The Priesthood and sin stains

[co-eternal]

7 hours ago, theplains said:

Would you disagree with the 2008 Ensign teaching that Adam sinned?

Thanks,
Jim

Can you point out to me where it says that Adam sinned? What I read was that his transgression that brought about the fall, not sin.

[co-eternal]

Quote

A few more salient facts, which I shall not attempt at this moment to elaborate upon: Adam and Eve transgressed a law and were responsible for a change that came to all their posterity, that of mortality. Could it have been the different food which made the change? Somehow, the life giving element in our bodies, replaced the finer substance which coursed through their bodies before. They and we became mortal subject to illness, pains, and even the physical dissolution called death. But the spirit, which is supreme in the dual man, transcends the body. It does not decompose but proceeds to the spirit world for further experience, with the assurance that after sufficient preparation there, a reunion will take place where the spirit will be housed eternally in s remodeled body of flesh and bones. This time the union will never be dissolved, since there will be no blood to disintegraye and cause trouble. A finer substance will give life to the body and will render it immortal. The ensign p. 56; First Presidency Message; President Spencer w. Kimbal; Absolute Truth; Sept 1978

 

[Eek!]

On ‎12‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 1:31 PM, theplains said:

What LDS scriptures show God did not delegate any power or authority directly to women?

I can't think of any, but these come to mind:

God is no respecter of persons.  Acts 10:34, D&C 1:35, D&C 38:16

All are alike unto God.  2 Nephi 26:33 ("male and female" are mentioned earlier in that verse, and so arguably may be included in that statement)

Not from the scriptures per se, but consider this:  It would be highly inappropriate for a man who is not a Melchizidek Priesthood holder to put on the clothing, perform the actions (ordinances), and say the words that a man says, in the Endowment ceremony (especially at the very end).  Why then is it not inappropriate for the women in the Endowment Room to do all of these exact same things?  

Edited December 21, 2017 by Eek!

[kiwi57]

On 12/17/2017 at 2:20 PM, MiserereNobis said:

In Catholicism, the original reason for us to be here was for humans to live in paradise forever. Sounds lovely.

Unfortunately, that means that God's original plain failed, evidently because He didn't foresee the consequences; and therefore, that the Gospel is a less perfect "Plan B." 

[theplains]

On 20/12/2017 at 4:27 PM, CV75 said:

What do you consider to be LDS scriptures?

I think you're missing an important line from the talk: "In mortality, we invariably make mistakes and violate God’s laws. We become stained by sin and cannot be allowed back to live in God’s presence." I don't think it matters whether Adam and Eve made a mistake, violated God's law, or sinned (willfully disobeyed). We do know that by eating the forbidden fruit, they fell from a paradisaical state and its attendant laws to telestial state with laws of its own, having no hope until the Lord visited them with a promise that they would receive His laws. Their paradisaical state was conditionally immortal, meaning they were immortal as long as they did not partake of the forbidden fruit. Their telestial state was unconditionally mortal. Do you see sin in the change from one to the other, and if so, on what point?

I would consider the Book of Mormon, Bible, D&C, and POGP as LDS scriptures.

Adam's sin is taught in the Bible.  "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and
death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." (Romans 5:12)

The March 2008 Ensign magazine also teaches this.

Thanks,
Jim

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, theplains said:

I would consider the Book of Mormon, Bible, D&C, and POGP as LDS scriptures.

Adam's sin is taught in the Bible.  "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and
death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." (Romans 5:12)

The March 2008 Ensign magazine also teaches this.

The word sin has multiple meanings.
I think that may be where your confusion lies.

[theplains]

On 20/12/2017 at 10:39 PM, co-eternal said:

Can you point out to me where it says that Adam sinned? What I read was that his transgression that brought about the fall, not sin.

It's found in two places in the Ensign article:

[1] "These include His ransom for Adam’s original transgression so that no member of the human family is held responsible
for that sin."

[2] "For example, while all members of the human family are freely given a reprieve from Adam’s sin through no effort of their
own, they are not given a reprieve from their own sins unless they pledge faith in Christ, repent of those sins."

LDS President Joseph F. Smith also taught likewise.  "Therefore, man, who had no hand in bringing death upon himself, shall
have no hand in bringing again life unto himself; for as he dies in consequence of the sin of Adam, so shall he live again,
whether he will or not, by the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and the power of his resurrection. Every man that dies shall live
again."

For a biblical reference, see Romans 5:12.

Thanks,
Jim

[theplains]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The word sin has multiple meanings.
I think that may be where your confusion lies.

