Does Lds Doctrine Contradict The Bible?

[Vance]

And exactly what proves that "It is impossible" for God to create a free willed being?

Simple really! That which God creates, ex nihilo, can not be independent/free from what he made it to be. (Unless you are going to claim that God didn't "know" what he was doing at the time.) It is what he made it to be, no more, no less.

Quite obviously my interpretation of what involves an "image" is included in the idea presented in this passage as well. Your simply stating that I'm wrong doesn't make it so, but it seems to satisfy you.

Quite obviously, your interpretation limits the full meaning of this passage, as well as the other. Your simply stating that "image" is limited to non-physical characteristics doesn't make it so, but it seems to satisfy you.

[Vance]

The argument was that God was continuing to create.

Has he, somehow, changed?

This is not that. God said he created for six days, and rested. What is happening now is quite different than creation. What is happening now is predictable based on laws God created and set in motion.

So, God sat for eternity in dark nothingness, then suddenly, worked feverishly for 6 days, and has now returned to his previous indolence. What caused him to change from idleness to worker bee? And what caused him to change back? And, isn't he supposed to be "unchanging"?

[danielwoods]

Simple really! That which God creates, ex nihilo, can not be independent/free from what he made it to be. (Unless you are going to claim that God didn't "know" what he was doing at the time.) It is what he made it to be, no more, no less.

And if "he made it to be" a free will agent, then that's what it is, right?

Quite obviously, your interpretation limits the full meaning of this passage, as well as the other. Your simply stating that "image" is limited to non-physical characteristics doesn't make it so, but it seems to satisfy you.

My goal in interpretation is to read what it meant to the original reader. Not attempting to understand what the "full meaning" might be based on what Joseph Smith's interpretation says.

For example, if it meant to reference physical characteristics, then why is it that as soon as Adam is created, he is limited to the Earth? Surely if we have every physical characteristic that God has, then we'd be able to do everything he does, right? Unless, just maybe it's not actually referencing physical characteristics at all.

[Vance]

And if "he made it to be" a free will agent, then that's what it is, right?

Nope!! Then they will react EXACTLY the way he programmed them to. They have no "free" will, only the will he gave them. They are not "free" to act, they can ONLY act the way he programmed them to. If they have the will to sin, it is because that is the will he gave them.

My goal in interpretation is to read what it meant to the original reader.

That is an admirable goal. But you are failing miserably. You need to throw out your Evangelical tainted glasses and actually read the text. The original reader would compare Gen 1 "image" and Gen 5 "image" and understand that it specifically referring to the physical more than the non-physical.

Not attempting to understand what the "full meaning" might be based on what Joseph Smith's interpretation says.

So, you are letting your anti-Mormonism drive your understanding. LOL!!!!

For example, if it meant to reference physical characteristics, then why is it that as soon as Adam is created, he is limited to the Earth?

What does being limited to the earth have to do with being physical? Nothing.

Surely if we have every physical characteristic that God has, then we'd be able to do everything he does, right?

LOL !!! Well, Jesus walked on water with his physical body, so, using your logic we should be able to as well. Your argument is silly.

Unless, just maybe it's not actually referencing physical characteristics at all.

So, by your logic, because Jesus ascended into heaven with his physical body, we should be able to. Because Jesus walked on water, we should be able to. Because Jesus suddenly appeared in a lock room, we should be able to. Your argument is just plain silly. Edited July 9, 2013 by Vance

[Vance]

Daniel,

I did a quick review of the Creation description in Gen 1. The entire chapter is referring to the physical creation. There is absolutely NO reason to assume that any part of "image" is non-physical, other than pure anti-Mormonism that is.

[Flyonthewall]

No one disputes that God joined them. The question is what John revealed in Revelation.

John does not say marriage ends in Revelation. He only says that the time has come for the marriage of the Lamb. It is a future event spoken of in the present tense.

Your contention is that Christ established an eternal law of marriage, that replaced the mosaic law of marriage. Please show me where he did this?

