danielwoods Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 There are plenty of places in the Bible where it is said that people see God. Here is the issue. When man became fallen, one of the consequences was removal from the presence of God. The fallen nature of man does not allow man to dwell in the presence of God or see God. When the text says that man cannot see God, it is referring to the "natural man" or "fallen man". However, Redeemed mankind CAN and WILL see God and dwell in the presence of God. The LDS position is entirely consistent with scripture. Here is a very interesting aspect of this discussion. Remember from the Old Testament account that Moses, when he descended from speaking with the Lord face to face, his face was still glowing. Sometimes other people could not even withstand Moses' face after these encounters, therefore Moses would put on a veil. (Exodus 34: 34) But whenever Moses went in before the LORD to speak with Him, he would take off the veil until he came out; and whenever he came out and spoke to the sons of Israel what he had been commanded, 35the sons of Israel would see the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses' face shone. So Moses would replace the veil over his face until he went in to speak with Him. This scripture is consistent with the Bible, and is found in the canonized scripture of the LDS, the Pearl of Great Price: 1 The words of God, which he spake unto Moses at a time when Moses was caught up into an exceedingly high mountain 2 And he saw God face to face, and he talked with him, and the glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure his presence. 3 And God spake unto Moses, ... 4 And, behold, thou art my son; wherefore look, and I will show thee the workmanship of mine hands; but not all, for my works are without end, and also my words, for they never cease. 5 Wherefore, no man can behold all my works, except he behold all my glory; and no man can behold all my glory, and afterwards remain in the flesh on the earth. 6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all. 7 And now, behold, this one thing I show unto thee, Moses, my son, for thou art in the world, and now I show it unto thee. 8 And it came to pass that Moses looked, and beheld the world upon which he was created; and Moses beheld the world and the ends thereof, and all the children of men which are, and which were created; of the same he greatly marveled and wondered. 9 And the presence of God withdrew from Moses, that his glory was not upon Moses; and Moses was left unto himself. And as he was left unto himself, he fell unto the earth. 10 And it came to pass that it was for the space of many hours before Moses did again receive his natural strength like unto man; and he said unto himself: Now, for this cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed. 11 But now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him. -stephen As I posted above, those encounters were not with God the Father. As Jesus said, no one has seen the Father.
saemo Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) There are plenty of places in the Bible where it is said that people see God.Here is the issue. When man became fallen, one of the consequences was removal from the presence of God. The fallen nature of man does not allow man to dwell in the presence of God or see God. When the text says that man cannot see God, it is referring to the "natural man" or "fallen man". No one has seen the Father except the Son.We are not in the immediate presence of the Father in this life, as Adam and Eve were before the Fall. We are in a time of the already but not yet. The Kingdom of God has been established on earth, but it is not yet fully realized. This will occur at Christ's return, our resurrection, and final judgement. Then will what Christ established be fully realized. Edited June 4, 2015 by saemo
saemo Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) The dogmas ABSOLUTELY developed. On one side, you had people arguing that Jesus Christ and God the Father were two separate beings, the Son was begotten/created by the Father.On the other side, you had essentially modalists, who said that it was a single being/substance.Emperor Constantine wanted to consolidate power at the head of this new Christian empire, so he ordered the ecclesiastic leaders to meet together at the council of Nicea and essentially forced them to hash it all out. In order to appease both sides of the argument, the Trinity dogma was born as a compromise. Instead of Jesus being "begotten" as normally understood, they claimed that he was "Eternally Begotten" , meaning that from eternity past to eternity future, the Son is being constantly emanated from or issued forth from the Father. This was an entirely new/novel concept. And oh, while yes they are separate and distinct "persons" (they redefined the meaning of "person"), they described that it really is a single being/substance after all (modeled after the well accepted Greek philosophical concept of Plato/Aristotle's "unmoved mover" god in order to make it more palatable to the Roman culture).It is word games and nonsense and unbiblical, and the ecclesiastical leaders claim to understand it, while the "uneducated masses" were/are too confused by this terminology in order to attempt to argue or think about it. "Oh, just accept it as a 'mystery'".-stephenHeresies arose, and were addressed by those who had the Apostolic authority to do so, under th guidance of the Holy Spirit. To believe otherwise, is to believe Jesus wasn't serious when He said he would be with us until the end of the age. Or, you think "an age" is a short span of time.Doctrines develop, as the Holy Spirit leads us to a greater and fuller understanding of dogmas. The dogmas don't change. We view Nicaea as the Holy Spirit guiding ordinary men towards cracking the proverbial nut. The understanding and descriptions (doctrines) of revelations of God as one, and God as Theee(dogmas), brought to an articulation that brings us to grasp ever so slightly, what God has revealed. Happening where and when it was needed. We don't view this as coincidental, but providential.The misrepenstation of Nicaea, by LDS and others, is unfortunate, but Truth will always prevail. Edited June 4, 2015 by saemo
saemo Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 No, I'm not being obtuse, and thank you for finally providing a clear position on the purpose of the resurrection in your belief which takes into account your beliefs on the nature of God and Christ. And thank you for answering my questions directly. I appreciate it, although I'd have a hard time identifying some of these beliefs in Biblical text without doing some major interpretative reading.It's clearly stated, basic Christian doctrine. It takes fancy interpretive work through the lense of non-Christian scripture, to explain away what is so clearly taught.
