What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[Akboy]

Where did I claim to believe everything Joseph Smith said in his sermon? I'm only talking about what I believe personally; I can't speak for the Church or any other member of it, only for myself.

Woah, back up. You're an LDS? Yet you believe you can pick and choose what to believe from what Smith taught? If he was a true prophet, why wouldn't you believe everything he taught in his sermons?

[thews]

I didn't. Your posts are exactly as you posted them (unless you changed them). I made my own post showing the points I differ from the points of your post.

You changed my words and added to them leaving my name in the original quote. I'd appreciate it if you don't do that in the future.

The New International Version is incorrect in saying that Jesus is God's "one and only son". the Old Testament proclaims "sons of God" as well as the New Testament. Jesu was the only begotten in the flesh inthe New Testament but not God's "one and only son". He is the "one and only son" to believe in. that's for sure and Mormons believe in Him as you know full well. now, after you believe in Him, what's next? What does Jesus want you *to do*?

That is your opinion... it's not mine that the NIV is "incorrect" as you imply.

In the first passage, who are those who get eternal life? In the second, It doesn't say "if ye belive me, keep my commandments", does it?

It also doesn't say anything about accepting D&C 132 as a requirement for not bing damned. That's the question I asked you... you failed to answer it.

Nobody's perfect.

Noboby's perfect.

Nobody's perfect.

Nobody's perfect.

Nobody's perfect.

I must assume by that above you believe you're interpretation of religion is "more perfect" than mine because I disagree with you.

Nobody's per...oh, wait, I can say something else now. As you know full well, even if you are damned, the LDS theology does not pronounce you to suffer eternally n fire and brimestone. Nope, you'll still retain great glory in the eternities. At the very least, you'll enjoy the glory of the third person of the Godhead.

Is this your opinion of what "damned" entails? Please give me a CFR to back your opinion.

You're always welcome to come and worship with the Mormons.

I reject the doctrine of Joseph Smith as false (including D&C 132), so being Christian and choosing to worship Jesus Christ in my own way would contradict your invitation.

If you live in the Houston area, let me know, I'd love to sit with you at least one Sunday.

You're rude and disrespectful to me, so why would I choose to hang out with you?

And. frankly, if you honestly think and feel tha rejecting mormonism and that dreadful D&C 132 which says, "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.", oh, wait, that wasn't D&C, sorry, than i truly hope you find peace n your soul and that you progress closer to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

You still didn't answer my question. I asked you if any person rejecting D&C 132 qould be damned per Mormon doctrine, though they accept Jesus Christ as their savior. Care to address the question asked?

Edited August 5, 2012 by thews

[volgadon]

Woah, back up. You're an LDS? Yet you believe you can pick and choose what to believe from what Smith taught? If he was a true prophet, why wouldn't you believe everything he taught in his sermons?

We don't believe in prophetic infallibility, neither are we a mindless herd of sheep.

[Akboy]

We don't believe in prophetic infallibility, neither are we a mindless herd of sheep.

Then how do you know to believe and what not to? How do you pick which teachings are true and which aren't? Yes, there's prayer, but did any OT writers talk about testing the prophets by praying about them?

[altersteve]

You're saying that verse teaches us that the Father had a mortal existence? How? Specifically, what wording in that says anything about the Father having an earthly existence?

It doesn't work to say 'Since Christ did it, and they are united, then the Father did it as well.' Apply that in other ways. When the Father was a mortal, was He walking around turning doing amazing miracles like feeding thousands of people with a little food and raising people from the dead? Did the Father die and pay for the sins of everyone else on the planet? Did the Father live a sinless mortal life?

This isn't as big of an issue as you're making it. Plainly stated, to us the scripture means that if Christ had a mortal existence, and if Christ can only do that which He has seen the Father do, then the Father must have had a mortal existence at one point too. How, when, and where -- all the specifics -- are not known at this time. But it's a perfectly reasonable interpretation, especially in light of other LDS doctrines regarding God having a body, etc.

Woah, back up. You're an LDS? Yet you believe you can pick and choose what to believe from what Smith taught? If he was a true prophet, why wouldn't you believe everything he taught in his sermons?

We're not expected to believe every single thing that every single prophet has ever said. Sometimes prophets are wrong. And yes, I do believe I can pick and choose what to believe from what anyone teaches, based on what the Spirit has revealed to me is true.

[altersteve]

Then how do you know to believe and what not to? How do you pick which teachings are true and which aren't? Yes, there's prayer, but did any OT writers talk about testing the prophets by praying about them?

It's not about testing prophets, it's about asking God for a confirmation that their teachings are true. I can't think of any Old Testament verses off the top of my head, but this is taught in the New Testament, in the Book of Mormon, and also by modern prophets.