Not quite. Eternal marriage was instituted by God with Adam and Eve. The authority to perform eternal marriages was not found in the Levitical priesthood, which was instituted under the Mosaic law, it is found in the Melchizedek priesthood, which was bestowed upon the Apostles by Christ.

Near as I can tell, "given in marriage" isn't a verb, but a phrase, which describes the state of being of those "given in marriage."

Men marry. Women are given in marriage(Who gives this woman...). Both describe an action. "Married" is the state of those who marry and are given in marriage...once they are married.

Right. If I was only relying on Academia and scholarship alone, you'd have a point.

You have put a lot of trust into this "perfect passive" translation, thinking there is only one way to translate it, which disagrees with the majority of translations out there. Sometimes words get in the way of the message...kind of like not seeing the forest because of all the trees. This is why God has provided prophets to convey the true message of the scriptures. Who is the prophet that conveyed that translation to you?

[pogi]

This thread is being started at the suggestion of Tacenda, but anyone may contribute to it.

On another thread, I contradicted her assertion that the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "clearly" contradicts the Bible.

What I have observed over the years when such an assertion is made is that what the commenter is really saying is this (or some variation thereof):

LDS doctrine contradicts (fill in the blank here*) of the Bible.

*Choose one or more:

1. my interpretation

2. my minister's interpretation

3. some career anti-Mormon's interpretation

4. someone else's ill-informed or ill thought-out interpretation

5. Wrong translation

[danielwoods]

Daniel,

I did a quick review of the Creation description in Gen 1. The entire chapter is referring to the physical creation. There is absolutely NO reason to assume that any part of "image" is non-physical, other than pure anti-Mormonism that is.

Only problem is that God's physicality isn't described, ever.

[danielwoods]

John does not say marriage ends in Revelation. He only says that the time has come for the marriage of the Lamb. It is a future event spoken of in the present tense.

I haven't said that, "John said marriage ends" what I have pointed out is that only one marriage is mentioned in Heaven, in John's revelation (a prophet). In essence, the focus is on God and his son, as it should be. Our marriages ended as Paul states in Rom. 7 (another prophet).

Not quite. Eternal marriage was instituted by God with Adam and Eve. The authority to perform eternal marriages was not found in the Levitical priesthood, which was instituted under the Mosaic law, it is found in the Melchizedek priesthood, which was bestowed upon the Apostles by Christ.

Maybe you would be so kind as to point out where this is found in the Bible.

First problem, is Eternal marriage wasn't instituted by God with Adam and Eve.

Second problem, is if it was, then why wasn't it also taught or bestowed by the Levitical priesthood?

Third problem, Christ mentioned Adam and Eve, "in the beginning..." however, he didn't mention it as being an eternal state of marriage, only that man shouldn't put "asunder", indicating the context is limited to the Earth.

Men marry. Women are given in marriage(Who gives this woman...). Both describe an action. "Married" is the state of those who marry and are given in marriage...once they are married.

I agree, that is what I said. It's a phrase describing their state of being.

You have put a lot of trust into this "perfect passive" translation, thinking there is only one way to translate it, which disagrees with the majority of translations out there. Sometimes words get in the way of the message...kind of like not seeing the forest because of all the trees. This is why God has provided prophets to convey the true message of the scriptures. Who is the prophet that conveyed that translation to you?

The prophet is Matthew, he has relayed his message in his words.

You are correct. The translation that I think is correct disagrees with the majority of the translations out there. However, it disagrees with none of the literal (word for word) translations. Further, it agrees with what I already understand to be accurate and true about God and Heaven. We (and no prophet) tells Heaven how it will be. We don't bind anything in Heaven, ever. We conform to God's will, not the other way around. That's why the translation of "what you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven..." just didn't sound right, so I did more investigation. It's not the first verse that I've found where the tense of the words changes what the English actually says. It's quite interesting to me, as I've said before.

Another one I have found is in the great commission, where the word "Go" is not in the imperative tense, rather the word "make disciples" is, meaning the imperative in that command, isn't to go, but to make disciples.

