Freedom Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 Dogs have lungs. Horses, fish, turtles, bats, lizards, and many other animals have lungs, therefore...
MormonFreeThinker Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 Adam had no father so that means he also was part of the self-existing God? Adam did likely have parents that were members of the homo sapiens species.
JLHPROF Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 Adam did likely have parents that were members of the homo sapiens species. Just not on this planet...
mnn727 Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 For instance, I do not agree with most of Freedom's last paragraph in post #4 but many members do.It's OK if you personally don't want to believe it but Its straight out of the Bible dictionary.
Bobbieaware Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) For what it's worth, the New Testament tells us Adam (the one who partook of the tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden) "was the son of God."38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. ( Luke 3)The above makes me wonder how Trinitarians respond to a scriptural pronouncement that says God has a son named Adam, when Christ is supposed to be the 'only begotten?' Edited February 6, 2015 by Bobbieaware 1
MormonFreeThinker Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 Just not on this planet... The evidence doesn't care about our wishful thinking. Modern Human Homo Erectus, Many skulls like that have been found, it is not just a deformed human Stick to the topic.
HOLY CATHOLIC Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 Adam had a creator so he had a Father, and I Am a full blown Trinitarian I believe the Nicaea, Athanasion and Apostles Creed
KevinG Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 I Am a full blown Trinitarian How lovely. I've always wanted to visit the Caribbean.
3DOP Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) For what it's worth, the New Testament tells us Adam (the one who partook of the tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden) "was the son of God."38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. ( Luke 3)The above makes me wonder how Trinitarians respond to a scriptural pronouncement that says God has a son named Adam, when Christ is supposed to be the 'only begotten?' Hi bobbyaware. I would have thought that Mormons also draw a distinction between Adam and Christ as "sons of God". Trinitarians translate John 3 as "only begotten". Do Mormons say that this is a mistranslation? That there are/were many begotten sons of God? But in answer to your question, there are multiple references to sons and daughters of God in Trinitarian Bibles. But they also say that Christ is the "only begotten" among them. We hold for this reason that the distinction "only begotten" does not properly belong to any son of God except Jesus Christ. Where do you go in LDS Scripture to dispute Trintarians against the teaching that Jesus is the only begotten son of God? Trinitarian translations are explicit in more than one place. Here is the most frequently referenced: "For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting." Rory Edited February 6, 2015 by 3DOP
JLHPROF Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 It's OK if you personally don't want to believe it but Its straight out of the Bible dictionary.Which is not scripture.
JLHPROF Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 The evidence doesn't care about our wishful thinking. Modern Human Homo Erectus, Many skulls like that have been found, it is not just a deformed human
3DOP Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) For what it's worth, the New Testament tells us Adam (the one who partook of the tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden) "was the son of God."38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. ( Luke 3)The above makes me wonder how Trinitarians respond to a scriptural pronouncement that says God has a son named Adam, when Christ is supposed to be the 'only begotten I would have thought that Mormons also draw a distinction between Adam and Christ as "sons of God". Trinitarians translate John 3 as "only begotten". Do Mormons say that this is a mistranslation? That there are/were many begotten sons of God? But in answer to your question, there are multiple references to sons and daughters of God in Trinitarian Bibles. But they also say that Christ is the "only begotten" among them. We hold for this reason that the distinction "only begotten" does not properly belong to any son of God except Jesus Christ. Where do you go in LDS Scripture to dispute Trintarians against the teaching that Jesus is the only begotten son of God? Trinitarian translations are explicit in more than one place. Here is the most frequently referenced: "For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting." Rory So do Trinitarians err, according to LDS doctrine by teaching that there is a difference between the son of God who was "only begotten" and sons of God who Trinitarians have mistakenly "supposed" do not fit that category, such as Adam...or even your neighbor in the next pew? Are all who qualify as sons of God in Scripture begotten in the same way with the same implications as Christ? I had never heard this, but if Adam's "begottenness", or your own status as a child of God means the same thing as it means for Him who in Trinitarian Bibles is said to be "the only begotten of the Father", then without controversy we worship a "different Jesus" than you do. The thread question is resolved. That doesn't mean that we are right and you are wrong or vice versa. It just proves that Trinitarian and Mormon worship is different and to concede as much on both sides can be done without anyone thinking that a point has been scored. Edited February 6, 2015 by 3DOP 1
