An Angel Of Light

[Jason]

So which theory is more plausible. MormonMason's who contends that this rich young ruler was perfect in all the things that Christ listed, and that Christ then drove this near perfect person away by asking him to give everything that he owned to the poor, something that has not been required by anyone else. Or that this young man did break the commandments, like everyone else on earth except Christ, but was too proud to admit it.

MomonMason's.

"All these" means "all the things you just were talking about" not "all the things you were just talking about and everything else that might be remotely connected to them."

[Billy]

MomonMason's.

"All these" means "all the things you just were talking about" not "all the things you were just talking about and everything else that might be remotely connected to them."

Read my post again because that is what I said. The question is do you think that the rich young ruler keep ALL the commandments his entire life that Christ listed in Mark 10:19?

[William the Conqueror]

You would be surprised if you knew how many Evangelicals I have spoken with or read who say that this verse is enough for them to reject the Book of Mormon.

My favorite example is Shawn McCraney, who, in a moment of candor, said that even if the Book of Mormon had all of the archaeological evidence in the world behind it he would still refuse to accept the Book of Mormon because of that single verse. This, he said, is enough to constitute "another Gospel" despite all of the evidence for it.

So I don't think it is really that farfetched.

"Oh for a taste of Old Bammer " (Shawn McCraney), paraphrasing " Oh for a taste of Old Hickory", uttered by the populice during Van Buren's administration (1837-41). The people wanted Jackson back in power, so I think it would be good to welcome Bammer back to the MADB.

[Jason]

Read my post again because that is what I said. The question is do you think that the rich young ruler keep ALL the commandments his entire life that Christ listed in Mark 10:19?

I think that Jesus did not contradict his statement that he was keeping these commandments, and that "Jesus beholding him loved him," could be an indication that the man WAS in fact obeying the commandments.

[MormonMason]

...

The word Trinity is not in the Bible but the concept is. Other important words are not in the Bible, like Bible is not in the Bible, or monotheism is also not in the Bible.

Trinity concept from the Bible

Father is God

Jesus is God

Holy Spirit is God

The three make up one God.

...

Why, then, did some of the earliest writers define the three as a Triad or were not afraid to refer to the Father and Son as "two Gods" or the Son as a "second god" or as "a God in the second place after the Father" as the earliest writers did? A Triad from the Greek Triados is nothing like the conventional, traditional, post-Nicene doctrine of the Trinity. Defining Father, Son and Holy Ghost as a Triad as well as referring to them in another sense as "one God" as LDS writings do is in line with LDS thought.

As to your other thoughts as to what you think God said in the Bible, your thoughts concerning these passage come from a rewritten Old Testament--and are common mistranslations of the meanings of the texts to boot. Either way, your argument is moot.

On the statement you made regarding the us vs. we concept amongst LDS thought, you are mistaken on a fundamental doctrine of the LDS Christian faith, one which a person who really was even a nominal member at one time would not be likely to forget or misunderstand.

The "us" applies to the Father and Son (as well as any who were with them). For a refresher, see Moses chapter 1 and Abraham chapters 4-5 in the Pearl of Great Price. Then, compare the many LDS writings that teach the selfsame thing, including our own Sunday School manuals.

[MormonMason]

Read my post again because that is what I said. The question is do you think that the rich young ruler keep ALL the commandments his entire life that Christ listed in Mark 10:19?

Yes. Why not? Just because you were not able to keep all of them does not mean that the rich man did or could not.

Aside from this, I know what the Greek text says about this and it supports my position, not yours. The account also says that Jesus "loved him" after his statement that he had kept all those that were listed by Jesus. Jesus did not turn the man away. You are mistaken in the claim. The man turned himself away by his failure to let go of his riches as Jesus did. The perfection required of those who would inherit the Kingdom of God also includes willingness of distributing one's wealth with those less fortunate. It is a similar requirement to that of the Law of Consecration and the United Order of LDS teaching and history.

