The Nature And Relationship Of God And Creation

[Stone holm]

The only difference between a Humanist and  Mormon is a testimony that God is like us, and that we can become like Him.

 

Secularists worship the works of men and we worship the Man who made them

I don't think so, "secularists" tends to be used as synonymous with atheists, when normally they are just people recognizing the importance of separating Church and State. Secular just signifies that something is not using religion to justify doing or not doing something. They do not worship the works of men, and humanists don't worship men either -- humanists basically are arguing that humans can come to good decisions and recognize the difference between good and evil without divine intervention. In other words, humanists believe that humans have brains and can actually use them on occasion. We believe humans have brains, and that God expects us to use them on occasion.

[danielwoods]

The Bible tells us that John the Baptist was/is an angel.  In what way was/is his nature different from the group you call "men"?

 

The word is used about 165 times in the NT and has different meanings depending on context. 

 

The nature of man and the nature of angels are quite different. We were born with a sin nature, they were not. 

 

Jesus was made to be "a little lower than the angels..." as a man, which indicates that man isn't the same as an angel. 

 

Jesus taught that we will be like the angels in Heaven after we die (Not married nor sexual), which indicates that we aren't like them now. 

 

We are called the "Sons of men" but angels aren't called the "sons of angels" 

 

The bible never teaches that man becomes an angel after death. Our natures are similar but clearly different. 

 

If angels are not men, I'm wondering why Luke (who surely was in a position to know better) would have made the following egregious "doctrinal error?"

2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.

3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.

4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, TWO MEN stood by them in shining garments:

5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?

6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, (Luke 24)

With regard this except from the Luke, I believe just about every Christian on earth, whether minister, scholar, or lay person, would say without hesitation that the two men in shinning garments were angels. So if angels are not men, and if they are of a different nature than men, why would Luke make such a mistake?

But if the above example isn't enough, in the very next chapter of Luke's continuing narrative history he says:

9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, TWO MEN stood by them in white apparel;

11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. (Acts 1)

So although angels look like men, act like men, talk like men, and are even called men by a prophet of God, we are supposed to believe angels aren't of the race of men.

 

Luke described what they looked like. He didn't describe their nature. Clearly Angels can appear to look like man. 

[Ahab]

The only difference between a Humanist and Mormon is a testimony that God is like us, and that we can become like Him.

Secularists worship the works of men and we worship the Man who made them

The knowledge of how we can become like him is what makes the big difference.

And the reason we worship/emulate him is to show that we want to be like he is by doing the things he would do if he were us.

It's all about love. Loving the way he is enough to be like him and him loving us by showing us how.

[mfbukowski]

The knowledge of how we can become like him is what makes the big difference.

And the reason we worship/emulate him is to show that we want to be like he is by doing the things he would do if he were us.

It's all about love. Loving the way he is enough to be like him and him loving us by showing us how.

Agreed! And indeed a secularist would see it similarly, missing that it is God who taught us love, but affirming that in a different way- "What the world needs now, is love, sweet love...:

Edited August 28, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Bobbieaware]

The word is used about 165 times in the NT and has different meanings depending on context. 

 

The nature of man and the nature of angels are quite different. We were born with a sin nature, they were not. 

 

Jesus was made to be "a little lower than the angels..." as a man, which indicates that man isn't the same as an angel. 

 

Jesus taught that we will be like the angels in Heaven after we die (Not married nor sexual), which indicates that we aren't like them now. 

 

We are called the "Sons of men" but angels aren't called the "sons of angels" 

 

The bible never teaches that man becomes an angel after death. Our natures are similar but clearly different. 

 

 

Luke described what they looked like. He didn't describe their nature. Clearly Angels can appear to look like man.