[teddyaware]

5. Wrong translation

The main problem I see here with the Evangelicals is that they have made the Bible their "prophet." They don't seem to realize there isn't a single instance throughout all of Biblical history when the scriptures alone were used to guide the Lord's church. Rather, the saints who lived contemporaneously with the prophets who wrote the books of the Bible never knew of a church without living prophets to properly interpret and apply the Holy Scriptures. Even so, our EV friends think their historically unbiblical way of practicing the Christian faith is perfectly normal and acceptable because it's all they know. Meanwhile, there isn't a single faithful church member who lived during Biblical times who would recognize the possibility of a true and living church without living prophets to lead and guide them.

So what happens when this 'sola scriptura' form of Christianity is practiced? What happens is that he EV churches need to produce individuals who seem to have all the knowledge and authority of the ancient prophets, yet they are placed in the impossible situation of having to admit they are not prophets. These "Biblical Scholars" are supposed to speak and act as if they are indeed apostles because they read, study and ponder the Bible -- the only "modern prophet" they think they will ever need -- yet they are confused, mystified and left to wonder at every turn, and often disagree with each other's interpretations of scripture. This is not the Biblical pattern for how the Lord's Church should be run. Rather, it's a newfangled way of running the church that the ancient saints would not at all recognize. For those ancient saints only knew of a Church with living Apostles and Prophets to lead and guide them. For those ancient saints, the Bible alone was most certainly not enough.

Edited July 10, 2013 by teddyaware

[danielwoods]

The main problem I see here with the Evangelicals is that they have made the Bible their "prophet." They don't seem to realize there isn't a single instance throughout all of Biblical history when the scriptures alone were used to guide the Lord's church. Rather, the saints who lived contemporaneously with the prophets who wrote the books of the Bible never knew of a church without living prophets to properly interpret and apply the Holy Scriptures. Even so, our EV friends think their historically unbiblical way of practicing the Christian faith is perfectly normal and acceptable because it's all they know. Meanwhile, there isn't a single faithful church member who lived during Biblical times who would recognize the possibility of a true and living church without living prophets to lead and guide them.

So what happens when this 'sola scriptura' form of Christianity is practiced? The EV churches need to produce individuals who seem to have all the knowledge and authority of the ancient prophets, yet they are placed in the impossible situation of having to admit they are not prophets. They are supposed to speak and act as if they are indeed apostles because they read, study and ponder the Bible -- the only "modern prophet" they think they will ever need; yet they are confused, mystified and left to wonder at every turn and often disagree with each other's interpretations of scripture. This is not the Biblical pattern for how the Lord's Church should be run. Rather, it's a newfangled way of running the church that the ancient saints would not at all recognize. For those ancient saints only knew of a Church with living Apostles and Prophets to lead and guide them. For those folks, the Bible alone most certainly wasn't enough.

The most interesting thing about this statement is that if the tables were turned, I'd be hearing, "boy those EV's sure need to listen to what the Word says more..."

However, since I've presented a situation that is not so easily dismissed. Now, the arguement is, "that they have made the Bible their "prophet." They don't seem to realize there isn't a single instance throughout all of Biblical history when the scriptures alone were used to guide the Lord's church."

And yet it was Jesus who chided some Jews saying, they were "¹³ Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye." (Mark 7) So, the whole, "let's just listen to the prophets" mantra didn't work out so well for them did it? Because anyone can claim to be a prophet. And anyone can claim to know what God says. The only thing that doesn't change is God's word.

As Paul said to Timothy, "study to show thyself approved...." (notice he didn't say, "hey, just listen to the prophets...")

One last point. The whole "at least we have a prophet" argument ignores one thing. We EV's believe that everyone has the same access to God, that the prophets of old did. Christ came and blew the lid off all that Old Testament paradigm (we don't pour new wine into old wine skins). Now no one is more special than another. We all have the same access now to the throne of grace. We are all priests, and prophets and what ever else God has for us. We are all connected directly to him, now.

[Flyonthewall]

I haven't said that, "John said marriage ends" what I have pointed out is that only one marriage is mentioned in Heaven, in John's revelation (a prophet). In essence, the focus is on God and his son, as it should be. Our marriages ended as Paul states in Rom. 7 (another prophet).