[altersteve]

I reject the doctrine of Joseph Smith as false (including D&C 132), so being Christian and choosing to worship Jesus Christ in my own way would contradict your invitation.

Accepting or rejecting any doctrine or set of doctrines does not mean one cannot worship with another. Can't a Christian and, for example, a Muslim worship and pray together, even if they choose to do so in different ways? If not, why not? If you decline our invitation to worship with us, then are we Mormons not invited to worship with you, since we choose to do so differently?

You still didn't answer my question. I asked you if any person rejecting D&C 132 qould be damned per Mormon doctrine, though they accept Jesus Christ as their savior. Care to address the question asked?

I cannot think of any Latter-day Saint who "rejects" D&C 132, not even the part that teaches the practice of plural marriage. We simply don't practice it at this time. And no, "rejecting" D&C 132 does not mean you're "damned" in the sense that you won't be saved; however, rejecting the new and everlasting covenant, which refers to the doctrine of eternal marriage, will mean that you will not be "permitted to enter into [God's] glory" as described in verse 4, which in my opinion means that you won't be able to enter the highest level of the celestial kingdom and receive exaltation, so you will be "damned" in that sense. But not in the sense that you'll go to hell.

It also doesn't say anything about accepting D&C 132 as a requirement for not bing damned. That's the question I asked you... you failed to answer it.

Keeping Christ's commandments includes the acceptance of D&C 132.

Edited August 6, 2012 by altersteve

[Akboy]

This isn't as big of an issue as you're making it. Plainly stated, to us the scripture means that if Christ had a mortal existence, and if Christ can only do that which He has seen the Father do, then the Father must have had a mortal existence at one point too. How, when, and where -- all the specifics -- are not known at this time. But it's a perfectly reasonable interpretation, especially in light of other LDS doctrines regarding God having a body, etc.

Christ led a perfect, sinless life and died for the sins of the world. Those aren't secondary specifics. They are fundamental to why Christ came and what He did for us. So following your interpretation, the Father's mortal life must also have been sinless and involved dying for the sins of His world. Like you said, Christ can only do that which He has seen the Father do. So then the Father must have been the Messiah on His world.

Yet 2 pages ago, someone mentioned 'God the Father is a Perfected, glorified and exalted Man.' Why did the Father need to be perfected if He led a perfect, sinless life? I thought the LDS church taught we're supposed to follow the Father's example of striving to become perfect, glorified and exalted. Yet if the Father was the Messiah just like Christ was, then why aren't LDS members striving to be a Messiah?

It's not about testing prophets, it's about asking God for a confirmation that their teachings are true. I can't think of any Old Testament verses off the top of my head, but this is taught in the New Testament, in the Book of Mormon, and also by modern prophets.

CFR. Where does the NT teach us to ask God for confirmation that a prophet's teaching are true. That is not what James 1:5 is talking about. Edited August 6, 2012 by Akboy

[bluebell]

Thank you for being honest. You may not agree with Protestant tactics in interfaith communication, and neither do I in many cases, but can you see where we're coming from? We just believe some faiths and gospels are leading people down a wrong path and we believe the great commission is calling us to witness to them.

I can very much see where you are coming from.

Earlier, you asked me something like 'If exegesis is so reliable, then why do so many Protestant churches disagree?' Well I have the same question about the Holy Ghost. If the HG is such a reliable test of truth and source of guidance to anyone who asks sincerely, then wouldn't Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, etc. all be in agreement? We're all sincerely praying to God and the HG asking for guidance. So why aren't we all getting the same answer?

Are you all praying for guidance?

I'm not saying this as an insult, but i've never heard a protestant or Catholic tell me that they are the religion that they are because they prayed and asked for guidance or confirmation on what they believed.

I've talked with LDS missionaries before. They asked me to read multiple passages in the BoM and pray the prayer. I prayed it and didn't feel anything.

Then that's between you and God and I don't have a right to have an opinion on it.

There could be a million different reasons that you didn't feel anything. Maybe it was an answer from God, maybe you weren't sincere (you weren't prepared to act on the answer if it meant becoming a mormon, for example) Maybe it was that placebo affect-getting the answer you wanted-that you talked about before. Since there is no way for me to know why you got the answer you did, there is no way for me to righteously judge what it meant.

I accept your word on it and realize that we are all responsible for the personal revelation in our own lives and not for the revelation of anyone else.

No, I didn't say the verses want us to have an expectation they are true. I said the verses tell us to pray with the expectation of receiving a positive answer. It's just like you said, 'pray with a sincere heart and you will know they are true.' If you expect to 'know they are true,' then your mind could generate a placebo effect based on that expectation.