MormonFreeThinker Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) It will not be nice if cardiologists tell you that. You ignored the evidence, try to challenge it. Edited February 7, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker
Levi951 Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 Adam had a creator so he had a Father, and I Am a full blown Trinitarian I believe the Nicaea, Athanasion and Apostles Creed What do you believe about Joesph Smith's First Vision
Bobbieaware Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) So do Trinitarians err, according to LDS doctrine by teaching that there is a difference between the son of God who was "only begotten" and sons of God who Trinitarians have mistakenly "supposed" do not fit that category, such as Adam...or even your neighbor in the next pew?Are all who qualify as sons of God in Scripture begotten in the same way with the same implications as Christ? I had never heard this, but if Adam's "begottenness", or your own status as a child of God means the same thing as it means for Him who in Trinitarian Bibles is said to be "the only begotten of the Father", then without controversy we worship a "different Jesus" than you do. The thread question is resolved. That doesn't mean that we are right and you are wrong or vice versa. It just proves that Trinitarian and Mormon worship is different and to concede as much on both sides can be done without anyone thinking that a point has been scored.Yes, the LDS Church does draw a significant distinction between the way in which God the Father is the father of Adam as compared to the way in which He is also the father of Christ. My wondering was prompted by tha fact that there have been LDS vs 'Evangelical Trinitarian' disagreements on this board wherein the Evangelical Trinitarians have argued that Christ is the only son of God who WAS NOT made a son of God by adoption through the atonement of Christ; so when Luke says God the Father is the father of Adam, and it appears that God the Father's fatherhood of Adam is not a fatherhood in the sense of adoption through the atonement but a fatherhood in the sense of physical creation, then God the Father's fatherhood of Adam appears to be a significant and "deal braking" exception to the Evangelical "divine sonship by adoption only (except for Christ)" rule. Edited February 7, 2015 by Bobbieaware
Storm Rider Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 So do Trinitarians err, according to LDS doctrine by teaching that there is a difference between the son of God who was "only begotten" and sons of God who Trinitarians have mistakenly "supposed" do not fit that category, such as Adam...or even your neighbor in the next pew? Are all who qualify as sons of God in Scripture begotten in the same way with the same implications as Christ? I had never heard this, but if Adam's "begottenness", or your own status as a child of God means the same thing as it means for Him who in Trinitarian Bibles is said to be "the only begotten of the Father", then without controversy we worship a "different Jesus" than you do. The thread question is resolved. That doesn't mean that we are right and you are wrong or vice versa. It just proves that Trinitarian and Mormon worship is different and to concede as much on both sides can be done without anyone thinking that a point has been scored. I see no comparison between Adam and Jesus; they are two wholly different beings. There is one Christ, a member of the Godhead. No other equals him or should. I find each member of the Godhead to be unique and without comparison with the rest of us. They are those who have devised a path for us to follow from Adam on down - all the children of God follow in the path they have set for us. In this respect I find correlation with Catholic worship. We both worship a God of creative desire and action. He has designed a way for us to return to him. We may believe different things, but in those things that are most important - Christ - we believe the same sufficiently to offer us the same path to trod.
mfbukowski Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 So do Trinitarians err, according to LDS doctrine by teaching that there is a difference between the son of God who was "only begotten" and sons of God who Trinitarians have mistakenly "supposed" do not fit that category, such as Adam...or even your neighbor in the next pew? Are all who qualify as sons of God in Scripture begotten in the same way with the same implications as Christ? I had never heard this, but if Adam's "begottenness", or your own status as a child of God means the same thing as it means for Him who in Trinitarian Bibles is said to be "the only begotten of the Father", then without controversy we worship a "different Jesus" than you do. The thread question is resolved. That doesn't mean that we are right and you are wrong or vice versa. It just proves that Trinitarian and Mormon worship is different and to concede as much on both sides can be done without anyone thinking that a point has been scored.None of this is doctrinal. Many believe it, so that's fine with us, but it's not scriptural.You must understand our lack of defined doctrine, so that we can receive personal revelation on these issues.