saemo Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 I believe that people have been misinterpreting scripture for much longer than 2000 years. Jesus Christ himself said that even the Jews did not understand their own scriptures. That is why they rejected Him. The same is true for those who reject the prophet Joseph Smith. They lean on their own understanding rather than asking God. Whoa, whoa, whoa. That is an ENTIRELY different context. Jesus Christ, for example, would NEVER, while standing on the right hand of the Father, say, "There is no god besides me". Your attempt to misuse the context is appalling. Jehovah when saying "there are no gods besides me" is using an old Hebrew idiom in comparison with the false gods/idols of other nations. The idiom means that He is superior to all others, as well as saying that there is no other source of salvation. "Besides me there is no Savior". In contrast, in the context of Jesus referring to God the Father, Jesus says "My Father is greater than I". He says that He had not yet ascended to His father and to His God. People ask me, "Are you saying that as Deity, Jesus Christ has a God. God has a God?" The answer is yes. Hebrews 1:9 reiterates it, "Thou (Jesus Christ) hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God (the Father), hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." God, the Son, was chosen/anointed above the other sons. Chosen and anointed by His God, the Father. Why, because he loved righteousness. He was superior/preeminent above the other sons of God. So, please spare me your misuse of context, where Jehovah is comparing himself to false idols/gods, and try to place those phrases in the context of Jesus comparing Himself to the Father. It is just another example of poor interpretation and misuse of the text. -stephenFYI, you continually quote scripture and say things that I could agree with, and I start thinking wow, he's got it. Then you make a sharp left turn to conclusions that defy the very things you quote and have said. It's kind of fascinating.
saemo Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 It's not just to be taken literally. It was written literally. And we are obligated to do so because eternal life is found in knowing the true nature of deity.I don't agree. Eternal life is in and through Jesus Christ. There will be no theological test at our judgement. 1
Flyonthewall Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) Exodus 24:9 Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up 10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. 11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank. Exodus 33:23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen. Above are two descriptions of encounters with a pre-incarnate Christ. As Jesus said, no one has seen God the Father at anytime. Period.Jesus also said that if "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father". Has nobody seen Jesus? I will grant you that this may not be what you are looking for. Acts 7:55 "But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God." Stephen claims, or it is claimed that Stephen saw God and Jesus Christ together. I take it this did not happen...? or will you say that he didn't really see God... just His glory? This got the Jews very angry with Stephen because he was not supposed to do that... Rule #1 - NOBODY can see God. Rule #2 - If anybody sees God, stone them to death, see Rule #1. John 6:46 states: " 46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father." How many men of God are there in the scriptures? Jesus states that men of God have seen the Father. If Jesus was the ONLY one to ever have seen the father, why is it worded this way and not " Only I have seen the Father"? What is the implication here? Edited June 4, 2015 by Flyonthewall 2
stephenpurdy Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 When they made idols of other gods, they were making an image of the gods. They made no idols of the One God who they worshipped, certainly because they were commanded to not to. But this commandment didn't stop them from waywardly making idols of the gods in which they falsely believed were real. If they chose to make an image of God (not the gods), what would that image look like? A burning bush? A pillar of fire? A cloud? A man? There is no image to be made of the God who they worshipped because they understood that God cannot be seen. The pillar of fire was not God, and the cloud was not God. Those things OBSCURED their view of God. God spoke through the burning bush, but the bush was not God. Few were in fact privileged to see God. For starters, God has feet. (Exodus 24:10) Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. -stephen 2
stephenpurdy Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 FYI, you continually quote scripture and say things that I could agree with, and I start thinking wow, he's got it. Then you make a sharp left turn to conclusions that defy the very things you quote and have said. It's kind of fascinating. What is fascinating is that you are not able to articulate exactly why you think my conclusions are incorrect. I suspect you have not read my posts closely enough to understand the actual point being made. Read my post again, and then give it a try. I mean try to explain why or how you think I am going wrong. -stephen
danielwoods Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Jesus also said that if "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father". Has nobody seen Jesus? I will grant you that this may not be what you are looking for.Acts 7:55"But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God."Stephen claims, or it is claimed that Stephen saw God and Jesus Christ together. I take it this did not happen...? or will you say that he didn't really see God... just His glory?This got the Jews very angry with Stephen because he was not supposed to do that...Rule #1 - NOBODY can see God.Rule #2 - If anybody sees God, stone them to death, see Rule #1.John 6:46 states:" 46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father."How many men of God are there in the scriptures? Jesus states that men of God have seen the Father.If Jesus was the ONLY one to ever have seen the father, why is it worded this way and not " Only I have seen the Father"? What is the implication here? If seeing Jesus was seeing the Father, then why would Jesus claim that no one has seen him except the Son? Stephen had a vision of Christ and the Father, yes. Not actually seeing them. Jesus doesn't state that "men of God have seen the Father." Rather, only "the one who came from God…" himself, Jesus.