First problem is that just because John's revelation deals with God and His son, does not mean our marriages do not last beyond death.

Second problem is, Romans 7 in no way states that our marriages end with our death. It is talking about dominion of a law, and likened the dominion of a husband to a wife. A husband's dominion ends with death while the wife is still alive.

In like manner, the dominion of the Mosaic law was in effect while the Mosaic law was alive. When the Mosaic law died(was fulfilled), the second husband, namely the Law of Christ has dominion over us.

Romans 7 is talking about dominion, not marriages.

Maybe you would be so kind as to point out where this is found in the Bible.

First problem, is Eternal marriage wasn't instituted by God with Adam and Eve.

I have pointed it out. You have rejected it with a wave of your hand.

Second problem, is if it was, then why wasn't it also taught or bestowed by the Levitical priesthood?

Because the Levitical was a lessor priesthood, just like the Mosaic law was a lessor law(Heb 7).

Third problem, Christ mentioned Adam and Eve, "in the beginning..." however, he didn't mention it as being an eternal state of marriage, only that man shouldn't put "asunder", indicating the context is limited to the Earth.

Jesus stated that from the beginning, Man and Woman were meant to leave their parents and get married, to become one. They were not meant to divorce(be put asunder). This does not indicate marriages are limited to earth, but more indicates they are not to be split apart nor meant to end.

I agree, that is what I said. It's a phrase describing their state of being.

The prophet is Matthew, he has relayed his message in his words.

You are correct. The translation that I think is correct disagrees with the majority of the translations out there. However, it disagrees with none of the literal (word for word) translations. Further, it agrees with what I already understand to be accurate and true about God and Heaven. We (and no prophet) tells Heaven how it will be. We don't bind anything in Heaven, ever. We conform to God's will, not the other way around. That's why the translation of "what you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven..." just didn't sound right, so I did more investigation. It's not the first verse that I've found where the tense of the words changes what the English actually says. It's quite interesting to me, as I've said before.

The problem with "word for word" translations are they are very poor in conveying a message. You would know this if you have ever tried using an internet translator or speak a second language.

Another one I have found is in the great commission, where the word "Go" is not in the imperative tense, rather the word "make disciples" is, meaning the imperative in that command, isn't to go, but to make disciples.

I don't see "make disciples" anywhere in that scripture...

" 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:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

The command was to teach and baptize, the "go" part was simply part of the teach and baptize command - go teach, go baptize.

[teddyaware]

The most interesting thing about this statement is that if the tables were turned, I'd be hearing, "boy those EV's sure need to listen to what the Word says more..."

However, since I've presented a situation that is not so easily dismissed. Now, the arguement is, "that they have made the Bible their "prophet." They don't seem to realize there isn't a single instance throughout all of Biblical history when the scriptures alone were used to guide the Lord's church."

And yet it was Jesus who chided some Jews saying, they were "¹³ Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye." (Mark 7) So, the whole, "let's just listen to the prophets" mantra didn't work out so well for them did it? Because anyone can claim to be a prophet. And anyone can claim to know what God says. The only thing that doesn't change is God's word.

As Paul said to Timothy, "study to show thyself approved...." (notice he didn't say, "hey, just listen to the prophets...")

One last point. The whole "at least we have a prophet" argument ignores one thing. We EV's believe that everyone has the same access to God, that the prophets of old did. Christ came and blew the lid off all that Old Testament paradigm (we don't pour new wine into old wine skins). Now no one is more special than another. We all have the same access now to the throne of grace. We are all priests, and prophets and what ever else God has for us. We are all connected directly to him, now.

You're making my very point with the following:

"And yet it was Jesus who chided some Jews saying, they were "¹³ Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye." (Mark 7) So, the whole, "let's just listen to the prophets" mantra didn't work out so well for them did it? Because anyone can claim to be a prophet. And anyone can claim to know what God says. The only thing that doesn't change is God's word."

