The Imposition of Belief and Doctrine; when is it a bridge too far?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, hagoth7 said:

Gotta step back in.,(hokey pokey), and "impose" a few quick comments.

• It isn't the King James Bible. Not even close.  It's essentially the Tyndale Bible.
• Tyndale laid down his life (figuratively *and* literally) to hand us that Bible.
• King James appropriated the lion's share of Tyndale's work, scribbled out Tyndale's name, and stamped his own name on it. Or, more accurately, a learned committee hired out their services to appropriate Tyndale's work (rather than do much translating of their own) and to flatter the king and the world into thinking it was their/his work. (Try that level of theft in college today, and see what the result would be.)
• The King's hired staff then changed Jesus' brother's name from Jacob to James...to place his name in scriptures. Jacob 1:55.
• That is not meant as condemnation of the king. But as needed correction. Despite being flawed, God save the king/queen.
• An exiled Tyndale was betrayed for money on the day my mother gave me birth.
• His dying words at his execution the following year (1536), "Lord! Open the king of England's eyes!"
• King James' appropriation of Tyndale's work/sacrficie was following a long-and-not-so-glorious tradition. Three years after Tyndale's betrayal and murder, his king (Henry VIII) produced his own "Great" Bible, and quietly appropriated most of Tyndale's work. (As had previous English Bibles.)
• Whether Tyndale's widow or children/descendants saw any benefit from such appropriations...I'll leave that for others to consider/illuminate.
• What thank ye/we....Tyndale? https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/29.4?lang=eng#p3

Aware of these points, but since the world knows it as the KJV Bible, it seems easier to call it this that to go though all of the above listed bullet points. There many be some who do not know this, my guess is that most here do know it. The points you have listed have been spoken of many times in Conference. Praise be to God for "William Tyndale", who gave us such an under appreciated gift. It is indeed sad that it bears the name of King James, who by no means was a good man, good King, and not it's originator. 

[LittleNipper]

8 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

We favor the KJV, as it is the version with which we are most familiar. It is not just a good translation, it is the translation by which the Protestant movement came into being. The KJV 1611, is the most sidle know to the world, it is unmatched in it's poetry of language. Also, we are not "playing Mormon games", and it saddens me that you would use this thread meant to address and find ways to speak respectfully to one another. We are Christians, no more, nor no less than those who seek to use the Bible (of any translation" as a hammer or weapon to inflict emotional harm to others. I am curious however to know how the topic of Ex Nilo got worked into this thread. 

I am respectful of Mormons. I do care what happens to them eternally; otherwise, I wouldn't bother being here. Scrutiny and contradiction does seem to annoy some people here . You may think that is true of me. However, scrutiny only makes me study the Bible more and not ask to limit the number of verses because of a lack of reading interest... I'm sorry that Mormons apparently accept a god who is limited by the nature of the Universe and not a universe that exists entirely as GOD's invention. The title of this thread is "The Imposition of Belief and Doctrine; when is it a bridge too far?"  As a Saint, I simply do not see how anyone claiming to also be a Saint can impose beliefs or doctrines that are not in line with Our Holy Bible (the oldest documented literary collection Christians and Jews possess). The KJV is one translation not what ushered in the Reformation and the Protestant movement across Europe, it was the Bible being printed in the the language of the various nationals (because of the printing press) that people began to see that what the Roman Catholic church was teaching was not entirely in line with what the Bible revealed to those willing to read it for themselves. 

True believers suffer no emotional harm when faced with adversity in regard to their faith, this is how GOD separates what is real from what is built on sand and strengthens one's real spirituality. Call it exercise.

Edited July 11, 2017 by LittleNipper

[hagoth7]

14 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

...The points you have listed have been spoken of many times in Conference... 

Likely so. There have been extended times when I was separated or even estranged from the church. And longer periods of time while otherwise relatively active in the church, engaged in research of other matters that, by definition, came with the opportunity cost of me being less informed on church doctrine and administration than others. Because of that, most of you here can run circles around me on such things. 

Hoping me mentioning things you already know wasn't deemed an imposition.   Was it?

...Praise be to God for "William Tyndale", who gave us such an under appreciated gift.... 

Amen.

 

[theplains]

On 06/07/2017 at 5:58 PM, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

... that through Jesus, as he became "we become joint heirs with Christ"... 