In addition, the scripture I cited above from Paul (the keywords are "that they may", implying necessity of doing good works and being willing to distribute to others in order to obtain eternal life--no mere "faith alone saves" meaning allowable there) also substantiates what Jesus said about riches and rich men. Remember, the passage of scripture from the Bible itself states that for the rich men, laying hold on eternal life is requisite with being willing to distribute and not to make their riches their life's focus. Read that scripture very, very carefully, Billy. You cannot get around it without totally ignoring the implications thereof.

[cjcampbell]

Can you list some of these pagan rituals and philosiphies for us? I asked this before but you said "I am not in the mood". Maybe you could answer this for us if you are feeling better now.

Thank goodness you have modern day prophets that revealed to you how a 2 billion dollar mall will help further the kingdom of God.

That God is a being without body, parts or passions. The use of candles, prayer beads, vestments, etc. The doctrine of transubstantiation. The idea that the planets sat on crystalline spheres and revolved about the earth. Most saints' feast days. Lent. Infallibility of the Bible. Stigmata and other fake miracles. In fact, every deviation from the original church of Jesus Christ as taught by God's anointed prophets.

As for the mall, I suspect the only reason that the antis really hate it is that it suggests that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not in the dire straits they would like it to be. I suppose if the Church did not invest its money the critics would be complaining about how Church funds are being mismanaged.

[cjcampbell]

Let us not forget, either, that it was not an angel from heaven that appeared to Joseph. It was God Himself, with His Son, Jesus Christ. I suspect that these have somewhat more authority than any twisted interpretation that self-centered 'doctors' of religion choose to give to the writings of Paul.

[MormonMason]

That God is a being without body, parts or passions.

...

Indeed! That one came straight from later Greek and earlier Hermetic philosophies rather than from the Bible. The Bible teaches that God has parts and a shape. Such would be impossible were one to be without body and parts.

[Billy]

Billy states,

The question is do you think that the rich young ruler keep ALL the commandments his entire life that Christ listed in Mark 10:19?

MormonMason replies,

Yes. Why not? Just because you were not able to keep all of them does not mean that the rich man did or could not.

Do you keep ALL the commandments?

[Billy]

All the churches in Joseph's day were in apostasy -- they were preaching "another gospel." This is why God and Jesus Christ condemned their creeds as an abomination. Their creeds mixed the doctrines and philosophies of men with scripture.

That God is a being without body, parts or passions. The use of candles, prayer beads, vestments, etc. The doctrine of transubstantiation. The idea that the planets sat on crystalline spheres and revolved about the earth. Most saints' feast days. Lent. Infallibility of the Bible. Stigmata and other fake miracles. In fact, every deviation from the original church of Jesus Christ as taught by God's anointed prophets.

It seems like you have an issue with the Catholic church, not ALL Christian churches as you noted above.

[T-Shirt]

Do you keep ALL the commandments?

Good grief! You are becoming a one note Willie. Why do you keep asking this question? LDS do not believe that a man must obey every commandment perfectly from the moment of baptism to be exalted. And you can stop pretending that no one has addressed this yet, many have, but it seems to fly right in one ear and out the other. For someone who thinks he knows LDS beliefs so well, it is amazing just how far off you really are.

Best to you,

T-Shirt

[cksalmon]

It seems like you have an issue with the Catholic church, not ALL Christian churches as you noted above.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking as well. The only portion I personally found representative was the without body and parts thing. It's not as if scripture gives us no lead on that angle.

cks

[Billy]

Good grief! You are becoming a one note Willie. Why do you keep asking this question?

Did you notice the context that I brought up this comment? Despite the fact that I have brought this issue up over and over again, it amazes me that LDS feel that they somehow can achieve perfection during their lifetime.

For someone who thinks he knows LDS beliefs so well, it is amazing just how far off you really are.

I have never touted myself as an expert, only as a ex member who grew up in the church.

You said about me in the above post that "it is amazing just how far off you really are." Can you give me some examples of this?

[MormonMason]

Do you keep ALL the commandments?

Not always but I try. Where I fail on occasion there is repentance and forgiveness. There are a number of commandments I have always kept. Then, on the other hand, I am a convert who once had a very frightening past (to other people, that is).

