The Divine Council

[Ron Beron]

'johnny' writes,

One of the difference between you and me is your belief about the substance of the Father, Jesus, and the HG.

Absolutely!

Comparing Mary to the Wisdom of the OT does not mean she was "Wisdom" before she was born of earthly parents.

I accept the doctrines of the Catholic church.

From where I read it seems very much the doctrine of the Catholics that Mary pre-existed in a an exalted state, aka Sophia.

[johnny]

Ron Beron

From where I read it seems very much the doctrine of the Catholics that Mary pre-existed in a an exalted state, aka Sophia.

Catholics do not believe Mary pre-existed, Catholics believe:

• 492 The splendour of an entirely unique holiness by which Mary is enriched from the first instant of her conception comes wholly from Christ: she is redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son. The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love" [Eph 1:3-4]
  
• -
  
• 296 We believe that God needs no pre-existent thing or any help in order to create, nor is creation any sort of necessary emanation from the divine substance. God creates freely "out of nothing"
  
• -
  
• 362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being" [Gen 2:7] Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God
  
• -
  
• 239 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
  
• -
  
• 2783 He is the Father in a special way only of Christ, but he is the common Father of us all, because while he has begotten only Christ, he has created us. Then also say by his grace, "Our Father," so that you may merit being his son
  

[Tanyan]

Many non LDS Christians have a very difficult time with the Catholic portrait of Mary see -

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/motherofgod.htm

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/marymother.htm

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/catholic.htm

Johnny please no more stone casting and looking for motes in Official LDS Doctrine/Thought/Practice/Walk

As I can do the same with Catholicism with the links above. Thank you.

In His Debt/Grace Tanyan LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

Repost.

[Rommelator]

He is neither man nor woman

Does anyone else see a contradiction here? He is neither man nor woman? Shouldn't it be it is neither man nor woman if this is the case? Furthermore, what do we make of Jesus who prays to "Our Father, who art in heaven...".

He is the Father in a special way only of Christ, but he is the common Father of us all, because while he has begotten only Christ, he has created us. Then also say by his grace, "Our Father," so that you may merit being his son

He, his, our Father.... and God is supposed to be "neither man or woman".

[Tanyan]

Does anyone else see a contradiction here? He is neither man nor woman? Shouldn't it be it is neither man nor woman if this is the case? Furthermore, what do we make of Jesus who prays to "Our Father, who art in heaven...".

He, his, our Father.... and God is supposed to be "neither man or woman".

That would make GOD a a-sexual hermaphrodite in the totality of his nature [Did I spell that right ?] would it not ?.

Tanyan LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[Tanyan]

Found this which sheds light on this topic why according to official Christian Doctrine that GOD has no gender - http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/male.html

[johnny]

Rommelator

Does anyone else see a contradiction here? He is neither man nor woman? Shouldn't it be it is neither man nor woman if this is the case? Furthermore, what do we make of Jesus who prays to "Our Father, who art in heaven...".

He, his, our Father.... and God is supposed to be "neither man or woman".

God is called Father because God created man, God is the Father of all things.

[Rommelator]

God is called Father because God created man, God is the Father of all things.

But if it does not have a gender then how can it be called a Father? Wouldn't it just be Creator? If a Robot without gender created something, can that Robot really be called a "father"? Your logic does not make sense.

Furthermore, does the fact that the Hebrew uses the masculine for the word for God (el) mean anything to you?

Oh, and CFR. Let's see some Biblical verses to back this up. Don't bother quoting Catholic dogma because I could care less.

[johnny]

Rommelator

But if it does not have a gender then how can it be called a Father? Wouldn't it just be Creator?

In scripture, God is also called Creator. God is called Father because God loving cares for the creature called man.

Oh, and CFR. Let's see some Biblical verses to back this up. Don't bother quoting Catholic dogma because I could care less.

Below are some Biblical verses,

• 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?)
  
• -
  
• 1Cor 8 ([4] As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. [5] For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) [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.)
  

[LDSMusic483]

Rommelator

In scripture, God is also called Creator. God is called Father because God loving cares for the creature called man.

Below are some Biblical verses,

• 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?)
  
• -
  
• 1Cor 8 ([4] As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. [5] For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) [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.)
  

Why Father and not Mother? Isn't a mother normally associated more with loving care of those they create? Your reasoning isn't sound.

[Rommelator]

. God is called Father because God loving cares for the creature called man.

But if it does not have a gender, then how can it be called a "Father". Why should it then not just be called "Lover".

How do your verses prove that God does not have a gender?

From online dictionary for Father:

1. a male parent.

2. a father-in-law, stepfather, or adoptive father.

3. any male ancestor, esp. the founder of a race, family, or line; progenitor.