danielwoods Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 The pillar of fire was not God, and the cloud was not God. Those things OBSCURED their view of God. God spoke through the burning bush, but the bush was not God. Few were in fact privileged to see God. For starters, God has feet. (Exodus 24:10) Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. -stephen False. Answered this in post #625
thesometimesaint Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Exodus 24:9 Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up 10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. 11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.Exodus 33:23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen. Above are two descriptions of encounters with a pre-incarnate Christ. As Jesus said, no one has seen God the Father at anytime. Period. Adam and Eve heard God walking in the cool of the day.SEE Genesis 3:8And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
JLHPROF Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 As I posted above, those encounters were not with God the Father. As Jesus said, no one has seen the Father. So NONE of these were with God the Father? - http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/seen.html I especially like Genesis 32 where Jacob "wrestled" with God (clearly showing God had a physical body). FYI, this is also a direct record of Jacob receiving what is called the Temple Endowment in the LDS Church, although written with a touch of dramatic flair.
coolrok7 Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Jesus: "destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up" He was speaking of the temple of His body says John. Life in Himself is His Deity which we don't have. Death is the separation of the spirit from the body The body is dead, not the spirit as spirits don't die; bodies do.
danielwoods Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Adam and Eve heard God walking in the cool of the day.SEE Genesis 3:8And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. Notice it doesn't say they heard the "Father" walking in the garden. Hint hint… if it's not the Father, who could it be? So NONE of these were with God the Father? - http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/seen.html I especially like Genesis 32 where Jacob "wrestled" with God (clearly showing God had a physical body). FYI, this is also a direct record of Jacob receiving what is called the Temple Endowment in the LDS Church, although written with a touch of dramatic flair. Clearly showing that either a pre-incarnate Jesus was there, or an Angel. Are you arguing that Jesus was incorrect, that no one but the Son has seen the Father?
JLHPROF Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Notice it doesn't say they heard the "Father" walking in the garden. Hint hint… if it's not the Father, who could it be? Clearly showing that either a pre-incarnate Jesus was there, or an Angel. Are you arguing that Jesus was incorrect, that no one but the Son has seen the Father? Yes. But that is based in Mormonism, not in the Bible alone, so there is no point in arguing it.
JLHPROF Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Notice it doesn't say they heard the "Father" walking in the garden. Hint hint… if it's not the Father, who could it be? Clearly showing that either a pre-incarnate Jesus was there, or an Angel. Are you arguing that Jesus was incorrect, that no one but the Son has seen the Father? According to the "Names of God" bible using the original names the being that Jacob saw/wrestled in Genesis 32 and therefore has a body, was Eloheim (The Father), not Yaweh (The Son). Jacob’s Fourth Encounter with God—He Wrestles with God22 During that night he got up and gathered his two wives, his two slaves and his eleven children and crossed at the shallow part of the Jabbok River. 23 After he sent them across the stream, he sent everything else across. 24 So Jacob was left alone. Then a man wrestled with him until dawn. 25 When the man saw that he could not win against Jacob, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that it was dislocated as they wrestled. 26 Then the man said, “Let me go; it’s almost dawn.”But Jacob answered, “I won’t let you go until you bless me.”27 So the man asked him, “What’s your name?”“Jacob,” he answered.28 The man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob but Israel [He Struggles With God], because you have struggled with Elohim and with men—and you have won.”29 Jacob said, “Please tell me your name.”The man answered, “Why do you ask for my name?” Then he blessed Jacob there. 30 So Jacob named that place Peniel [Face of God], because he said, “I have seen Elohim face to face, but my life was saved.” 31 The sun rose as he passed Penuel.[b] He was limping because of his hip. 32 (Therefore, even today the people of Israel do not eat the muscle of the thigh attached to the hip socket because Elohim touched the socket of Jacob’s hip at the muscle of the thigh.)
danielwoods Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Yes. But that is based in Mormonism, not in the Bible alone, so there is no point in arguing it. So it is safe to say that according to Mormonism, Jesus was wrong?