In LDS theology, being a joint heir with Christ means exaltation to a god or goddess.

Romans 8:14-17 says, "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. 
For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the 
Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our 
spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and 
joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified 
together."

If the LDS teaching is correct, then those who are not exalted are not the sons of God and not
led by the Spirit. They are of the flesh and cannot please God. All Latter-day Saints should read
this chapter and also Galatians 3:22-5:18 and see what the Bible says about their status.

Thanks,
Jim

[theplains]

On 06/07/2017 at 11:54 PM, Bobbieaware said:

Christ was divine before he became a spirit child of God, in much the same way he was divine before he emptied himself 

According to Religion 430-431 manual, Jesus was only ranked as a God when he reached a pinnacle of intelligence.

Thanks,
Jim

[RevTestament]

On 7/10/2017 at 7:13 PM, LittleNipper said:

I am respectful of Mormons. I do care what happens to them eternally; otherwise, I wouldn't bother being here. Scrutiny and contradiction does seem to annoy some people here . You may think that is true of me. However, scrutiny only makes me study the Bible more and not ask to limit the number of verses because of a lack of reading interest... I'm sorry that Mormons apparently accept a god who is limited by the nature of the Universe and not a universe that exists entirely as GOD's invention. The title of this thread is "The Imposition of Belief and Doctrine; when is it a bridge too far?"  As a Saint, I simply do not see how anyone claiming to also be a Saint can impose beliefs or doctrines that are not in line with Our Holy Bible (the oldest documented literary collection Christians and Jews possess).

Then stop trying to feed us neoplatonic ideas as a replacement for scripture. If you believe God created the universe 6000 years ago, please explain how light created billions of years ago in galaxies far, far away is just now reaching the earth? Did God create it all midstream 6000 years ago just to fool us simpletons? Or is your interpretation that God created the universe just one imposed on the text which it does not say? Science, and even textual analysis reveals the latter.  You can jump up and down and stomp your feet all you want but it won't change what the text says nor pretty basic science. All science accepts the speed of light as a constant.

[Bobbieaware]

11 hours ago, theplains said:

According to Religion 430-431 manual, Jesus was only ranked as a God when he reached a pinnacle of intelligence.

Thanks,
Jim

Just as the divine Jesus couldn't have atoned for our sins when he was just a little baby, as he had not yet become perfect by learning obedience through the things which he suffered, so too the spirit child we know as the Christ was divine even as he grew and learned as a spirit child of God in the spirit world. It is a basic LDS doctrine that Christ was a divine intelligence, or the uncreated, self-existing "light of truth" prior to being born as a spirit child of God in the spirit world. The Christ's experiences as an unembodied spirit child are similar to the experiences he passed through while in mortality. The only difference between what you believe and what we believe is we believe the divine Christ passed through two growing experiences, one in the spirit world and the other in mortality, while you believe he went through only one such growing experience.

Essentially, you are fighting against something you claim to believe in: that Christ could be divine even while simultaneously existing as a helpless baby boy who had a lot yet to experience and learn before his divinely-appointed mission could be successfully accomplished. The very process of spiritual growth for divine beings that you claim you disbelieve is precisely the kind of thing Christ experienced while he existed in mortality. It's said that if something can be demonstrated to have occurred before it's much more likely it could happen again. Christ's experience in mortality proves beyond all contradiction that a being can be divine and yet go through learning experiences that bring spiritual growth in a new realm of reality.

 

Edited July 12, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[LittleNipper]

12 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Then stop trying to feed us neoplatonic ideas as a replacement for scripture. If you believe God created the universe 6000 years ago, please explain how light created billions of years ago in galaxies far, far away is just now reaching the earth? Did God create it all midstream 6000 years ago just to fool us simpletons? Or is your interpretation that God created the universe just one imposed on the text which it does not say? Science, and even textual analysis reveals the latter.  You can jump up and down and stomp your feet all you want but it won't change what the text says nor pretty basic science. All science accepts the speed of light as a constant.

Neoplatonists believed human perfection and happiness were attainable in this world, without awaiting an afterlife. Perfection and happiness— seen as synonymous— could be achieved through philosophical contemplation.