Here is the big question, then: if angels were created without a sin nature, why did one of the most beloved and powerful angels in the presence of God ((Lucifer) become so sinful that he was cast out of heaven and into hell for his total rebellion against God, thereafter becoming known as the "author of sin," the "father of lies", the "prince of darkness" and the "son of perdition?" And if angels were created without a sin nature, why did one third of all the angels in heaven follow after Satan in his sinful rebellion against God and become the very epitome of sin themselves? And if angels were created with a non-sinful nature, why have Satan and his followers, right up to this very day, continued to tempt mankind to become carnal sinners and follow them in their surrender to sin and hatred of God?

[danielwoods]

Here is the big question, then: if angels were created without a sin nature, why did one of the most beloved and powerful angels in the presence of God ((Lucifer) become so sinful that he was cast out of heaven and into hell for his total rebellion against God, thereafter becoming known as the "author of sin," the "father of lies", the "prince of darkness" and the "son of perdition?" And if angels were created without a sin nature, why did one third of all the angels in heaven follow after Satan in his sinful rebellion against God and become the very epitome of sin themselves? And if angels were created with a non-sinful nature, why have Satan and his followers, right up to this very day, continued to tempt mankind to become carnal sinners and follow them in their surrender to sin and hatred of God?

 

 

What you are describing is a similarity that we both share (and I agree we share this similarity with them), that is free will, and the choice some of them made to rebel against God. However, even with that similarity, one can see that we (mankind) and they (angels) are different, in that we have redemption, and they do not. 

[Bobbieaware]

What you are describing is a similarity that we both share (and I agree we share this similarity with them), that is free will, and the choice some of them made to rebel against God. However, even with that similarity, one can see that we (mankind) and they (angels) are different, in that we have redemption, and they do not.

So we humans are born with fallen but savable natures, but the angels are created with unfallen but (somehow) unsavable natures? So on the one hand we have beings with carnal, sensual and devilish natures (men), who in God's eyes are worth being saved; but on the other hand we have beings with putatively holy natures (angels), who are for some mysterious reason also capable of becoming devilish, but, unlike fallen men, are not given the same gracious opportunity to repent of their wrong choices?

I'm trying to understand why a gracious and perfectly loving God would give the angels freedom to choose between good and evil, and peccable natures that are seriously tempted by evil, but for some mysterious reason they are not allowed the opportunity to learn from their mistakes. Is it because angels are like living machines that have no emotion and for that reason cannot feel the godly sorrow needed to motivate them to repent and change before they wholly succumb to sin? But that can't be true because the Bible tells us angels cry for sorrow. I don't get it...

Here's the secret, Daniel (though you will not believe it) These mysterious angels, who have holy natures but are still somehow capable of committing sin, are simply the spirits of the human beings before they enter the fallen state. That's why, though they are unembodied spirits, they look like men and are even tempted by evil like men.

A question:

If both men and angels are intelligent beings, capable of being tempted to do both good and evil, and if both are capable of being wholly swallowed up in sin and spiritual death, what, then, is the difference between the nature of fallen men and the nature of angels?

You see, Daniel, the angels who are holy and pure are that way because they choose to be holy and pure, even as they they are seriously tempted to be otherwise. Holiness is a choice, not a condition just thrust upon an intelligent being of reason without that being's free-will assent.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Vance]

The word is used about 165 times in the NT and has different meanings depending on context. 

 

Nah, what you are really trying to say is that it is you (or your ilk) that get to decide what the context is.

 

The word means messenger, or divine (God sent) messenger.  It doesn't describe beings that are separated ontologically from men.

 

To make them different, you have to read things into the context that aren't there.

 

The nature of man and the nature of angels are quite different.

You keep saying that despite the fact that the scriptures describe otherwise.  Simply repeating your refuted statement doesn't increase its strength.

 

We were born with a sin nature, they were not.

BS.

 

You have no Biblical support for this statement.  The devil was an angel, yet he sinned.  I am sure you will continue to attempt to support this false supposition.  But it is a losing position. 

 

Jesus was made to be "a little lower than the angels..." as a man, which indicates that man isn't the same as an angel.

Really?  That is it?

 

You really think that Jesus is a lower being than the angels?  That is the way you interpret that verse?