As to the rich man, I find it interesting that you are trying to apply a commandment that Christ gave to us when it didn't apply to him as a child. He was under the Law of Moses not the higher laws of Christ. Even if he did lust after a woman with his eyes he still would not be violating a commandment that hadn't been given to him yet. Sheesh! Talk about taking the scripture out of context....

As to the commandments given in the list Jesus gave, it is entirely possible to keep those from youth up.

[LDSMusic483]

Did you notice the context that I brought up this comment? Despite the fact that I have brought this issue up over and over again, it amazes me that LDS feel that they somehow can achieve perfection during their lifetime.

I have never touted myself as an expert, only as a ex member who grew up in the church.

You said about me in the above post that "it is amazing just how far off you really are." Can you give me some examples of this?

That depends on what you define perfection as. If you define it as never making a mistake...then no, LDS do not believe that. Even Pres. Hinckley said he was trying to be better than he was. We all of things to work on.

But, if you define perfection as living the gospel as Christ told us to, meaning trying to obey the commandments, repenting when we make mistakes thereby being cleansed from them, and striving to do better for the rest of our lives...then yes, we can be perfect in this mortal sphere. But much regarding complete perfection will not be achieved until after this life.

Now the rich man...the other great proof that he was keeping the commandments is stated in the fact that after Jesus mentioned the commandments to him and he said he kept all of them, Christ didn't say..."well not so much." Rather Christ told him what he yet lacked. He specifically said "one thing." Seems to me Christ was convinced of the mans sincerity. Are you more omniscient than He?

[Billy]

Now the rich man...the other great proof that he was keeping the commandments is stated in the fact that after Jesus mentioned the commandments to him and he said he kept all of them, Christ didn't say..."well not so much." Rather Christ told him what he yet lacked. He specifically said "one thing." Seems to me Christ was convinced of the mans sincerity. Are you more omniscient than He?

The fact that Christ does not correct the rich young rule does not mean that the ruler was telling the truth. We do not know either way. If Christ confronted him on this point, then we would know, but there is silence on this point so we do not know.

". . .do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother. . .All these I have kept since I was a boy," he said."

Do you really believed that this man never once took something that did not belong to him, even if it was a small insignificant item?

Do you really believe that this man ALWAYS honored his father and his mother his entire life and never once dishonored them?

[Jason]

The fact that Christ does not correct the rich young rule does not mean that the ruler was telling the truth. We do not know either way. If Christ confronted him on this point, then we would know, but there is silence on this point so we do not know.

". . .do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother. . .All these I have kept since I was a boy," he said."

Do you really believed that this man never once took something that did not belong to him, even if it was a small insignificant item?

Do you really believe that this man ALWAYS honored his father and his mother his entire life and never once dishonored them?

Perhaps he also repented whenever he did break the commandments, and so could truthfully say that he had kept them.

[William the Conqueror]

Billy,

If grace is a free gift, why do you still have to DO something? One still has to acknowledge Christ as the Savior, one still has to acknowledge his sinful state and his total dependence on Christ to save him. One still has to exert faith in something outside of himself to attain salvation. Doesn't sound free to me. It doesn't sound free, becuase it isn't. A price still has to be paid. And that price is a broken heart and a contrite spirit.

To the high Calvinist, regeneration precedes faith. Therefore the faith is from that individual. I don't subscribe to that view.

[Notquitewetyet]

Well... such as the doctrine of the Trinity taught in many of the Churches of today! The earliest mentions of such a doctrine come not from early Christian documents of the so-called Orthodox stripe, but from pagan-Gnostic-Christian documents. Some of the later Gnostics even developed a name for it--the Trimorphic Protennoia. Prior to this time the apologists and others of the time spoke of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as a Triad rather than as a consubstantial Trinity.