All people return to the One, from which they enamated..^[25][26][27]

The Neoplatonists believed in the pre-existence, and immortality of the soul.^[28][29] The human soul consists of a lower irrational soul and a higher rational soul (mind), both of which can be regarded as different powers of the one soul. It was widely held that the soul possesses a "vehicle",^[30] accounting for the human soul's immortality and allowing for its return to the One after death.^[31] After bodily death, the soul takes up a level in the afterlife corresponding with the level at which it lived during its earthly life.^[32][33] The Neoplatonists believed in the principle of reincarnation. Although the most pure and holy souls would dwell in the highest regions, the impure soul would undergo a purification,^[29] before descending again,^[34] to be reincarnated into a new body, perhaps into animal form.^[35] Plotinus believed that a soul may be reincarnated into another human or even a different sort of animal. However, Porphyry maintained, instead, that human souls were only reincarnated into other humans.^[36] A soul which has returned to the One achieves union with the cosmic universal soul^[37] and does not descend again, at least, not in this world period.^[34]

I might suggest that Mormons seem to have way more in common with Neoplatonists then I do. I do not believe in the pre-existance of one's soul. I believe what Christians may attain here is JOY and not necessarily expect "happiness". I believe that there is no reincarnation and that once the soul leaves this life he or she is forever locked in either heaven or hell depending entirely on whether he or she has a personal relationship with GOD through Christ.

Honestly, there is no way to prove that the light is millions of years old. Light does not age. The Bible does reveal that GOD made the light FIRST and then later created a physical source -- so GOD already had the question of light years figured out. The Bible also reveals that GOD stretched out the heavens like a curtain which means HE likely moved the stairs away... So you see"basic" science is only as rational as the people are cognoscente of the CREATOR.

 

Psalm 104:1-2 Good News Translation

1 Praise the Lord, my soul!
    O Lord, my God, how great you are!
You are clothed with majesty and glory;
²     you cover yourself with light.
You have spread out the heavens like a tent

God being the Creator is not bound by natural laws which He designed for us. Too many scientists simply ignore GOD and worship nature without comprehending that nature is under God's subjection for HIS honor and glory. Light is HIS creation and is under His subjection. Those that believe GOD is limited by preexisting conditions cannot comprehend any of this. God didn't make a cake using another's ingredients.

Edited July 12, 2017 by LittleNipper

[LittleNipper]

10 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Just as the divine Jesus couldn't have atoned for our sins when he was just a little baby, as he had not yet become perfect by learning obedience through the things which he suffered, so too the spirit child we know as the Christ was divine even as he grew and learned as a spirit child of God in the spirit world. It is a basic LDS doctrine that Christ was a divine intelligence, or the uncreated, self-existing "light of truth" prior to being born as a spirit child of God in the spirit world. The Christ's experiences as an unembodied spirit child are similar to the experiences he passed through while in mortality. The only difference between what you believe and what we believe is we believe the divine Christ passed through two growing experiences, one in the spirit world and the other in mortality, while you believe he went through only one such growing experience.

Essentially, you are fighting against something you claim to believe in: that Christ could be divine even while simultaneously existing as a helpless baby boy who had a lot yet to experience and learn before his divinely-appointed mission could be successfully accomplished. The very process of spiritual growth for divine beings that you claim you disbelieve is precisely the kind of thing Christ experienced while he existed in mortality. It's said that if something can be demonstrated to have occurred before it's much more likely it could happen again. Christ's experience in mortality proves beyond all contradiction that a being can be divine and yet go through learning experiences that bring spiritual growth in a new realm of reality.

 

I don't fully agree with this. The Bible  reveals that GOD the Father has specific things for Christ to accomplish while here on earth (not the least of which was to be the final sacrifice for sin, have a ministry, and establish HIS UNIVERSAL CHURCH). I am reminded that even at age 12 Jesus astounded the doctors and teachers of the LAW with HIS wisdom and understanding of the scriptures --- while about HIS Father's work). So, I view this as about GOD's perfect timing, and a time when GOD could interact with humans more at their level --- which maybe what GOD really desired all along.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

Neoplatonists believed human perfection and happiness were attainable in this world, without awaiting an afterlife. Perfection and happiness— seen as synonymous— could be achieved through philosophical contemplation.