 

What rubbish.

 

Jesus descended below all things.  So He could ascend above them all.  That is what that verse is referring to.

 

Thus the verse,

   9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

 

Jesus taught that we will be like the angels in Heaven after we die (Not married nor sexual), which indicates that we aren't like them now.

Again, you misinterpret the verses.  Those you refer to are about very specific individuals.  AND they do not deny the married state in the eternal world.  Only that additional marriages will not be entered into.

 

We are called the "Sons of men" but angels aren't called the "sons of angels"

I call BE!  That is Bovine Excrement.

 

CFR on the phrase "sons of angels".

 

I think you guys have so deluded yourselves about knowing the truth, that sometimes you JUST MAKE STUFF UP, thinking it will MAGICALLY be in the Bible.

 

But it isn't.

 

The bible never teaches that man becomes an angel after death.

True.  The reason is that men and angels ARE ALREADY the same ontologically.

 

Luke described what they looked like. He didn't describe their nature. Clearly Angels can appear to look like man.

THAT is your false interpretation.  He called them "men" because they ARE men.

 

Now, you can continue to dance around that FACT all you want.  But it won't change. 

[Calm]

I think you misunderstood him. If I understand him correctly he is saying there isn't any phrase "sons of angels" in the Bible proving they are not born like mankind, solely made by God.

"angels aren't called the "sons of angels"

He can correct me if I am wrong...or you if I've misunderstood where you were going with this...

[danielwoods]

So we humans are born with fallen but savable natures, but the angels are created with unfallen but (somehow) unsavable natures? So on the one hand we have beings with carnal, sensual and devilish natures (men), who in God's eyes are worth being saved; but on the other hand we have beings with putatively holy natures (angels), who are for some mysterious reason also capable of becoming devilish, but, unlike fallen men, are not given the same gracious opportunity to repent of their wrong choices?

I'm trying to understand why a gracious and perfectly loving God would give the angels freedom to choose between good and evil, and peccable natures that are seriously tempted by evil, but for some mysterious reason they are not allowed the opportunity to learn from their mistakes. Is it because angels are like living machines that have no emotion and for that reason cannot feel the godly sorrow needed to motivate them to repent and change before they wholly succumb to sin? But that can't be true because the Bible tells us angels cry for sorrow. I don't get it...

Here's the secret, Daniel (though you will not believe it) These mysterious angels, who have holy natures but are still somehow capable of committing sin, are simply the spirits of the human beings before they enter the fallen state. That's why, though they are unembodied spirits, they look like men and are even tempted by evil like men.

A question:

If both men and angels are intelligent beings, capable of being tempted to do both good and evil, and if both are capable of being wholly swallowed up in sin and spiritual death, what, then, is the difference between the nature of fallen men and the nature of angels?

You see, Daniel, the angels who are holy and pure are that way because they choose to be holy and pure, even as they they are seriously tempted to be otherwise. Holiness is a choice, not a condition just thrust upon an intelligent being of reason without that being's free-will assent.

 

Angels don't look through a glass darkly, as we do. The more knowledge and power, the more that is required from them. They see God and experience him directly, and as a result, no redemption is available to them. 

 

They knew this before they chose to reject God.

[danielwoods]

The reason is that men and angels ARE ALREADY the same ontologically.

 

Unfortunately this concept isn't taught in the Bible. 

[danielwoods]

I think you misunderstood him. If I understand him correctly he is saying there isn't any phrase "sons of angels" in the Bible proving they are not born like mankind, solely made by God.

"angels aren't called the "sons of angels"

He can correct me if I am wrong...or you if I've misunderstood where you were going with this...

 

You are correct. 

[Vance]

Unfortunately this concept isn't taught in the Bible. 

Really?

 

The Bible in the original languages certainly does teach that John the Baptist was/is an "angel".

 

So, other than your babblings, where does it teach that they are different?

[Vance]

Angels don't look through a glass darkly, as we do.