Just FYI, I agree, but Triada is Greek for the Latin Trinitas. More Christians lived in the Greek-speaking East than in the Latin-speaking West. I'd say, too, that Latin "Trinitas" and the Roman See is the main organ of the false beliefs and doctrines in Western Christianity. The doctrines of original sin (as opposed to the Greek concept of hereditary sin in the Eastern Orthodox tradition), the Filioque, absolute depravity of men, unconditional election of the saved and the damned, and also Marian concepts such as her having a sinless nature (also opposed by the EO) can all be laid squarely at the door of Rome and Carthage through St. Augustine. If there wasn't an apostasy before (I believe there was), there sure was one after him.

Also agree with your later points you made. I think Triada/Trinitas the word stayed in vogue, but there is a shift in the underlying concept. Most Christian writers were subordinationists to some degree (even if metaphysical monotheists in a sense.) Arianism did much to give today's so-called Orthodoxy, by defining itself in opposition to Arius, its far less subordinationalistic aspect. I think one of the early Fathers said that the Son "proceeded from silence," echoing gnostic language of the Son emanating at a given point (if not in time, then in some sense after God the Father), and other subordinationalists were orthodox as well. Arius just made that position hard to hang onto. Not that the concept of God as a nebulous substance wasn't dominant by the 4th century, but that any remaining subordinationalists would have had to maintain theiir belief with the label of semi-Arians after Nicea, although "semi-Arians" in a sense were orthodoxy pre-Arius.

[MormonMason]

The fact that Christ does not correct the rich young rule does not mean that the ruler was telling the truth. We do not know either way. If Christ confronted him on this point, then we would know, but there is silence on this point so we do not know.

". . .do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother. . .All these I have kept since I was a boy," he said."

Do you really believed that this man never once took something that did not belong to him, even if it was a small insignificant item?

Do you really believe that this man ALWAYS honored his father and his mother his entire life and never once dishonored them?

May I humbly suggest that you consult the Greek text? Jesus, in the context, knows the hearts of all men. He himself stated that the man lacked only one thing. Are you calling Jesus a liar?

In addition, the man used a particular word in the Greek text that gives us a general indicator of the age of the man from which he began keeping all the commandments Jesus listed. That Greek word rather indicates sometime from adolescence to manhood (which also coincides with becoming educated in the Law and becoming a son of the Law or bar-mitsvah in one's youth at the point where one comes near to being a man and considered a man in Israeli culture).

That puts some good context on the issue that undercuts your entire apparent premise. This also makes it more than possible that the man was both fully honest about his current state and that what it says about Jesus and what Jesus said about the man was absolutely true. There is no further need for you to continue to wrest the true intent of the scripture into something that was never intended or meant just to bolster faulty theology and soteriology.

Interestingly enough, the selfsame Greek word is used to refer to Bishop Timothy in the Pastorals! You want to place the claim of the man from infancy up but the wrong Greek word is used in the passage to refer to that. Your point is moot and your argument slain by the Greek text once again!

[Billy]

May I humbly suggest that you consult the Greek text? Jesus, in the context, knows the hearts of all men. He himself stated that the man lacked only one thing. Are you calling Jesus a liar?

NASB "One thing you lack

NIV One thing you lack

ESV You lack one thing

NKJV One thing you lack

JST One thing thou lackest

There is a big difference between "ONLY one thing" that you propose and "one thing" as translated in the 5 translations listed. Your translation even differs from Joseph Smith's definition, which he did make some changes in verse 21 of the KJV and because he split it into two verses in the JST. But the biggest argument against what you say is in common sense. It does not pass the smell test that this ruler kept ALL the commandments for ALL those years. In life when someone says ALL or ALWAYS your radar should go off that what that person is telling you is not entirely true.

[MormonMason]

...

Also note the verse in Matthew, it say baptize in the NAME of Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost, not the NAMES of all three which would be grammatically correct. LDS also use the singular NAME not NAMES of form.

Matthew 28:19

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

...

I would not make too much of the grammar in this passage as many evangelicals often do. You and most evangelicals who make the above argument seem to forget that Jesus was speaking Aramaic at this time and that this language is a Semitic language with similar grammatical rules to Hebrew in much of the language. The singular "name" is acceptable grammar when referring to more than one person. See for example the similar grammar at Genesis 5:1-2 and Ruth 1:2:

1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

2 And the name of the man was aElimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, bEphrathites of Beth-lehem-judah. And they came into the country of Moab, and continued there.