All people return to the One, from which they enamated..^[25][26][27]

The Neoplatonists believed in the pre-existence, and immortality of the soul.^[28][29] The human soul consists of a lower irrational soul and a higher rational soul (mind), both of which can be regarded as different powers of the one soul. It was widely held that the soul possesses a "vehicle",^[30] accounting for the human soul's immortality and allowing for its return to the One after death.^[31] After bodily death, the soul takes up a level in the afterlife corresponding with the level at which it lived during its earthly life.^[32][33] The Neoplatonists believed in the principle of reincarnation. Although the most pure and holy souls would dwell in the highest regions, the impure soul would undergo a purification,^[29] before descending again,^[34] to be reincarnated into a new body, perhaps into animal form.^[35] Plotinus believed that a soul may be reincarnated into another human or even a different sort of animal. However, Porphyry maintained, instead, that human souls were only reincarnated into other humans.^[36] A soul which has returned to the One achieves union with the cosmic universal soul^[37] and does not descend again, at least, not in this world period.^[34]

I might suggest that Mormons seem to have way more in common with Neoplatonists then I do. I do not believe in the pre-existance of one's soul. I believe what Christians may attain here is JOY and not necessarily expect "happiness". I believe that there is no reincarnation and that once the soul leaves this life he or she is forever locked in either heaven or hell depending entirely on whether he or she has a personal relationship with GOD through Christ.

Honestly, there is no way to prove that the light is millions of years old. Light does not age. The Bible does reveal that GOD made the light FIRST and then later created a physical source -- so GOD already had the question of light years figured out. The Bible also reveals that GOD stretched out the heavens like a curtain which means HE likely moved the stairs away... So you see"basic" science is only as rational as the people are cognoscente of the CREATOR.

Oh, well that makes it much, much better - God moved the other galaxies far, far away after He created them 6000 years ago to fool us into believing the light is much older than it is, and then red-shifted the light again to fool us into perceiving a great distance, and all modern astronomers are a bunch of fooled dodo heads.

A lot of Christians in the early Church believed in the preexistence of the soul. There were a lot of ideas about the nature of God. The idea of the Trinity evolved out of Alexandrian thinking, and scholars such as Tertullian, who despite being called the "father of Latin orthodoxy" is apparently not sainted because He too said there was a time when the Son was not. Neoplatonism turned God into an invisible spirit - unknowable and unreachable - things the scriptures do not teach. The earliest Church in Syria resisted these changes but the state Church which came into existence with Constantine was simply too powerful and overtook the doctrine of the Church.

And actually, I do not believe in the pre-existence of the soul. The soul is apparently a creation resulting from the combining of our pre-existent spirit with a created body - much like Jesus showed us by taking on a created body and dying for us to show that death could be overcome.

Quote

I believe that there is no reincarnation and that once the soul leaves this life he or she is forever locked in either heaven or hell

Then you do not believe Revelation which says: 

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Revelation 20:12-13

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and ^adeath and ^bhell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

The dead are resurrected - even those in hell. So you are wrong. Hell is not permanent if they repent and accept Yeshua at their judgment.

 

[LittleNipper]

54 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Oh, well that makes it much, much better - God moved the other galaxies far, far away after He created them 6000 years ago to fool us into believing the light is much older than it is, and then red-shifted the light again to fool us into perceiving a great distance, and all modern astronomers are a bunch of fooled dodo heads.

A lot of Christians in the early Church believed in the preexistence of the soul. There were a lot of ideas about the nature of God. The idea of the Trinity evolved out of Alexandrian thinking, and scholars such as Tertullian, who despite being called the "father of Latin orthodoxy" is apparently not sainted because He too said there was a time when the Son was not. Neoplatonism turned God into an invisible spirit - unknowable and unreachable - things the scriptures do not teach. The earliest Church in Syria resisted these changes but the state Church which came into existence with Constantine was simply too powerful and overtook the doctrine of the Church.

And actually, I do not believe in the pre-existence of the soul. The soul is apparently a creation resulting from the combining of our pre-existent spirit with a created body - much like Jesus showed us by taking on a created body and dying for us to show that death could be overcome.

Then you do not believe Revelation which says: 

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Revelation 20:12-13

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and ^adeath and ^bhell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

The dead are resurrected - even those in hell. So you are wrong. Hell is not permanent if they repent and accept Yeshua at their judgment.