Gee, could you provide the Biblical reference from which you are extracting this interpretation.  Or is this just another one of your "making it up as I go along" moments?

 

  The more knowledge and power, the more that is required from them.

 

True, but irrelevant to this topic.  For it applies to all, whether the man is an angel or not.

 

They see God and experience him directly, and as a result, no redemption is available to them.

Really?

 

Do you have a Biblical reference for this one too, or is it also another one of your "making it up as I go" adventures?

 

Clearly, even the verse that you misunderstand, yet continue to quote about marriages not being performed in the resurrected state, indicates that the "angels" are "children of the resurrection".

Luke 20:36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

 

They knew this before they chose to reject God.

That statement applies to all.  You can't reject what you do not know.   Men and women, whether angels or not, can't reject God without knowing God.

[danielwoods]

Really?

 

The Bible in the original languages certainly does teach that John the Baptist was/is an "angel".

 

So, other than your babblings, where does it teach that they are different?

 

It teaches that John was a messenger, it doesn't teach that his ontology and that of an angel's are the same. The usage of words changes with context. 

 

The point is that an angel's ontology is never discussed, and never said to be equal to man's. 

 

Do you have a Biblical reference for this one too, or is it also another one of your "making it up as I go" adventures?

 

Clearly, even the verse that you misunderstand, yet continue to quote about marriages not being performed in the resurrected state, indicates that the "angels" are "children of the resurrection".

Luke 20:36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

 

Notice the topic of the conversation:

 

 

34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:

35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

 

 When one reads the passage in context one can see that the reference of "children of the resurrection" is a reference back to the "children of this world" in v.34, that is humans or mankind. Each statement is a reference back to the topic of what happens to mankind when we die.

 

This whole passage is a contrast between Angels and Mankind

 

Mankind - Die, Marry, Live in a married state, Resurrect

 

Angels - Never Die,  Don't marry, Don't live in a married state, Aren't resurrected (Because they don't die)

[Vance]

 

It teaches that John was a messenger, it doesn't teach that his ontology and that of an angel's are the same. The usage of words changes with context. 

 

It is true that "angel" means messenger.  It is also true that John the Baptist was an angel.  It is also true that angels ARE men.

 

The Bible doesn't teach that angels are adifferent species from men.

 

 

 

  The point is that an angel's ontology is never discussed, and never said to be equal to man's.

Nor does it EVER say that they are different from men.  So you continue to push a NON Biblical teaching.

 

OOPS!!  There goes sola scriptura under the danielwoods anti-mormon bus.

 

 

 

Notice the topic of the conversation:

 

 

34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:

YES!!!

 

Marriages occurs IN THIS WORLD.  On this we agree.

 

 

 

35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

YES!!!

 

No new marriages occur in the next world.  On this we agree.

 

The only marriages that do exist are the one that were engaged in during this life and were sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise.

 

So, no, those verses do NOT support your anti-mormon position regarding marriage in the eternal world.

36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

 

 When one reads the passage in context one can see that the reference of "children of the resurrection" is a reference back to the "children of this world" in v.34, that is humans or mankind. Each statement is a reference back to the topic of what happens to mankind when we die.

When one reads the passage in context one can see that "they are equal unto the angels" BECAUSE they "are the children of God" like all men and angels of God, AND BECAUSE they are "children of the resurrection" like all men and angels of God.

 

 

 

This whole passage is a contrast between Angels and Mankind

This whole passage is equating mankind and angels.

 

 

 

Mankind - Die, Marry, Live in a married state, Resurrect

And in the resurrected state they never die, just like the angels, who are resurrected also never die.

 

 

 

Angels - Never Die,  Don't marry, Don't live in a married state, Aren't resurrected (Because they don't die)

The Bible NEVER says that angel don't marry, nor does it say that they never die, nor does it say that they don't live in a married state.

 

OOP!!!

There goes sola scriptura under the danielwoods anti-mormon bus. 

Edited August 30, 2015 by Vance

[Vance]

Jesus confirms that John the Baptist is an angel.