And if you expect them NOT to be true, like you, for example, then you could make it so you were unreceptive to the answer, right? As i said above, there is no way for me to judge your experience. If you honestly feel God told you it wasn't true and that you were sincere in wanting to know, then follow the witness you received. It really doesn't change anything from my end.

The Bible never tells us to 'pray about it and you will know it is true.'

We obviously disagree about that.

The bible teaches that if we do not know something, we must pray to God and He will tell us, it teaches that one of the purposes of the Holy Ghost is to to teach us truth, and it teaches that if we ask something, it will be given us.

Don't get so hung up on the words 'pray about it and you will know it is true' not being in the bible-the concept is there.

As a believer in the concept of the Trinity, it seems a bit hypocritical that something not being in the bible would stop you from accepting it as doctrine.

That's essentially what Protestant are doing. They proclaim the gospel as they know it to be true. They explain why they feel it is true. The don't expect anyone to drop to their knees, reject the LDS church and convert on the spot. No they're fully aware any real change take time and prayer.

Do you ask people to pray about your message? I've never EVER had a protestant ask me to do that.

If you would do that, i admit that i would respect your message a lot more.

It really bugs me when LDS say that to a Protestant. Are you adding to our knowledge of doctrines like the Trinity or salvation by grace alone, not by works?

I'll never understand why you think it's more of an insult for us to believe that your theology contains some truths, rather than to just believe you are completely wrong and going to hell if you don't become mormon.

And yes, we are speaking about adding to your doctrines so that they more completely represent the doctrine of Christ.

It certainly doesn't seem like it. If I made a thread on either of those issues, it would quickly become clear you don't want those doctrines in your church. It would be far more accurate to say 'The LDS church is one of adding to beliefs they already agree with and dismissing beliefs they disagree with.'

Of course we all have to dismiss beliefs that turn out to be wrong. Hopefully none of us are so invested in being right or prideful that we would turn up our noses as true doctrine just because it is different than what we thought.

Every religion has truth in it though. When we come to the truth, it is not about rejecting all of our old beliefs so we can adopt new ones. It's about changing and adding to our beliefs so they match the new knowledge we have received. Some things will have to be left behind but that is only so that our beliefs are more in line with what Christ wants us to know and do.

You're assuming there's a distinction where there isn't one. When we talk about our gospel and salvation by grace alone, those beliefs are our theology of having a relationship with Christ.

Oh i realize that's what you mean. I just think that you couldn't be more wrong.

A person has to have a relationship with Christ before they are saved or they would never want to have faith in Him, and to repent and try to follow Him.

The foundational relationship with Christ must come before one is saved, since faith and repentance (and for some religions, baptism) must come before someone has access to His grace. You can't wait unitl after you are saved to begin your relationship with Christ.

I don't think someone has to be 100% correct in all their beliefs. But if their theology of the relationship has a foundational problem, then the relationship won't be right.

Show me one instance in the NT where Christ cared about someone's theology (other than that He wanted them to have basic faith in Him and repent of sins) before He allowed them to be His disciple.

Does the bible agree with your beliefs about the need to have a correct theology in regards to Jesus before one can be a Christian?

[altersteve]

Christ led a perfect, sinless life and died for the sins of the world. Those aren't secondary specifics. They are fundamental to why Christ came and what He did for us. So following your interpretation, the Father's mortal life must also have been sinless and involved dying for the sins of His world. Like you said, Christ can only do that which He has seen the Father do. So then the Father must have been the Messiah on His world.

Sure. Christ tells us that He received His power from the Father (which I believe refers to the power to lay down His life and take it back up again), so it would logically follow that the Father had the same power.

Yet 2 pages ago, someone mentioned 'God the Father is a Perfected, glorified and exalted Man.' Why did the Father need to be perfected if He led a perfect, sinless life?

I don't believe the Father needed to be perfected. Why are you asking me about what my beliefs mean in light of what another person said about their beliefs? That's a completely useless and illogical thing to do. Once again, I can't speak for anyone except myself.

I thought the LDS church taught we're supposed to follow the Father's example of striving to become perfect, glorified and exalted. Yet if the Father was the Messiah just like Christ was, then why aren't LDS members striving to be a Messiah?

My understanding of what the Church teaches is that we must follow Jesus Christ's example of living our lives faithfully and in accordance with gospel principles, which leads to perfection, exaltation, and becoming one with the Father and a joint-heir with Christ in all things. And I don't claim to fully understand what it means to be exalted, so don't ask.

CFR. Where does the NT teach us to ask God for confirmation that a prophet's teaching are true. That is not what James 1:5 is talking about.

