint, and compare that to most other English translations that follow the later Masoretic text. The difference is quite significant!

Here is a fragment of the manuscript containing Deuteronomy 32:8 in its oldest form before scribes rewrote it for theological reasons, followed by the Masoretic text:

NRSV Deuteronomy 32:8 When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods;

post-7377-1213136854_thumb.jpg

A fragment from Deuteronomy containing part of 32:8 amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls

post-7377-1213136863_thumb.jpg

The Masoretic Text of Deuteronomy 32:8, the word changed by the scribes highlighted red.

As far as the LDS evidence for being spiritual children of God, it seems to hinge on these two verse. Can you add any others.

Acts 17:

28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

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 manâ??s device.

Jer 1:5

5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew [a] you,

before you were born I set you apart;

I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

The Acts 17:28-29 verses use Greek words that are clear about the offspring meaning descendents. A literal reading requires it and is more conducive to LDS thought on the matter.

There are others used in this manner, such as Ecclesiastes 12:7. Notice the word "return" in reference to the spirit of man at death. Something can only return to a previous state if it had been there before.

Also, consider Wisdom in the presence of God in the beginning, and Wisdom's delighting in the sons of men. Wisdom could only delight in the sons of men if they were present at that time. (Proverbs 8:22-31). Notice very carefully the timeline in this passage just mentioned and where it occurs. I warn you now: Some English translations weaken the meaning of some of the verses there.

There is the episode of the man born blind, which shows the beliefs of Jesus' disciples. Note carefully that Jesus only corrects their understanding of why the man was born blind. He does not tell them that no man pre-existed his body, which he surely could have done at that time, but didn't. See John 9:1-3. The implication of the disciples' question is that there was a possibility that a man could be born blind as a result of some kind of sin in a previous existence. This is consonant with the Jewish belief cited above.

In the case of this man, it was not because he sinned, but for the purposes of God, also a very LDS viewpoint on why some people are born to suffer in some way to teach them something they either need to learn or to teach others something they must learn. But, again, notice that Jesus does not correct the underlying view of a premortal existence. That time would have been a very good time to do it. There are others and Jeremiah 1:5-6, which you sited above, is a very good one particularly because of the Hebrew words used there in the way they are used.

This is no mere foreknowledge. Hebrew יָדַע (yādă') indicates a range of knowledge and perceptions acquired by the senses (touch, sight, smell, taste, hearing). Thus, Jeremiah must have been present for the Lord to know him before he was born, if we want to take the meaning of the passage literally as LDS and as Jews also take, as well as some early Christians such as Origen and Clement of Alexandria, who held the view that John the Baptist and others existed before they were born here on earth the same way that Jesus was.

We also have latter-day revelation to further substantiate the doctrine, which most of us LDS take quite seriously.

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...