The Jews were honoring the dead prophets through their excessive veneration of the scriptures (as they then had them), while at the same time they were rejecting living revelation and scripture in their own day (in this case from the Lord). I'm somewhat astonished you didn't realize you were making my own argument for me.

The problem with these Jews, whom the Lord was contending with in the portion you quote above, was that they didn't believe in living prophets and even wanted to murder them. The Lord is putting these scripture fetshists in their place because they thought the writings of the dead prophets were sufficient for their salvation, but the scriptures were not enough -- they needed current revelators and revelation in order to know the truth. I'm disappointed with your analysis, David, I expect more from you.

Edited July 10, 2013 by teddyaware

[halconero]

It isn't specifically recorded, but I think it's safe to say that when God presented Eve to him, and Adam replied with, "flesh of my flesh..." it was done. They were married before the fall.

I don't know your religious background, so do you believe that the Garden of Eden was the ideal situation and that Adam and Eve screwed up and hence we have a fallen world?

Edited July 10, 2013 by halconero

[Jude2]

The most interesting thing about this statement is that if the tables were turned, I'd be hearing, "boy those EV's sure need to listen to what the Word says more..."

However, since I've presented a situation that is not so easily dismissed. Now, the arguement is, "that they have made the Bible their "prophet." They don't seem to realize there isn't a single instance throughout all of Biblical history when the scriptures alone were used to guide the Lord's church."

And yet it was Jesus who chided some Jews saying, they were "¹³ Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye." (Mark 7) So, the whole, "let's just listen to the prophets" mantra didn't work out so well for them did it?

Odd you would pick that passage to defend yourself.

You are the one holding to “the tradition of men”, those Jews hadn't had a prophet since Malachi.

[Tacenda]

I don't know your religious background, so do you believe that the Garden of Eden was the ideal situation and that Adam and Eve screwed up and hence we have a fallen world?

I'm going to venture to say he is going to say an emphatic YES! And also, that Adam & Eve would have proceated in Eden. And that HF is spirit and took on a body of flesh to save them, but can't wait for Daniel to explain it much better.

[Vance]

Only problem is that God's physicality isn't described, ever.

Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures. Gen. 1: 27 God created man in his own image. Gen. 5: 1 God created man, in the likeness of God made he him. Gen. 9: 6 in the image of God made he man. Gen. 18: 33 Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing. Gen. 32: 30 I have seen God face to face. Ex. 24: 10 they saw the God of Israel, there was under his feet. Ex. 31: 18 (Deut. 9: 10) written with the finger of God. Ex. 33: 11 Lord spake unto Moses face to face. Ex. 33: 23 thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not. Num. 12: 8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth. Matt. 3: 17 a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son. Matt. 4: 4 every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Matt. 17: 5 a voice out of the cloud. John 14: 9 he that hath seen me hath seen the Father. Acts 7: 56 the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. Rom. 8: 29 predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son. 2 Cor. 4: 4 Christ, who is the image of God. Philip. 2: 6 who, being in the form of God. Philip. 3: 21 our vile body . . . fashioned like unto his glorious body. Col. 1: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God. Heb. 1: 3 the express image of his person. James 3: 9 men which are made after the similitude of God. 1 Jn. 3: 2 when he shall appear, we shall be like him. Rev. 22: 4 they shall see his face.

[Vance]

You're making my very point with the following:

"And yet it was Jesus who chided some Jews saying, they were "¹³ Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye." (Mark 7) So, the whole, "let's just listen to the prophets" mantra didn't work out so well for them did it? Because anyone can claim to be a prophet. And anyone can claim to know what God says. The only thing that doesn't change is God's word."

The Jews were honoring the dead prophets through their excessive veneration of the scriptures (as they then had them), while at the same time they were rejecting living revelation and scripture in their own day (in this case from the Lord). I'm somewhat astonished you didn't realize you were making my own argument for me.

The problem with these Jews, whom the Lord was contending with in the portion you quote above, was that they didn't believe in living prophets and even wanted to murder them. The Lord is putting these scripture fetshists in their place because they thought the writings of the dead prophets were sufficient for their salvation, but the scriptures were not enough -- they needed current revelators and revelation in order to know the truth. I'm disappointed with your analysis, David, I expect more from you.