There are no verses I can think of which specifically say that we are to ask God for a confirmation that a prophet's teachings are true, I'll give you that, but there are a myriad of passages throughout the Bible telling us to look to God for guidance and knowledge, which is exactly what James 1:5 is talking about. And I believe that includes looking to Him for guidance and knowledge about what we learn from prophets and the scriptures. We're never taught to simply believe the scriptures or a prophet's teachings are true just because they say so. We are instead taught to follow Peter's example and seek a testimony of the divinity of Jesus Christ by revelation, not from flesh and blood but from the Father (see Matt. 16:15–17).

[Akboy]

Sure. Christ tells us that He received His power from the Father (which I believe refers to the power to lay down His life and take it back up again), so it would logically follow that the Father had the same power.

I'm not talking about the Father has the power to do. I'm talking about what the Father actually did.

I don't believe the Father needed to be perfected. Why are you asking me about what my beliefs mean in light of what another person said about their beliefs? That's a completely useless and illogical thing to do. Once again, I can't speak for anyone except myself.

Why are you in the LDS church at all? Isn't the teaching that 'God the Father is a Perfected, glorified and exalted Man' a common concept taught by multiple prophets? What's the point of having a church with a modern prophet if you're just going to ignore some of their teachings based on your own understanding? You haven't claimed to have the gift of prophecy, yet you seem to trust your own judgment over that of the prophet. So what's the point of having a prophet at all?

[altersteve]

I'm not talking about the Father has the power to do. I'm talking about what the Father actually did.

Why is it such a big deal? I believe the Father had a perfect mortal existence (the means by which He obtained a body) and that He died and was resurrected, and was then exalted to a higher plane of existence -- just like Jesus Christ. Whether or not He died for the sins of "His world" is not something I have a position on. I think it's possible and I don't completely rule that out, but I freely admit that I don't understand everything. I don't know how it all works and I don't claim to, though I certainly hope to someday. But, and I've said this before, right now I try to focus more on things closer to home: being a disciple of the Savior by doing my best to keep His commandments, love my family, stand against the forces of sin, and be of service to my fellow human beings. That's where I focus my energy and that's what makes me a Christian. Nothing else has anything to do with it.

Why are you in the LDS church at all?

Because I believe it is the only authorized institution on this earth which is led directly by Jesus Christ Himself, and the only one through which the fullness of the gospel and all its saving ordinances are offered. If I didn't believe that, then I wouldn't be a member of it. But I do, so I am.

Isn't the teaching that 'God the Father is a Perfected, glorified and exalted Man' a common concept taught by multiple prophets? What's the point of having a church with a modern prophet if you're just going to ignore some of their teachings based on your own understanding? You haven't claimed to have the gift of prophecy, yet you seem to trust your own judgment over that of the prophet. So what's the point of having a prophet at all?

I don't trust my own judgment over what a prophet says, I trust what God says. I trust my own spiritual experiences, which formulate my testimony. A prophet is there to testify of Jesus Christ and guide us closer to Him; we, then, are taught to seek a witness from God Himself about how to follow that guidance. We are not taught to "ignore" anything a prophet tells us, nor do I believe I do that, but we are still taught specifically to NOT blindly follow them and treat their words as infallible. Yes, I revere these leaders as prophets, seers, and revelators, and I believe Thomas S. Monson was called by God to lead the Church in these latter-days, to teach God's children the gospel and guide them closer to Him, and to act as His mouthpiece for the world today. But that doesn't mean everything he says is free of error. Like the rest of us, he is a human being, prophet or not. Same with all his predecessors.

Edited August 6, 2012 by altersteve

[Flyonthewall]

Ok let me ask it again. Is it possible to be a follower of a false prophet and a follower of Christ at the same time? It seems you are saying yes it is possible. So does that mean that this hypothetical false prophet can teach anything-the most absurd heresy, but as long as his followers use the name Christ in there somewhere then they are also followers of Christ?

Like I said before, we will ALL be judged by what we do with what we know and understand. I believe you subscribe to some false teachings about Christ and His Gospel, yet I still consider you a follower of Christ...and yes, I view some of your beliefs as "the most absurd heresy".

The key is that YOU believe it to be true.

[Darren10]

For what it's worth regarding King Follet report:

This is the conclusion of the King Follett Sermon, delivered by the Prophet Joseph Smith at the April 7, 1844, conference of the Church in Nauvoo, Illinois. The first part of this classic was reprinted in the April Ensign (page 12). Readers should be reminded that the account of the talk was reconstructed from longhand notes taken by four brethren. It is also important to know that the Prophet’s enemies were within just a few months of bringing about his death. This reprint was taken from the Documentary History of the Church, volume 6, pages 302–17.