 

I do of course believe in the New Heaven and the New earth and that believers will be RESURRECTED.  The unsaved to eternal judgment and the saved to eternal reward. Resurrection is not reincarnation. I will be me and you will be you --- no one comes back as someone else  (no matter what Shirley MacLaine believes). We are sealed in this life. Mormons do believe in sealed marriage (I do not); however, I cannot imagine that you believe at there is divorce in heaven (do you?)  I do believe who ends up in heaven is entirely through Christ and how people react to the notion of GOD in this life. And there is recorded in the Bible at least one man (a eunuch never the less) who prayed for understanding and GOD sent him understanding (in this life). There is also the rich man who wanted the the beggar to be sent to his brothers. If it's possible to be saved after death, why didn't Abraham just tell him that!  No, he clearly states that they have the prophets, etc., and if they don't believe them why should they accept one who returns from the dead (which also seems to illustrate JESUS!).  Those who are not found in the Book of Life or the Lamb's Book of Life will be tossed into the Lake of Fire (which is the 2nd death).

Now as for your thoughts on GOD fooling people. Fools fool themselves. GOD reveals what He did in His Holy Word. What some "authority" places his trust in minus the Creator is his own fault.  Sorry, but originally science was an attempt by man to prove the existence of GOD and the truth of the His Word. GOD says that we need to trust HIM. Nothing wrong with research, but there is something very wrong with the exclusion of GOD. And those who would make theories on their observations minus GOD are asking for ERROR in judgment. 

The TRIUNITY of GOD always existed. It just took believers a while to comprehend what they were revealed. "Let US create man in OUR image."  That doesn't suppose that we look like GOD, but it does reveal that we are creative, imaginative, loving, and interactive --- among other traits. And of course there is the triunity of humans (body, soul, spirit). 

Edited July 12, 2017 by LittleNipper

[RevTestament]

39 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

I do of course believe in the New Heaven and the New earth and that believers will be RESURRECTED.  The unsaved to eternal judgment and the saved to eternal reward. Resurrection is not reincarnation. I will be me and you will be you --- no one comes back as someone else  (no matter what Shirley MacLaine believes). We are sealed in this life. Mormons do believe in sealed marriage (I do not); however, I cannot imagine that you believe at there is divorce in heaven (do you?)  I do believe who ends up in heaven is entirely through Christ and how people react to the notion of GOD in this life. And there is recorded in the Bible at least one man (a eunuch never the less) who prayed for understanding and GOD sent him understanding (in this life). There is also the rich man who wanted the the beggar to be sent to his brothers. If it's possible to be saved after death, why didn't Abraham just tell him that!  No, he clearly states that they have the prophets, etc., and if they don't believe them why should they accept one who returns from the dead (which also seems to illustrate JESUS!).  Those who are not found in the Book of Life or the Lamb's Book of Life will be tossed into the Lake of Fire (which is the 2nd death).

Now as for your thoughts on GOD fooling people. Fools fool themselves. GOD reveals what He did in His Holy Word. What some "authority" places his trust in minus the Creator is his own fault.  Sorry, but originally science was an attempt by man to prove the existence of GOD and the truth of the His Word. GOD says that we need to trust HIM. Nothing wrong with research, but there is something very wrong with the exclusion of GOD. And those who would make theories on their observations minus GOD are asking for ERROR in judgment. 

The TRIUNITY of GOD always existed. It just took believers a while to comprehend what they were revealed. "Let US create man in OUR image."  That doesn't suppose that we look like GOD, but it does reveal that we are creative, imaginative, loving, and interactive --- among other traits. And of course there is the triunity of humans (body, soul, spirit). 

While astutely avoiding my questions might make you feel OK with your nonscriptural ideas, they won't further any understanding of scripture or of God, so perhaps avoiding my questions is not astute in the long run. Show any "trinity" in the OT. The only Holy Spirit mentioned clearly refers to a man who is rejected. Nowhere does any scripture call the Holy Spirit YHWH. Nowhere does any scripture refer to the Son as the Most High Power, El Elyon. Luke calls Him the Son of the Highest as do even the devils who know this better than trinitarians. The doctrine of the trinity is just a created confabulation to prevent people believing they should try to be like God, and teaches the Son is never begotten because He was begotten before all ages/worlds even though scriptures indicate the Father told Him, This day I have begotten thee. It is not scriptural - it is artificial construct to try to explain "one" God. However, the Hebrew word being used for one is echad rather than an absolute one like yachid. Man and woman are echad. YHWH is echad. Father and Son are ehcad. Echad is a word for one which can be used to denote a plurality in one. The doctrine of the trinity was born out of an errant understanding of scripture, and I pose is an enemy to your Savior who is to inherit the government and holy mountains of the Father, see Isa 65 as well as the title of the Father per Isa 9:6. The doctrine of the Trinity says, however, that the Son is immutable, is not the Father, and will never be the Father. You do err, and fight against your Savior.