mfbukowski Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) Yes, the LDS Church does draw a significant distinction between the way in which God the Father is the father of Adam as compared to the way in which He is also the father of Christ. My wondering was prompted by tha fact that there have been LDS vs 'Evangelical Trinitarian' disagreements on this board wherein the Evangelical Trinitarians have argued that Christ is the only son of God who WAS NOT made a son of God by adoption through the atonement of Christ; so when Luke says God the Father is the father of Adam, and it appears that God the Father's fatherhood of Adam is not a fatherhood in the sense of adoption through the atonement but a fatherhood in the sense of physical creation, then God the Father's fatherhood of Adam appears to be a significant and "deal braking" exception to the Evangelical "divine sonship by adoption only (except for Christ)" rule.All of these positions can be included in the idea of a special creation for Adam, as shown in the temple. Even evolution can be made to fit. We don't really have a full scriptural description, hence all the speculation.Scripture is completely ambiguous on the subject. Edited February 7, 2015 by mfbukowski
Bobbieaware Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) All of these positions can be included in the idea of a special creation for Adam, as shown in the temple. Even evolution can be made to fit. We don't really have a full scriptural description, hence all the speculation.Scripture is completely ambiguous on the subject.It wasn't ambiguous to the early brethren of the restoration. They used Luke's genealogy, and it's long chain of sons springing from their fathers and mothers by natural birth, to demonstrate by the process of the natural succession of one father springing from the next oldest father that one could logically conclude Adam was the literal (DNA) son of God and heavenly mother. But of course today's more enlightened members know better than to trust the scriptural analyses of the early brethren. Edited February 7, 2015 by Bobbieaware
3DOP Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 Yes, the LDS Church does draw a significant distinction between the way in which God the Father is the father of Adam as compared to the way in which He is also the father of Christ. My wondering was prompted by tha fact that there have been LDS vs 'Evangelical Trinitarian' disagreements on this board wherein the Evangelical Trinitarians have argued that Christ is the only son of God who WAS NOT made a son of God by adoption through the atonement of Christ; so when Luke says God the Father is the father of Adam, and it appears that God the Father's fatherhood of Adam is not a fatherhood in the sense of adoption through the atonement but a fatherhood in the sense of physical creation, then God the Father's fatherhood of Adam appears to be a significant and "deal braking" exception to the Evangelical "divine sonship by adoption only (except for Christ)" rule. Good answer, bobbieaware. Thank you.
Bobbieaware Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 Good answer, bobbieaware. Thank you.Good answer, bobbieaware. Thank you.You're welcome, gentleman Rory...
HOLY CATHOLIC Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Don't believe first vision story since Joseph Smith in 1835 was still teaching God the Father was a personage of Spirit and said Jesus was a personage of tabernacle so he compared the difference in the Lectures Of Faith
thesometimesaint Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 It wasn't ambiguous to the early brethren of the restoration. They used Luke's genealogy, and it's long chain of sons springing from their fathers and mothers by natural birth, to demonstrate by the process of the natural succession of one father springing from the next oldest father that one could logically conclude Adam was the literal (DNA) son of God and heavenly mother. But of course today's more enlightened members know better than to trust the scriptural analyses of the early brethren. DNA wasn't discovered until well after all the early brethren of the restoration were long dead. Logical conclusions may be valid or they may be invalid for exactly the same reason(s).
thesometimesaint Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Don't believe first vision story since Joseph Smith in 1835 was still teaching God the Father was a personage of Spirit and said Jesus was a personage of tabernacle so he compared the difference in the Lectures Of Faith CFR
MormonFreeThinker Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) CFR If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? Moderators, Please ban HOLY CATHOLIC, he is an anti-mormon street preacher. Edited February 8, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker
Recommended Posts