 

Matt 11:

  7 ¶ And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?

  8 But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings’ houses.

  9 But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.

  10 For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

Or in the Greek, found here,

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mat11.pdf

Notice the word that was used in Greek and translated "messenger" in English. The word is "aggelon" meaning ANGEL!

 

Jesus is quoting Mal 3:1 which uses the Hebrew word "mal'ak", which is used in the Hebrew scriptures 214 times and is translated "angel" by the KJV translators 111 times.

 

Ergo, John the Baptist is called an angel by Jesus.

Too bad danielwoods disagrees with Jesus.

Edited August 30, 2015 by Vance

[danielwoods]

When one reads the passage in context one can see that "they are equal unto the angels" BECAUSE they "are the children of God" like all men and angels of God, AND BECAUSE they are "children of the resurrection" like all men and angels of God.

 

Notice, "36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection."

 

In your interpretation, the word, "They" references the angels. This is an error. It is clear that the word "They" is a reference to Mankind through this whole passage, because that is the topic of the passage. 

 

In that case no, there is no biblical reference to angels dying or being resurrected. 

 

 

 

The Bible NEVER says that angel don't marry, nor does it say that they never die, nor does it say that they don't live in a married state.

 

This passage states that very thing. Men will be like angels when we die. No marriage. In fact, there is only one marriage mentioned in Heaven. 

 

If you honestly think that this passage supports eternal marriage, then who did Jesus say the woman would be married to? 

 

Jesus confirms that John the Baptist is an angel.

 

Matt 11:

  7 ¶ And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?

  8 But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings’ houses.

  9 But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.

  10 For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

Or in the Greek, found here,

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mat11.pdf

Notice the word that was used in Greek and translated "messenger" in English. The word is "aggelon" meaning ANGEL!

 

Jesus is quoting Mal 3:1 which uses the Hebrew word "mal'ak", which is used in the Hebrew scriptures 214 times and is translated "angel" by the KJV translators 111 times.

 

Ergo, John the Baptist is called an angel by Jesus.

Too bad danielwoods disagrees with Jesus.

Like I said the word is used 165 times in the NT. Doing a study on each usage of the word reveals not what you are claiming. Rather, that the word can indicate a messenger just as it does here with John. No mention of angels being ontologically the same as man. Rather, men and angels both share similar attributes and one of them is a role of messenger. 

 

Notice in Hebrews 12:22 "But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,"

 

Angels and men are mentioned as being two different groups in heaven. The same isn't said of angels. Like I pointed out earlier, they aren't called "sons of angels" and they aren't made perfect like is stated about men. 

Edited August 31, 2015 by danielwoods

[Bobbieaware]

Angels don't look through a glass darkly, as we do. The more knowledge and power, the more that is required from them. They see God and experience him directly, and as a result, no redemption is available to them.

They knew this before they chose to reject God.

So angels dwell in a heavenly tyrannical dictatorship. They didn't ask to be created, they supposedly have freedom of choice but. like those living under the law of Moses, they have no other choice but to obey God in every minute particular, otherwise they are guilty of breaking the whole law and must be cast into hell forever. I would imagine you believe they are intelligent, rational beings but, according to your line of thinking, they exist without the opportunity to learn from even the most minute of wrong thoughts or choices. So without even the most minor variation, they must think, feel and act as if they are God, but they are most definitely inferior to God. Nice guy.

And even though God is supposed to be the God of divine grace and compassion, for some utterly illogical and mysterious reason he creates beings who have freedom of choice, yet they can only remain in their saved condition by their works and not by faith in God and Christ. Sounds like a real ball.This is exactly the kind of God you say you don't believe in -- a God of perfection by works and not faith. One minor slipup and you're out. So when the angel's in heave praise God's mercy and grace they do so not because he is merciful and gracious to them, but because if they don't praise and horror him for his mercy and grace they will spend all eternity howling in unimaginable agony in hell.