The King Follett Sermon

The fact that what we have today is a reconstruction from notes taken from four different people and the fact that Joseph Smith never got a chance to see what was written much less give feedback on it, I give little to no attention to the King Follett sermon. I used to love it and refer to it but after learning of its manner of being preserved and even "evolution" to what we have toay, if anyone likes parts of it or even all of it, fine. If anyone doesn't like parts of it or any part of it, fine. It weighs very little on me.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Why are you in the LDS church at all? Isn't the teaching that 'God the Father is a Perfected, glorified and exalted Man' a common concept taught by multiple prophets?

I agree, Akboy. Such hersey and blashpemy should be denounced forthwith. Take this for instance:

The Hebrews, we saw in Chapter 9, pictured the God whom they worshipped as having a body and mind like our own, though transcending humanity in the splendour of his appearance, in his power, his wisdom, and the constancy of his care for his creatures. Such a conception, set out in the earlier books of the Old Testament, retained its authority despite some later changes of emphasis. But this biblical view, we noted on p. 58, was radically modified in the teaching of Philo of Alexandria. Philo, a devout Jew, does indeed insist on God's moral attributes: his patience, his wisdom and his loving care. But he also presents him as the metaphysical first principal of the universe, without bodily form or human passions, indeed without any sensible qualities: a perfectly simple, unchangeable, unfathomable being, who can only be positively described in the words of Exodus 3:14 as ‘He who Is’.

http://ebooks.cambridge.org/chapter.jsf?bid=CBO9780511520259&cid=CBO9780511520259A019

Let's put an end to such "LDS" nonesense.

/sarc off

[Darren10]

thews #502;

I retained your name but also accredited myself for altering your quote. What I did, however may violate board policy so I should watch it.

As for "nodoby's perfect', thayt indeed includes myself. I was responding to your bold declaratives regarding you being an ex-Mormon and have no interest in coming back to Mormonism and you denounced Mormonism because of your now "true" Christian beliefs. Yes. the believe the LDS Church is God's true church. Yes, I believe that belonging to anorganized religion is better than belonging to a nondenominational group. However, as I said, if denouncing Mormonism and we'll now include belonging to a nondenominational gropu is what you honestly think and feel is the correct path to God, than I truly desire that you find peace and happiness in your path towards Christ. I truly want you to come closer to Him. If you do decide to come and worship wit hte mormons than let me know if you're in the houston area. I'll do wha I can to sit next to you at least on Sunday. I'll even shake your hand and give you a hug if you so desire. I don't think my family will be able to come but I'll be sure to.

The New international Version is most definitely incorrect in saying that Jesus is God's one and only son. More on that in another post. God has many sons, including you and me. That's by the nature of our existence and is a self evident truth. No matter what you or I believe, think,or do, nothing will change that fact.

It also doesn't say anything about accepting D&C 132 as a requirement for not bing damned. That's the question I asked you... you failed to answer it.

What I did say is that those who keep God's commandments have eternal life. This was in response to your citing the bible saying that those who belief will be saved. I think there's more than just "believing". What I did say (sarcastically but still true) was that D&C 132 is quite compatible with Paul's teaching that the woman is not without the man and the man is not without the woman in Christ the Lord. D&C 132 is about the "new and everlasting covenant"; not polygamy which is an ancillary, not a core, doctrine. No one has to practice polygamy for exaltation; only enter tot he new and everlasting covenant of marriage. This is perfectly compatible to Paul's teaching of marriage.

As for your "damnation" according to LDS theology:

In latter-day revelation hell is spoken of in at least two senses. One is the temporary abode in the spirit world of those who were disobedient in this mortal life. It is between death and the resurrection, and persons who receive the telestial glory will abide there until the last resurrection (D&C 76:84–85, 106), at which time they will go to the telestial glory. In this sense the Book of Mormon speaks of spiritual death as hell (2 Ne. 9:10–12). Hell, as thus defined, will have an end, when all the captive spirits have paid the price of their sins and enter into a degree of glory after their resurrection. Statements about an everlasting hell (Hel. 6:28; Moro. 8:13) must be interpreted in their proper context in the light of D&C 19:4–12, which defines eternal and endless punishment.

On the other hand, the devil and his angels, including the sons of perdition, are assigned to a place spoken of as a lake of fire—a figure of eternal anguish. This condition is sometimes called hell in the scriptures (2 Pet. 2:4; D&C 29:38; 88:113). This kind of hell, which is after the resurrection and judgment, is exclusively for the devil and his angels, and is not the same as that consisting only of the period between death and resurrection. The one group are redeemed from hell and inherit some degree of glory. The other receive no glory. They continue in spiritual darkness. For them the conditions of hell remain.