[LittleNipper]

46 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

While astutely avoiding my questions might make you feel OK with your nonscriptural ideas, they won't further any understanding of scripture or of God, so perhaps avoiding my questions is not astute in the long run. Show any "trinity" in the OT. The only Holy Spirit mentioned clearly refers to a man who is rejected. Nowhere does any scripture call the Holy Spirit YHWH. Nowhere does any scripture refer to the Son as the Most High Power, El Elyon. Luke calls Him the Son of the Highest as do even the devils who know this better than trinitarians. The doctrine of the trinity is just a created confabulation to prevent people believing they should try to be like God, and teaches the Son is never begotten because He was begotten before all ages/worlds even though scriptures indicate the Father told Him, This day I have begotten thee. It is not scriptural - it is artificial construct to try to explain "one" God. However, the Hebrew word being used for one is echad rather than an absolute one like yachid. Man and woman are echad. YHWH is echad. Father and Son are ehcad. Echad is a word for one which can be used to denote a plurality in one. The doctrine of the trinity was born out of an errant understanding of scripture, and I pose is an enemy to your Savior who is to inherit the government and holy mountains of the Father, see Isa 65 as well as the title of the Father per Isa 9:6. The doctrine of the Trinity says, however, that the Son is immutable, is not the Father, and will never be the Father. You do err, and fight against your Savior.

"Let US make man in OUR image." is hardly something I made up. And frankly, yes I see that GOD is ONE essence united but made up of 3 eternally united beings. They have different names because they have different things that they do. I answered your questions, but obviously my answers make you perplexed.  "Begotten" (referencing Christ) is for the Trinitarian accepted as a demonstration of Christ's superiority to His creation. Clearly the Bible says that Christ created everything. The Bible says GOD created everything. The Bible says we are not to worship an other god, and then says we are to worship Christ (every knee shall bow). He who has seen the Son see the Father. It is a interesting thing for Jesus to say. My personal opinion is that only true Christians (though they don't fully comprehend) will come to the HOLY SPIRIT lead conclusion that Jesus Christ is LORD!

Edited July 12, 2017 by LittleNipper

[RevTestament]

4 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

"Let US make man in OUR image." is hardly something I made up. And frankly, yes I see that GOD is ONE essence united but made up of 3 eternally united beings. They have different names because they have different things that they do. I answered your questions, but obviously my answers make you perplexed.  "Begotten" (referencing Christ) is for the Trinitarian accepted as a demonstration of Christ's superiority to His creation. Clearly the Bible says that Christ created the everything. The Bible says GOD created everything. The Bible says we are not to worship an other god, and then says we are to worship Christ (every knee shall bow). He who has seen the Son see the Father. It is a interesting thing for Jesus to say.

It is more than interesting - it is a revealing thing to say - which you do not accept. Yeshua was the revelator of the Father who showed us all things He Himeself had seen the Father do, and was doing likewise. So when He laid down His life for us, He was showing us the Father... It is even in the letters of the name of the Father, YHWH or Behold the nail, behold the hand.

Quote

My personal opinion is that only true Christians (though they don't fully comprehend) will come to the HOLY SPIRIT lead conclusion that Jesus Christ is LORD!

My personal opinion is that those who call themselves Christian will crucify the Holy Spirit. 

30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.

[LittleNipper]

Act 4:12

"And there is no Yeshu’at Eloheinu in any other, for there is no other Shem under Shomayim that has been given among Bnei Adam, by which it is necessary for you to be spared [the Mishpat Hashem in the Yom HaDin]."

[thesometimesaint]

We believe in a social trinity called in the bible the Godhead. In mortality Jesus had his own thoughts and idea's. He did the will of his Father, but had his own will. God took him to places Jesus didn't know. God knew things Jesus didn't know. Like when Jesus was to return.