Once again, I could multiply examples but do not see the need. In the event that you need to see that the Hebrew words there are singular, here are the extant Hebrew texts of Genesis 5:1-2 and Ruth 1:2.

Hebrew Genesis 5:1-2. The word representing "their name" is marked in red.

Hebrew Ruth 1:1-2. The word representing "and the name of" is marked in red.

The grammar no more implies that Adam and Eve or the two sons are part of an ontologically singular entity than it means that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are such.

[Sargon]

Is it possible to come up with the idea of the Trinity without the creeds etc.? I think the answer to that question is obviously yes.

Well it took them about 2 1/2 centuries to iron out all the wrinkles. Apparently it isn't so clear cut.

[MormonMason]

NASB "One thing you lack

NIV One thing you lack

ESV You lack one thing

NKJV One thing you lack

JST One thing thou lackest

There is a big difference between "ONLY one thing" that you propose and "one thing" as translated in the 5 translations listed. Your translation even differs from Joseph Smith's definition, which he did make some changes in verse 21 of the KJV and because he split it into two verses in the JST.

Love to see you still using the JST as a proof-text in spite of the fact that it was never completed (see the other thread you created for several examples).

For another thing, I did not translate the passage so you wasted your time, breath and energy trying to pit other translations against my non-existent one in my above post. This tends to become typical of evangelicals; they tend to read into written text things that are not meant or even there. Word to the wise: It gets worse over time with practice.

But, hey, if I wanted to provide an actual translation of the passage from the Greek, such a translation including the word only is acceptable and is in keeping with the emphasis placed on the word for one by placing it before the verb and at the beginning of the quoted sentence! Since you began the first volley in a weak effort to cast doubt upon my abilities, let's play the "my translation is better than your translation" game for a moment, shall we? Here are a few you omitted from your little list:

Living Bible: You lack only one thing,...

NLT: "You lack only one thing,"...

TEV: You need only one thing.

As you can see, here are translations that use the word only to point out the emphasis. So, had I offered a translation to that effect and used the word only therein, it would have been acceptable, to your chagrin. Here are a few more translations that do not use the word only but imply it in the meaning by phrasing differently:

GWT: You're still missing one thing.

CEV: There's one thing you still need to do.

The Original New Testament: You have one thing more to do.

Phillips' Modern English: There is one thing you still need.

The Message: There's one thing left:...

NJB: You need to do one thing more.

SEB: But there is still one more thing you need to do:...

NCV There is still one more thing you need to do.

As I never grow tired of saying, a word-on-word translation can be acceptable but a translation that is true to the meaning of the text and its emphasis is far, far better. To bad so many translations are lackluster in that regard. Irrespective of that, the context of the passage shows that there was only one thing lacking, hence Jesus' comments being what they are in that passage.

You need to go back and re-read the rest of my post instead of recreating a strawman to break down again and again. Nowhere did the man say he kept all the commandments only that he kept all the ones Jesus listed from his adolescent years up to his present age. It certainly is possible for the man to have kept the commandments that Jesus listed from his adolescent years upward. Nowhere does it say anything about the man's whole life! Please let go of that fantasy.

But the biggest argument against what you say is in common sense. It does not pass the smell test that this ruler kept ALL the commandments for ALL those years. In life when someone says ALL or ALWAYS your radar should go off that what that person is telling you is not entirely true.

Does the common sense of the arm of flesh mean more than scripture? Is that what you are saying? Please stop trying to wrest scripture in order to grasp your false understanding of scripture with your last gasp. Besides, your so-called "common sense in life" argument can be turned back to bite you in the derrier!

So, are you saying that when Jesus uses the words "all men" to refer to what he knows concerning the hearts of men, you are saying that what Christ said was not entirely true? That he might have been lying? What of the apostles who used that word a lot? If so, I'd say that is pretty telling, Billy.