Hell

So, unless you're one of the Devil's fallen angels (which you are absolutely not) or a son of perdition (which you are absolutely not), you're not going to Hell according to LDS theology. The worse that'll happen to you is that you'll go to the least of the three heavens, namely, the Telestrial Kingdom:

87 And the terrestrial through the ^aministration of the celestial.

(D&C 76)

So at the very least you'll abide in the glory of the Holy Spirit according to LDS theology. As for your and my ultimate salvation, where exactly we'll end up, is entirely between ourselves individually and God.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Darren10

[Zakuska]

But what had Jesus been telling them from the beginning? He goes on to explain again (after already haven just done so in verse 24) in verse 28

Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I AM HE, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

Again Jesus repeats that his followers are to know that he is the 'I am he.' Go back and look at my posts about the link between Jesus of 'I am he' statements and the OT. He is not talking about simply being the Messiah here he is claiming to be the God of Israel -the great I AM of Isaiah!

So now we are relying on the English "I AM HE" to dictate our doctrine?

Christ never once claimed to be his own Grandpa.

[Zakuska]

Care to explain how Paul is talking about false prophets anywhere in Romans 14?

What does Paul say in Romans 14?

One "beleives" they can eat meat and another "believes" that it doesn't matter.

One "beleives" we have to worship on one day and one "beleives" other wise.

What does he conclude? He concludes the lesson that you continually are overlooking.

WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE ANOTHER MANS(ie The Lords) SERVANT?!

None of these "observances" and "beleifs" matter because we are ALL the Lords servants.

Another Parable that might teach you something... IF it doesn't go in one ear and out the other would be that of the servants.

You would be that servant that starts railing on the other servants claiming they are doing things the wrong way and not pulling their weight. And we all know what the Lord told him.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Zakuska

[volgadon]

Isaac was a one and only son-a unique son in 2 ways. Firstly he was the only son born through the promise of God and by his power. Secondly he was the one and only son left to Abraham because Ishmael had been sent away-he was no longer part of Abraham's family, he was the only son Abraham had.

And God reconised this as we see in Genesis 22

2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

Genesis 25:9 still calls Ishmael Abraham's son and shows him engaged in a proper filial duty, so your forced interpretation falls flat on its face. Also look at 25:6. Please note that Gen. 22:2 doesn't use "born through the promise of God and by his power" to qualify "only son." Jon D. Levenson goes into great detail on the meaning of monogenes and how it applies to both Isaac and Jesus so I highly recommend reading "The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son."

The word called does mean they are make believe because the previous verse is talking about idols. These idols are called gods by their worshipers. Your intrepretation has Paul actually acknowledging that the other Gods worshiped by the idolators are real gods. Do you really believe that?

Yes, I do believe that is what the text is saying. The power andinfluence of other deities was marginalised, but not usually denied entirely.

[Flyonthewall]

. . . . That's it? You can't explain how it makes sense to you?

If Jesus was God before, during and after his mortal life, then God the Father could have done the same thing.

Could you at least give me a hint at what context I'm looking for? With a different interpretation of many Bible passages and 3 extra books to look at, there's a lot of context.

To be clear, Joseph Smith taught both of these?

1. God has always been God.

2. God came to be God.

I might be blinded by Protestant lies, but that doesn't make sense. How do you define 'always been'? How do you define 'came to be'?

I would start by urging to you actually read the whole sermon, and all of Joseph's teachings on God.

How do you define infinite?

Yes, I believe Jesus has always been God. Never at any point in time or out of time was He less than God. That's very different that believe He, at some point, became God.

As long as I have existed, I have always been a male. There was never a time when I wasn't a male. When I turned 18, I became an adult male. I changed from a minor to an adult. So always been =/= came to be. It wouldn't make sense for me to say 'I've always been an adult, but I came to be an adult when I turned 18.'

You are qualifying male with "adult". You have always been male, there was never a time that you were not male... period.

I believe the verse is talking how the Father and Son are united in will and purpose. But that doesn't mean they were mirror images of each other. The Father didn't take the form of a man and die for our sins.

Eh? united in will and purpose? how very LDS of you. Does that mean your Christianity is diminishing?

I am not saying they are mirror images of each other, but I take Jesus' words as He said them...He did nothing of Himself but only what He saw the Father do. To make that statement, everything Jesus did was based on something the Father DID...otherwise that is a false statement. Are you willing to attribute a false statement to Jesus?

The Father did not take on the form of a man...man is made in His image.

[Darren10]

CFR this please.