[Bobbieaware]

5 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

I don't fully agree with this. The Bible  reveals that GOD the Father has specific things for Christ to accomplish while here on earth (not the least of which was to be the final sacrifice for sin, have a ministry, and establish HIS UNIVERSAL CHURCH). I am reminded that even at age 12 Jesus astounded the doctors and teachers of the LAW with HIS wisdom and understanding of the scriptures --- while about HIS Father's work). So, I view this as about GOD's perfect timing, and a time when GOD could interact with humans more at their level --- which maybe what GOD really desired all along.

We are told Jesus GREW in wisdom and stature, LEARNED obedience by the things which he suffered, and eventually BECAME perfect. This means although Christ was God he went through a learning process here on earth.

[LittleNipper]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

We are told Jesus GREW in wisdom and stature, LEARNED obedience by the things which he suffered, and eventually BECAME perfect. This means although Christ was God he went through a learning process here on earth.

Jesus was human but not sinful. Christ had emptied Himself --- meaning He learned what it was to be human and yet obedient to His Heavenly Father. Jesus reached the perfect moment under God the Father's directions. Jesus cried. Jesus said that only the Father knows when He would be returning --- reflecting His humanity. This all goes to prove just some of what GOD gave up to save who-so-ever-will. This was a MAJOR event for GOD in His existence, and not some walk in the garden.

Edited July 12, 2017 by LittleNipper

[Bobbieaware]

19 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

Jesus was human but not sinful. Christ had emptied Himself --- meaning He learned what it was to be human and yet obedient to His Heavenly Father. Jesus reached the perfect moment under God the Father's directions. Jesus cried. Jesus said that only the Father knows when He would be returning --- reflecting His humanity. This all goes to prove just some of what GOD gave up to save who-so-ever-will. This was a MAJOR event for GOD in His existence, and not some walk in the garden.

I agree.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

Jesus was human but not sinful. Christ had emptied Himself --- meaning He learned what it was to be human and yet obedient to His Heavenly Father. Jesus reached the perfect moment under God the Father's directions. Jesus cried. Jesus said that only the Father knows when He would be returning --- reflecting His humanity. This all goes to prove just some of what GOD gave up to save who-so-ever-will. This was a MAJOR event for GOD in His existence, and not some walk in the garden.

You finally said something I have no dispute with. Read Hebrews 1-5 It will teach you much about our Savior, and what it is to follow Him. Cheers, LN.

[MiserereNobis]

On 7/8/2017 at 8:36 PM, carbon dioxide said:

Time itself is a man made concept. 

According to physics, time is an integral part of the universe. The units we use to measure it are man-made, but time itself is part of the fabric of the universe. It is not man made.

[MiserereNobis]

All this Biblical back and forth makes me grateful for Tradition and a Magisterium. In other words, I'm glad I'm not protestant and I'm glad I have more than just a somewhat ambiguous book to rely on to understand God

 

[Yirgacheffe]

On 7/12/2017 at 7:53 PM, MiserereNobis said:

All this Biblical back and forth makes me grateful for Tradition and a Magisterium. In other words, I'm glad I'm not protestant and I'm glad I have more than just a somewhat ambiguous book to rely on to understand God

 

I just wish the conversation had stuck with the original question, I found that far more interesting.

[Guest]

On July 11, 2017 at 9:25 PM, theplains said:

In LDS theology, being a joint heir with Christ means exaltation to a god or goddess.

Romans 8:14-17 says, "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. 
For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the 
Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our 
spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and 
joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified 
together."

If the LDS teaching is correct, then those who are not exalted are not the sons of God and not
led by the Spirit. They are of the flesh and cannot please God. All Latter-day Saints should read
this chapter and also Galatians 3:22-5:18 and see what the Bible says about their status.

Thanks,
Jim

I think it would be better for you, myself and others for you to start another thread. This was this thread will not be hijacked, and all who want to be a part of that discussion can do so. So, start a new thread with all of your bulletin points, and those who wish too, including myself with join in. So Jim, I ask that you do this as a favor. This way this thread may continued uninterrupted, with hobby topics. 

[theplains]

On 11/07/2017 at 11:07 PM, Bobbieaware said:

... so too the spirit child we know as the Christ was divine even as he grew and learned as a spirit child of God in the spirit world. It is a basic LDS doctrine that Christ was a divine intelligence, or the uncreated, self-existing "light of truth" prior to being born as a spirit child of God in the spirit world.

 

The idea of Jesus being born of heavenly parents is not scriptural.

Jim