Furthermore, how do you deal with the fact that early Israelites concieved of God as an anthropomorphic male with full male features including male sex organs? (See here: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=37448)

Oh, let me guess, they were all just wrong because they did not have the dogmatism of Rome, right?

[johnny]

Rommelator

But if it does not have a gender, then how can it be called a "Father". Why should it then not just be called "Lover".

How do your verses prove that God does not have a gender?

From online dictionary for Father:

This is simply the language of faith, the devil is called "father" but yet this usage of "father" is not included in your dictionary.

• John.8 ([44] Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.)
  

Furthermore, how do you deal with the fact that early Israelites concieved of God as an anthropomorphic male with full male features including male sex organs?

In 189 AD the early Christian bishop Irenaeus did consider GOd with male sex organs, see below

• Irenaeus "Far removed is the Father of all from those things which operate among men, the affections and passions. He is simple, not composed of parts, without structure, altogether like and equal to himself alone. He is all mind, all spirit, all thought, all intelligent, all reason . . . all light, all fountain of every good, and this is the manner in which the religious and the pious are accustomed to speak of God" (Against Heresies 2:13:3 [A.D. 189])
  

[Rommelator]

This is simply the language of faith

An easy cop out when you don't like that the Bible disagrees with your faulty position. Just say, "Well, this is being used metaphorically or is the "language of faith"."

In 189 AD the early Christian bishop Irenaeus did consider GOd with male sex organs, see below

Irenaeus was then most certainly wrong if he did not consider God was anthropomorphic.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Corporeality_of_God

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publicatio...&chapid=208

[johnny]

Rommelator

An easy cop out when you don't like that the Bible disagrees with your faulty position. Just say, "Well, this is being used metaphorically or is the "language of faith"."

My position is consistent with holy scripture and the teachings of the early apostolic Christians.

Irenaeus was then most certainly wrong if he did not consider God was anthropomorphic.

Irenaeus was a ordained bishop who was appointed by the Holy Ghost. Irenaeus was a second-century bishop who had a direct personal link with the generation of the apostles.

[LDSMusic483]

Man...I wonder what all of those righteous people who saw God were looking at if He didn't have parts.

[Rommelator]

My position is consistent with holy scripture

No it isn't.

and the teachings of the early apostolic Christians

Depends on how early you go back. See the above links.

Irenaeus was a ordained bishop who was appointed by the Holy Ghost. Irenaeus was a second-century bishop who had a direct personal link with the generation of the apostles.

argumentum ad verecundiam

[johnny]

LDSMusic483

Man...I wonder what all of those righteous people who saw God were looking at if He didn't have parts.

The Bible says the glory of God.

edited to correct spelling

[johnny]

Rommelator

No it isn't.

Please provide some scripture to back your words ... thanks.

I have provided scripture to support my position.

Depends on how early you go back. See the above links.

The Bishop Irenaeus was second century.

[Rommelator]

The Bible says that glory of God.

http://en.fairmormon.org/No_man_has_seen_God

This is my favorite one:

Ex. 24: 10-11

10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.

11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.

[LDSMusic483]

Rommelator

My position is consistent with holy scripture and the teachings of the early apostolic Christians.

Irenaeus was a ordained bishop who was appointed by the Holy Ghost. Irenaeus was a second-century bishop who had a direct personal link with the generation of the apostles.

Ah yes...but Bishops aren't appointed by the Holy Ghost. They are ordained and appointed by those who have received the authority of God by the laying on of hands. By the second century the apostles were gone. I'll give you some help on this one. Irenaeus was expounding his own opinion which can't be considered doctrine since it didn't come from the Pope.

[Rommelator]

Please provide some scripture to back your words ... thanks.

Gladly. See the links I provided.

[johnny]

Rommelator

Ex. 24: 10-11

Read the other verses it says they saw the glory of God.

[LDSMusic483]

http://en.fairmormon.org/No_man_has_seen_God

This is my favorite one:

Ex. 24: 10-11

10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.

11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.

Rommelator...surely you jest! Feet? Hands? Actually SEEING the God of Israel and not His Glory? No wait wait...surely those are figurative...those weren't really feet on paved work of sapphire stone....He can't stand...He'd need legs, knees, hips...and then He'd need arms to have hands right? They both should have connected to a torso...so unless He didn't have a head...we can assume that was there too.

[Rommelator]

Read the other verses it says they saw the glory of God.

Context is everything. Mark Smith has shown that the verses that denote that Moses and the elders of Israel simply saw the glory of God are most likely late interpolations by the Deuteronomist Reformers in order to combat the strong anthropomorphic themes on the Hebrew Bible.

[LDSMusic483]

Rommelator

Read the other verses it says they saw the glory of God.

So...all that means is they saw HIM and His glory. You can't delete a meaning of a scripture by adding to it.