Here's an introductory level article that says otherwise.

http://www.answering..._monogenes.html

As your link points out, "monogenes" does not nessesarily mean "one and only" though I unsderstand how that may be "*one manner* to ttranslate the word from the Greek into English, so is "only begotten". The big difference is the direct connotation of "one and only son". Go to anyone and say "Jesus is God's 'one and only son'" and naturally the recipient ofthat message will conclude, according ot your words, that there are no other sons to God except Jesus. Tell that smae person "Jesus is Gods only begotten son in the flesh" and the person may conclude, according to your words, that there can be other sons butthat the sonship of Jesus was unique (again ,your link addresses this at to some detail). If fact the The Book of Mormon has no problem calling Jesus the Father in part for Jesus' unique earthly sonship to the Father:

The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—

(Mosiah 15:3)

http://www.lds.org/s...&testament=bofm

Is there more than *one* son of the Father? Absolutely. Here's a prime example:

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are ^achildren of the most High.

(Psalms 82 - Bold mine)

Jesus applied this very teaching in John 10:

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are ^agods?

Jesus' application was not upno a believer but upon those who were ready to stone the Son of Man for blasphemy. The Jewstook offense of Jesus saying He was one with the Father. Now, how were these Jews "gods", becase they were "children of the most High".

Clearly God has more than a "one and only son".

Edited August 6, 2012 by Darren10

[Darren10]

I highly recommend that people on this thread read Did Luke Preach “Another Jesus?”:A spoof on a ludicrous argument often posed by anti-Mormons. Very funny and poignant. It's by John Tvetdnes.

Luke’s baby Jesus was visited by shepherds (Luke 2:8-20). The real baby Jesus was visited by the wise men (Matthew 2:1-12). Luke’s Jesus was circumcised at the age of eight days (Luke 2:21-22). The real Jesus, being a Christian and not a Jew, was not circumcised. Neither Matthew, Mark, or John mentions Jesus being circumcised. Luke’s Jesus, at the age of 12, was found speaking to the doctors in the temple (Luke 2:41-51). The real Jesus did no such thing. Check out the accounts in Matthew, Mark, and John, which say nothing about this fictitious event. Luke’s Jesus taught his famous sermon on the plain (Luke 6:17-49). The real Jesus taught his famous sermon on the mount (Matthew 5-7). Luke’s Jesus, arriving in the country of the Gadarenes, cast devils out of a man into a herd of swine (Luke 8:26-39). The real Jesus, arriving in the country of the Gergesenes, cast devils out of two men into a herd of swine (Matthew 8:28-34). Luke’s Jesus healed a blind man at Jericho (Luke 18:35). The real Jesus healed two blind men at Jericho (Matthew 20:29-34). Luke’s Jesus was comforted by an angel in the garden of Gethsemane (Luke 22:39). The real Jesus, being God, was comforted in Gethsemane by praying to his Father personna (Matthew 26:36-42; Mark 14:32-36). Luke’s Jesus raised a widow’s son from the dead at Nain (Luke 7:11-15). The real Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead at Bethany (John 11:1-44). Luke’s Jesus was not known to be the Christ by John the Baptist (Luke 7:18-22). The real Jesus was recognized by John the Baptist to be the Christ at the time of his baptism (Matthew 3:13; John 1:32-36). Luke’s Jesus celebrated his last supper at Passover (Luke 22:7-15). The real Jesus celebrated his last supper before Passover (John 13:1; 18:28). Luke’s Jesus was arrested and taken to the house of the high priest (Luke 22:54). The real Jesus was arrested and taken to the house of Annas, father-in-law to the high priest Caiaphas (John 18:13). Luke’s Jesus asked the Father to forgive his crucifiers (Luke 23:34). The real Jesus uttered no such words (check out Matthew, Mark, and John if you don’t believe me). Luke’s resurrected Jesus commanded his disciples to not depart from Jerusalem, then ascended to heaven from Bethany on the mount of Olives (Luke 24:49-51). The real resurrected Jesus commanded his disciples to go into Galilee to meet him there, and it was atop a Galilean mountain that he instructed them to go into all the world, then ascended to heaven (Matthew 28:10, 16-20; Mark 16:15-20).

From "Luke had a different Jesus".

[Akboy]

Are you all praying for guidance?

Yes, I've been in multiple bible studies where we open with a prayer asking for guidance. My pastor has opened sermons by praying for guidance so he can clearly communicate the message and guidance for the audience to help them hear the Holy Spirit's voice in the message. My pastor has also asked us to pray that he would have wisdom in preparing the sermon.

For as long as I can remember, the Holy Spirit has been emphasized as a guide in following God and life in general, and prayer has always been the primary way to access that guidance. We may not use the same terms as you, but the concept is very much there. So why aren't we all in the LDS church? The Holy Spirit is here to teach us all things, and we're asking Him for guidance, yet He's leaving out key aspects of the gospel that your church teaches? Why isn't the Holy Spirit teaching us all things?

I'm not saying this as an insult, but i've never heard a protestant or Catholic tell me that they are the religion that they are because they prayed and asked for guidance or confirmation on what they believed.