Ouch!!!! I think that one is going to leave a welt.

[teddyaware]

Ouch!!!! I think that one is going to leave a welt.

My commentary on Daniel's post is intended to be a bit of good natured teasing. hence my editing to add the smiley face at the end of my comments. Hopefully, he'll have a chuckle over his oversight and won't take my barbs too seriously.

Edited July 10, 2013 by teddyaware

[danielwoods]

First problem is that just because John's revelation deals with God and His son, does not mean our marriages do not last beyond death.

Second problem is, Romans 7 in no way states that our marriages end with our death. It is talking about dominion of a law, and likened the dominion of a husband to a wife. A husband's dominion ends with death while the wife is still alive.

In like manner, the dominion of the Mosaic law was in effect while the Mosaic law was alive. When the Mosaic law died(was fulfilled), the second husband, namely the Law of Christ has dominion over us.

Romans 7 is talking about dominion, not marriages.

Right, and an argument from silence cuts both ways. Just as it doesn't mean "our marriages do not last beyond death." It also means the opposite, which means an argument from silence is irrelevant. Which is why I have focused on what the Revelation actually says, not what it doesn't say.

As for Romans 7, the argument is made that we died to the law of moses (vs. 4 & 6), and are therefore released from that law, or dominion if you want to put it that way. It doesn't say that the Law of Moses died. Then it makes this point, which is relevant to this discussion, it states that, "if her husband be dead, she is free from that law." (v. 3) Which indicates that the Law of Moses doesn't reach beyond our death. And then makes an interesting point, "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God."

Notice, that not only does it state that the Mosaic law ends at our death, it also points out that we should be married to Christ.

I have pointed it out. You have rejected it with a wave of your hand.

Because the Levitical was a lessor priesthood, just like the Mosaic law was a lessor law(Heb 7).

Jesus stated that from the beginning, Man and Woman were meant to leave their parents and get married, to become one. They were not meant to divorce(be put asunder). This does not indicate marriages are limited to earth, but more indicates they are not to be split apart nor meant to end.

Notice that it doesn't use the word "eternal" or "forever" or anything like that. The context is here on Earth. Again, an argument from silence can mean anything you want it to mean. We could say with equal validity that it is for a thousand years, or a million years, because they have an equal amount of evidence as your claim.

The problem with "word for word" translations are they are very poor in conveying a message. You would know this if you have ever tried using an internet translator or speak a second language.

Fully aware of the problems. And with that in mind, a word for word interlinear can be a valuable tool. Because all translations, that are easier to read, also make interpretation judgements that I may or may not agree with.

I don't see "make disciples" anywhere in that scripture...

" 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:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

The command was to teach and baptize, the "go" part was simply part of the teach and baptize command - go teach, go baptize.

Ok. Notice the greek word for "Make Disciples" in verse 19, and notice that the "Go" part is not in the imperative tense, but it appears to be in a past tense, as in, "having gone" - The greek word translated in the KJV for Teaching - [3100 e] matheteusate is "make disciples"

http://interlinearbible.org/matthew/28.htm

My only point is that this isn't the first time I've seen this sort of thing.

[danielwoods]

You're making my very point with the following:

"And yet it was Jesus who chided some Jews saying, they were "¹³ Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye." (Mark 7) So, the whole, "let's just listen to the prophets" mantra didn't work out so well for them did it? Because anyone can claim to be a prophet. And anyone can claim to know what God says. The only thing that doesn't change is God's word."

The Jews were honoring the dead prophets through their excessive veneration of the scriptures (as they then had them), while at the same time they were rejecting living revelation and scripture in their own day (in this case from the Lord). I'm somewhat astonished you didn't realize you were making my own argument for me.