The word "Jesus Christ' also has multiple meanings, particularly in LDS theology - the first spirit child born of
Heavenly Parents who progressed into becoming God. The Jehovah's Witnesses have him as Michael the
Archangel, not procreated in a heavenly union.  My position is that Jesus has always been the Eternal God.  

That is why people are confused. Three different Jesus' being taught as representing the true Jesus.  The Muslim
Jesus is only a prophet. This makes four so far.  No wonder Apostle Paul warned of those who would come
preaching 'another' Jesus and 'another' gospel.

Thanks,
Jim

[JLHPROF]

13 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Unfortunately, that means that God's original plain failed, evidently because He didn't foresee the consequences; and therefore, that the Gospel is a less perfect "Plan B." 

Or the opposite.

God's plan was the fall all along.  
LDS scripture makes that very clear.  Satan was actually the one deceived.

• Moses 4:6 And Satan put it into the heart of the serpent, (for he had drawn away many after him,) and he sought also to beguile Eve, for he knew not the mind of God, wherefore he sought to destroy the world.

If Satan had known the mind of God perhaps he could have stopped God's plan by doing nothing...

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, theplains said:

The word "Jesus Christ' also has multiple meanings, particularly in LDS theology - the first spirit child born of
Heavenly Parents who progressed into becoming God. The Jehovah's Witnesses have him as Michael the
Archangel, not procreated in a heavenly union.  My position is that Jesus has always been the Eternal God.  

That is why people are confused. Three different Jesus' being taught as representing the true Jesus.  The Muslim
Jesus is only a prophet. This makes four so far.  No wonder Apostle Paul warned of those who would come
preaching 'another' Jesus and 'another' gospel.

Thanks,
Jim

You don't need to go to LDS theology.
Just the original meaning of the Greek and Hebrew words translated as "sin" in the Bible show a variety of meanings.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

I would consider the Book of Mormon, Bible, D&C, and POGP as LDS scriptures.

Adam's sin is taught in the Bible.  "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and
death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." (Romans 5:12)

The March 2008 Ensign magazine also teaches this.

Thanks,
Jim

You may have overlooked it; please answer my question from my post: "Do you see sin in the change from one to the other, and if so, on what point?"

[MiserereNobis]

18 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Unfortunately, that means that God's original plain failed, evidently because He didn't foresee the consequences; and therefore, that the Gospel is a less perfect "Plan B." 

Felix culpa!

 

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Felix culpa!

 

Happily guilty? Blessed guilt? Sorry, I'm not following you.

[3DOP]

6 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Happily guilty? Blessed guilt? Sorry, I'm not following you.

Miserere? Wax eloquent...He is almost here! Would He have come if not for Adam? Oh...your turn. Go.

Edited December 23, 2017 by 3DOP

[Bernard Gui]

On 12/16/2017 at 11:31 AM, theplains said:

What LDS scriptures show God did not delegate any power or authority directly to women?

Alma 13.

[theplains]

On 22/12/2017 at 2:22 PM, CV75 said:

You may have overlooked it; please answer my question from my post: "Do you see sin in the change from one to the other, and if so, on what point?"

Please clarify.

Thanks,
Jim

[theplains]

On 23/12/2017 at 2:55 AM, Bernard Gui said:

Alma 13.

I see the Introductory notes says, "Men are called as high priests because of their exceeding faith and good works,"
but nothing which reveals women do not have some spiritual power or authority?  For example, do you believe women
can bind or cast out evil spirits?  Or heal the sick?

Thanks,
Jim

[pogi]

8 hours ago, theplains said:

I see the Introductory notes says, "Men are called as high priests because of their exceeding faith and good works,"
but nothing which reveals women do not have some spiritual power or authority?  For example, do you believe women
can bind or cast out evil spirits?  Or heal the sick?

Thanks,
Jim

What about D&C 84?