And how do the Angels even enjoy their existence if they're constantly living under the gun? And just how does one reconcile this God of brutal application of inflexible law (I.e. justice without mercy) with the God of praiseworthy mercy and grace? There are human beings who could come up with a more just and fair system than this. You had no chance of convincing me to come around to your way of thinking before, but noe you just succeeded in putting another redundant and unnecessary nail in the coffin of the appeal of non-LDS Christianity.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[danielwoods]

So angels dwell in a heavenly tyrannical dictatorship. They didn't ask to be created, they supposedly have freedom of choice but. like those living under the law of Moses, they have no other choice but to obey God in every minute particular, otherwise they are guilty of breaking the whole law and must be cast into hell forever. I would imagine you believe they are intelligent, rational beings but, according to your line of thinking, they exist without the opportunity to learn from even the most minute of wrong thoughts or choices. So without even the most minor variation, they must think, feel and act as if they are God, but they are most definitely inferior to God. Nice guy.

And even though God is supposed to be the God of divine grace and compassion, for some utterly illogical and mysterious reason he creates beings who have freedom of choice, yet they can only remain in their saved condition by their works and not by faith in God and Christ. Sounds like a real ball.This is exactly the kind of God you say you don't believe in -- a God of perfection by works and not faith. One minor slipup and you're out. So when the angel's in heave praise God's mercy and grace they do so not because he is merciful and gracious to them, but because if they don't praise and horror him for his mercy and grace they will spend all eternity howling in unimaginable agony in hell.

And how do the Angels even enjoy their existence if they're constantly living under the gun? And just how does one reconcile this God of brutal application of inflexible law (I.e. justice without mercy) with the God of praiseworthy mercy and grace? There are human beings who could come up with a more just and fair system than this. You had no chance of convincing me to come around to your way of thinking before, but noe you just succeeded in putting another redundant and unnecessary nail in the coffin of the appeal of non-LDS Christianity.

 

 

 

Your characterization of what I believe is so far from what I believe, I don't even think it's worth trying to explain. If I say 2.... you hear 200... If I say 10... you hear something completely different. 

 

To put it simply, the reason we worship God ("we" meaning angels, man etc...) Is because he alone is the source of all life and energy, he alone is God, there is no other. To worship is to be connected to him in a special way, like a light bulb to a power source. 

[Anakin7]

    GOD is a "HE" or a "Him ?. Sorry but True Christian Theology of the Trinity is that God has no Gender. Those uses of  "He" and "Him" are used only to convey God's actions to mankind so as one can try to connect to God in a Temporal/Spiritual way.

 

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

              Anakin7

[danielwoods]

    GOD is a "HE" or a "Him ?. Sorry but True Christian Theology of the Trinity is that God has no Gender. Those uses of  "He" and "Him" are used only to convey God's actions to mankind so as one can try to connect to God in a Temporal/Spiritual way.

 

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

              Anakin7

 

Right. And your point?

[Vance]

Right. And your point?

What makes a "he" verses an "it" or a "she"? Edited September 2, 2015 by Vance

[Vance]

Daniel, for all of your postings, you still haven't overcome the fact that JESUS called John the Baptist an angel.

Throwing Jesus under the bus are you?

[danielwoods]

What make a "he" verses an "it" or a "she"? 

 

I am simply using pronouns used in scripture. I understand God has no gender. 

 

Daniel, for all of your postings, you still haven't overcome the fact that JESUS called John the Baptist an angel.

Throwing Jesus under the bus are you?

 

There is nothing to overcome. Jesus used the word for angel to refer to John as a messenger (I sometimes refer to my wife as an angel, but that also doesn't indicate an ontological equality with angels). Your position is that man and angels are ontologically the same. This can't be demonstrated using the Bible alone. 

 

I have pointed out that the Bible describes major differences and some similarities between the two groups, but never ontological equality.

 

My position rests on what the bible teaches, not what the LDS church teaches.   

Edited September 1, 2015 by danielwoods