The problem with these Jews, whom the Lord was contending with in the portion you quote above, was that they didn't believe in living prophets and even wanted to murder them. The Lord is putting these scripture fetshists in their place because they thought the writings of the dead prophets were sufficient for their salvation, but the scriptures were not enough -- they needed current revelators and revelation in order to know the truth. I'm disappointed with your analysis, David, I expect more from you.

You said, "The Jews were honoring the dead prophets through their excessive veneration of the scriptures..." This statement is false.

Jesus said to them specifically, "¹⁰ For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

¹¹ But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

¹² And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

¹³ Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye."

Jesus was criticizing their dismissing scripture ("none effect"), for their more recent traditions or teachings.

[danielwoods]

I don't know your religious background, so do you believe that the Garden of Eden was the ideal situation and that Adam and Eve screwed up and hence we have a fallen world?

Yes.

[danielwoods]

I'm going to venture to say he is going to say an emphatic YES! And also, that Adam & Eve would have proceated in Eden. And that HF is spirit and took on a body of flesh to save them, but can't wait for Daniel to explain it much better.

Sorry to disappoint you. After reading his question again, it appeared to me more of a set up for another question. While everything you said is accurate for the most part (though the father didn't take on a body of flesh exactly). I was hesitant to say much more, not knowing what the followup question/point was to be.

[danielwoods]

Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures. Gen. 1: 27 God created man in his own image. Gen. 5: 1 God created man, in the likeness of God made he him. Gen. 9: 6 in the image of God made he man. Gen. 18: 33 Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing. Gen. 32: 30 I have seen God face to face. Ex. 24: 10 they saw the God of Israel, there was under his feet. Ex. 31: 18 (Deut. 9: 10) written with the finger of God. Ex. 33: 11 Lord spake unto Moses face to face. Ex. 33: 23 thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not. Num. 12: 8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth. Matt. 3: 17 a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son. Matt. 4: 4 every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Matt. 17: 5 a voice out of the cloud. John 14: 9 he that hath seen me hath seen the Father. Acts 7: 56 the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. Rom. 8: 29 predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son. 2 Cor. 4: 4 Christ, who is the image of God. Philip. 2: 6 who, being in the form of God. Philip. 3: 21 our vile body . . . fashioned like unto his glorious body. Col. 1: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God. Heb. 1: 3 the express image of his person. James 3: 9 men which are made after the similitude of God. 1 Jn. 3: 2 when he shall appear, we shall be like him. Rev. 22: 4 they shall see his face.

Looks like you went to a lot of work compiling that. Wow.

However, I said, "Only problem is that God's physicality isn't described, ever."

Notice that your quotes don't describe his physical nature. In other words, what color of hair does he have? How long is his hair, and does he have a beard? How tall is he? How many fingers on his hands? What sort of clothes does he wear? Where does he live, what does he eat? Does he walk with a limp? Does he wear shoes? Does he bleed, and if so is it red?

No details of God's physicality is ever described.

Edited July 10, 2013 by danielwoods

[teddyaware]

You said, "The Jews were honoring the dead prophets through their excessive veneration of the scriptures..." This statement is false.

Jesus said to them specifically, "¹⁰ For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

¹¹ But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

¹² And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

¹³ Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye."

Jesus was criticizing their dismissing scripture ("none effect"), for their more recent traditions or teachings.

And a living prophet was needed to set them straight so as to teach them what their scriptures really meant. Without a living prophet to guide them, they were lost. You said, "The only thing that doesn't change is God's word." I say the only thing that did not change through all of Biblical history is that the body of scripture was being almost constantly enlarged and added to; and there isn't a time throughout all of Biblical history when the Lord's people didn't have both scripture and living prophets at the same time. Your idea of a church being true with scripture only but not living prophets is a new idea found nowhere in the Bible. None of the New Testament period people could have understood the meaning of the Old Testament without living prophets to open the eyes of their understanding to know its truths. Why do you not understand that the whole of Mark 7 proves contemporaneous revelation was needed in order for the truth of the scriptures to be established and falsehood overthrown? Without living prophets and continuing revelation, the Jews of that time would have been left in darkness -- their scriptures weren't enough. Think about it...

Edited July 11, 2013 by teddyaware