Quote

 

6 And the sons of Moses, according to the Holy Priesthood which he received under the hand of his father-in-law, Jethro;

7 And Jethro received it under the hand of Caleb;

8 And Caleb received it under the hand of Elihu;

9 And Elihu under the hand of Jeremy;

10 And Jeremy under the hand of Gad;

11 And Gad under the hand of Esaias;

12 And Esaias received it under the hand of God.

13 Esaias also lived in the days of Abraham, and was blessed of him—

14 Which Abraham received the priesthood from Melchizedek, who received it through the lineage of his fathers, even till Noah;

15 And from Noah till Enoch, through the lineage of their fathers;

16 And from Enoch to Abel, who was slain by the conspiracy of his brother, who received the priesthood by the commandments of God, by the hand of his father Adam, who was the first man—

31 Therefore, as I said concerning the sons of Moses—for the sons of Moses and also the sons of Aaron shall offer an acceptable offering and sacrifice in the house of the Lord, which house shall be built unto the Lord in this generation, upon the consecrated spot as I have appointed—

32 And the sons of Moses and of Aaron shall be filled with the glory of the Lord, upon Mount Zion in the Lord’s house, whose sons are ye; and also many whom I have called and sent forth to build up my church.

33 For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling...

34 They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron...

 

It is explicit that the priesthood is received through the lineage of the fathers to the sons (from male to male), and that all those who obtain the priesthood become the sons of Moses and of Aaron.  No mothers or daughters mentioned.  Also, there is the passage in 1 Tim that states that women do not have authority over the man. 

Edited December 27, 2017 by pogi

[JLHPROF]

8 hours ago, theplains said:

I see the Introductory notes says, "Men are called as high priests because of their exceeding faith and good works,"
but nothing which reveals women do not have some spiritual power or authority?  For example, do you believe women
can bind or cast out evil spirits?  Or heal the sick?

Actions of faith can be performed by anyone.
Authoritative actions require someone holding the rights of the priesthood.
Sometimes the two overlap, sometimes they don't.

Women's role in the priesthood is not ecclesiastical in nature, and hasn't been all through scripture.  It doesn't mean there isn't a priesthood role for them that isn't ecclesiastical.  And none of that precludes them operating on faith to produce blessings and miracles.

[Bernard Gui]

16 hours ago, theplains said:

I see the Introductory notes says, "Men are called as high priests because of their exceeding faith and good works,"
but nothing which reveals women do not have some spiritual power or authority?  For example, do you believe women
can bind or cast out evil spirits?  Or heal the sick?

Thanks,
Jim

It helps to read more than the heading.

Through the prayer of faith....absolutely. As a Priesthood ordinance, no.

[filovirus]

Although an 8yo is still a ways off com complete maturity and understanding, by that point in their life they can in fact know good from bad, and choose the bad. My 8yo son has proven to us that he can lie, even knowing it is wrong.

We believe that baptism is a step in being justified before God when coupled with faith and repentance. An 8yo can both have faith and repent, so there is nothing holding him/her back from being baptised.

However, we also believe that baptism isn't the end goal. Yes it helps us be justified before God, but further actions and ordinances help us become sanctified. If an 8yo continues on the path laid out, they too can be sanctified. Many of these ordinances happen in the temple and 18 years is usually the lower age limit to be allowed in the temple.

So baptism is opening the gate to the path to santification.

[RevTestament]

On 12/22/2017 at 10:58 AM, theplains said:

The word "Jesus Christ' also has multiple meanings, particularly in LDS theology - the first spirit child born of
Heavenly Parents who progressed into becoming God. The Jehovah's Witnesses have him as Michael the
Archangel, not procreated in a heavenly union.  My position is that Jesus has always been the Eternal God.  

That is why people are confused. Three different Jesus' being taught as representing the true Jesus.  The Muslim
Jesus is only a prophet. This makes four so far.  No wonder Apostle Paul warned of those who would come
preaching 'another' Jesus and 'another' gospel.

Thanks,
Jim

LDS authorities have taught that Adam transgressed in some way different than sinning. I think they are attempting to distinguish the intentional sin from a transgression. I admit that scripturally there really is not much or any difference between transgression and sin. However, it is true that Paul saw Adam as less culpable, because he sinned in order to "save" Eve - to continue to live with her. Nevertheless, he suffered the same punishment as Eve - spiritual death, which kept them both from the tree of life - same act - same consequence, regardless of intent.

I was once where you are - having been taught that Jesus was always the eternal God. But as I grew I saw that scriptures teach differently. One either accepts that or they don't. But it is why I reject the doctrine of the trinity. It conflicts with scripture. I don't see how God could tell Him "thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee" if He was always the begotten Son - even before this world. Nor will He always be the Son, but shall be called the Eternal Father. Nor was He privileged to everything the Father knew - instead being a servant of the Father, who according to Isaiah, told Him everything before it happened. The scriptures are what taught me that the immutable trinity is wrong. Christ inherits His name. He became the author of our salvation. All these verbs show change. Immutable trinity doctrine denies change, and essentially says scripture is wrong, and meaningless. I chose scripture over the beliefs of man. It opened up a new scriptural world over time. It really is not scary. You should try it. It is very eye opening, and opens up the scriptures to a whole new and wonderful understanding.