I don't know about Catholics, but Protestants probably don't word it like that because they see their foundation as more than just praying about it. Our foundation is based on educated exegesis guided by the Holy Spirit and prayer.

I don't want it to sound like I'm downplaying or underestimating the role of the Holy Spirit. The problem isn't that the Holy Spirit is unwilling or unable to give better guidance. The problem is we are fallen humans fighting against our sin nature. We think the foundation of our faith is far too important to leave it up to something as subjective as prayer.

Then that's between you and God and I don't have a right to have an opinion on it.

There could be a million different reasons that you didn't feel anything. Maybe it was an answer from God, maybe you weren't sincere (you weren't prepared to act on the answer if it meant becoming a mormon, for example) Maybe it was that placebo affect-getting the answer you wanted-that you talked about before. Since there is no way for me to know why you got the answer you did, there is no way for me to righteously judge what it meant.

Maybe it was an answer from God? So maybe God lied to me? I prayed and asked if some major passages in the BoM were true. If the answer was 'No,' then wouldn't that be a lie?

Maybe I wasn't sincere? I thought God reached out to us in our weakness. I took the time to go to a quiet place, read the passages and pray about it. Yet it was my fault for not being sincere? So should I just keep reading the BoM and praying over and over again? If you pray long enough while searching for a sign, you will receive a sign, but that doesn't mean it's from God.

I accept your word on it and realize that we are all responsible for the personal revelation in our own lives and not for the revelation of anyone else.

I'm responsible? If the Holy Spirit's role is to teach us all things, then isn't it His responsibility to answer us when we ask a sincere question?

As i said above, there is no way for me to judge your experience. If you honestly feel God told you it wasn't true and that you were sincere in wanting to know, then follow the witness you received. It really doesn't change anything from my end.

It really would bother you that God told you the LDS church is true and told me it's not true? It wouldn't change anything if God lied to one of us?

I thought the whole purpose of coming to earth is to be tested and prove ourselves worthy. If that's true, then why wouldn't God tell me? Why would God deny me the chance to prove myself by not giving me a witness of the full gospel? What makes you so special that you get the full gospel and I don't?

As a believer in the concept of the Trinity, it seems a bit hypocritical that something not being in the bible would stop you from accepting it as doctrine.

There's a difference. I've never heard a sermon about how the Trinity helps us in our daily life. It's not a doctrine that directly impacts how we follow Christ. But this issue of prayer is much bigger. It's a huge part of how you know which faith to follow.

Do you ask people to pray about your message? I've never EVER had a protestant ask me to do that.

If you would do that, i admit that i would respect your message a lot more.

I can't speak for the protestants you've talked to, but I would be honored if you prayerfully considered what we're talking about.

Oh i realize that's what you mean. I just think that you couldn't be more wrong.

A person has to have a relationship with Christ before they are saved or they would never want to have faith in Him, and to repent and try to follow Him.

The foundational relationship with Christ must come before one is saved, since faith and repentance (and for some religions, baptism) must come before someone has access to His grace. You can't wait unitl after you are saved to begin your relationship with Christ.

But that's not what I mean. I'm not talking about relationship leading to salvation and faith, or salvation leading to faith and relationship or any other order you can think up. No, we're saying true, living faith includes relationship and salvation. It's not 3 steps in a process. It's one dynamic event with multiple aspects.

I think a good example of this is James 2. I've heard quite a few LDS say that chapter says we need faith plus works, but I think that misses what the chapter says about faith. Faith without works is dead. If you're having to add works to your faith, then your problem is with your faith, not your lack of works. If your faith is dead, it doesn't matter what you add to it, the faith will still be dead. But if your faith is living, then the works will take care of themselves. This is what the Pharisees didn't understand. They focused so much on getting their works perfect that they neglected their faith. They looked faithful, but they were white washed tombs. Their faith was dead at the core.

Show me one instance in the NT where Christ cared about someone's theology (other than that He wanted them to have basic faith in Him and repent of sins) before He allowed them to be His disciple.

We believe faith in Him and repentance of sin IS foundational theology. What definition of 'theology' are you using?

I'm using 'theology' as a general term for all beliefs, doctrines and/or philosophies related to God.

[altersteve]

[The Trinity is] not a doctrine that directly impacts how we follow Christ.

Do you admit, then, that someone who does not believe in the Trinity can still be a Christian?

[altersteve]

I'm responsible? If the Holy Spirit's role is to teach us all things, then isn't it His responsibility to answer us when we ask a sincere question?

The Holy Ghost does not have the "responsibility" to answer us. He answers us when and if it is appropriate, and only on the Father's terms. He doesn't owe us anything.

Edited August 6, 2012 by altersteve