danielwoods Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 According to the "Names of God" bible using the original names the being that Jacob saw/wrestled in Genesis 32 and therefore has a body, was Eloheim (The Father), not Yaweh (The Son). Which is a very interesting interpretation. However, it seems to me that there are more than just two or three names for God. The different names for God don't indicate a "who" but an aspect of the same who.
coolrok7 Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Stephen in your post #582 you make the same error as your General Authorities (Jehovah's Witnesses as well) wherein they misrepresent the nature of the Godhead as Joseph Smith does: "All are to be crammed into one God. . ." Trinitarian teaching explains it s being the same nature or substance (spirit), not same person. The three of the Godhead are the one God of Biblical revelation (not the "plurality of Gods" as taught by Joseph Smith), "Hear O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD" which Jesus quoted from in Mark 12:29: Elder: . . .BUT WHAT DO WE LEARN ABOUT GOD FROM THE EXPERIENCE OF JOSEPH SMITH? Brown: That he has a real body. Elder: Yes he does. THE CHURCHES ALSO TAUGHT THAT GOD THE FATHER AND JESUS CHRIST, HIS SON, WERE BOTH THE SAME PERSON. . . . (A UNIFORM SYSTEM FOR TEACHING INVESTIGATORS, Aug. 1961, p.12) The Oneness of the Father and the Son: There has been much misunderstanding regarding the oft-repeated statement that Jesus and his Father are one. A careful reading of the seventeenth chapter of John should clarify this matter fully. As Jesus was about to be offered up, he prayed unto his Father and thanked him for his apostles, saying, "that they may be one as, we are." (John 17:11). . .Now it is very apparent that Jesus was not speaking of oneness of personage, but oneness of purpose, . . .(John 17:24). . .Again it is evident that the oneness referred to has no reference to oneness of personage, for if Jesus and his Father were one in person, how absurd to think that Jesus would pray unto himself, . . .(A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, Legrand Richards, p.22) If Jesus were the Almighty God, he would not have prayed to himself, would he? Since Jesus prayed to God, . . .the two could not be the same person (You can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, p.39)
JLHPROF Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 So it is safe to say that according to Mormonism, Jesus was wrong? No, it's safe to say that according to Mormonism that's not what Jesus said.The JST of the Bible changes that quote (we believe by inspiration & revelation/you believe unauthorized).So as I said, a differing belief not worth arguing. Which is a very interesting interpretation. However, it seems to me that there are more than just two or three names for God. The different names for God don't indicate a "who" but an aspect of the same who. That's just making excuses. The bible says Jacob wrestled with the Father. Very simple. Literal interpretation of the Bible text. No manipulation. No stretching. Just that Jacob wrestled with the Father and the Father touched his thigh. Indicating clearly that the Father has a physicality. No "interpretation" needed.
Bobbieaware Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 So it is safe to say that according to Mormonism, Jesus was wrong?Was Paul wrong when he testified that the flesh and bone resurrected Christ was made "a life-giving spirit?" So which one is it? Is Christ a spirit clothed in a body, or is he -- as the Jehovah's Witnesses believe because of Paul's statement -- a personage of spirit?
danielwoods Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 No, it's safe to say that according to Mormonism that's not what Jesus said.The JST of the Bible changes that quote (we believe by inspiration & revelation/you believe unauthorized).So as I said, a differing belief not worth arguing. That's just making excuses. The bible says Jacob wrestled with the Father. Very simple. Literal interpretation of the Bible text. No manipulation. No stretching. Just that Jacob wrestled with the Father and the Father touched his thigh. Indicating clearly that the Father has a physicality. No "interpretation" needed. So, according to Joseph Smith the text of John was wrong. Well if the Bible disagrees with you why not change it? Not making excuses, rather the text doesn't say that the Jacob wrestled with the Father.
danielwoods Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Was Paul wrong when he testified that the flesh and bone resurrected Christ was made "a life-giving spirit?" So which one is it? Is Christ a spirit clothed in a body, or is he -- as the Jehovah's Witnesses believe because of Paul's statement -- a personage of spirit? "What is a life-giving spirit? Paul is teaching that Jesus gives spiritual life to our mortal bodies through His Spirit who is inside us. We read in Romans 8:9-11 “However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. 10 If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.” Christ’s spirit that dwells in us is a life-giving spirit."http://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/part-4-what-is-a-life-giving-spirit-1-corinthians-1545/
JLHPROF Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 So, according to Joseph Smith the text of John was wrong. Well if the Bible disagrees with you why not change it? As I said, you view it as unauthorized, we view it as revelation.What more is there to argue about on this scripture? Not making excuses, rather the text doesn't say that the Jacob wrestled with the Father. Yes. It does. Unless you can show me that Elohim was not the Father according to the Bible.
Recommended Posts