God bless, Jim.

[3DOP]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

LDS authorities have taught that Adam transgressed in some way different than sinning. I think they are attempting to distinguish the intentional sin from a transgression. I admit that scripturally there really is not much or any difference between transgression and sin. However, it is true that Paul saw Adam as less culpable, because he sinned in order to "save" Eve - to continue to live with her. Nevertheless, he suffered the same punishment as Eve - spiritual death, which kept them both from the tree of life - same act - same consequence, regardless of intent.

I was once where you are - having been taught that Jesus was always the eternal God. But as I grew I saw that scriptures teach differently. One either accepts that or they don't. But it is why I reject the doctrine of the trinity. It conflicts with scripture. I don't see how God could tell Him "thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee" if He was always the begotten Son - even before this world. Nor will He always be the Son, but shall be called the Eternal Father. Nor was He privileged to everything the Father knew - instead being a servant of the Father, who according to Isaiah, told Him everything before it happened. The scriptures are what taught me that the immutable trinity is wrong. Christ inherits His name. He became the author of our salvation. All these verbs show change. Immutable trinity doctrine denies change, and essentially says scripture is wrong, and meaningless. I chose scripture over the beliefs of man. It opened up a new scriptural world over time. It really is not scary. You should try it. It is very eye opening, and opens up the scriptures to a whole new and wonderful understanding.

God bless, Jim.

Hi Rev,

There are three Masses for the celebration of Christmas. The Midnight Mass celebrates the birth of Jesus, Son of God and Son of Mary, in the dark night in Bethlehem. The Aurora Mass is so called because it takes place in early morning and celebrates the Sun of Justice born in the souls of the shepherds and in our souls. In the Third Mass for Christmas Day, the Church takes for for its epistle reading the passage from Hebrews 1 which you just quoted. Having explained the mysteries of the first two kinds of birth, Holy Church invites her children to ponder the way to understand how the Babe of Bethlehem was begotten in the bosom of the Father.

Before making any further observations myself, that might address your plausible objections, allow me to cite a short passage from a commentary on the Third Mass for Christmas Day, which offers a simple solution to the problem you find with the Catholic teaching:

"The great Apostle, in this magnificent opening of his Epistle to his former brethren of the Synagogue, lays great stress on the Eternal Generation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Whilst our eyes are fixed on the sweet Infant in his Crib, St. Paul bids us raise our thoughts up to that infinite Light, from the midst of which the Eternal Father thus speaks to this child of Mary: 'Thou art my Son; to-day have I begotten thee': this to-day is the Day of eternity, a Day which has neither morning nor evening, neither rising nor setting."   (The Liturgical Year, Dom Prosper Gueranger, OSB, St. Bonaventure Publications, 2000, Vol. 2, p. 204)

The Father's gift of His own Divine Life is given entirely to the Son without any diminution. We read earlier in Heb 1, that the Son is "the brightness of his (the Father's) glory, and the figure of his (the Father's) substance". Philip asks Jesus in St. John's Gospel to show his disciples the Father. Jesus affirms to Philip that if one sees the Son, they have seen the Father. Cut loose from Catholic Tradition, I can see why someone would understand that this could mean that the Father is a man. I do not find LDS interpretations of Scripture absurd. Why do you think I hang around with you guys anyway?   

No one is a literalist about everything. Not you. Not us. Some of revelation is clearly to be understood in a figurative sense. Mormons take John 6, and the need to eat Christ's flesh and blood symbolically. Catholics take the seating of Christ on the right hand of the Father symbolically. I hold that the only way for the sincere soul who wants to know what is right is to identify which church has the authority today to speak the word of God, and be docile to its teaching. I believe it is much easier (and more biblical!) to identify the true church by its fruit, than it is to figure out which church teaches the truth based on private Bible study.

Over the years, I have gathered the impression that the Mormon who is willing to put aside all preconceived notions while looking at my faith, doesn't necessarily convert to Catholicism, but gains a profound respect for the teachings of the Catholic Church. I think I can say that in examining truth claims of the CoJCoLDS, I have tried to put aside any and all preconceived notions. If the Catholic Church has no authority, why would I cling to its teaching which came out of the Council of Nicea? Anyway, I am rare among my fellow Catholics. God love them, but they just think you guys are crazy. I invite you to be among the few Mormons who don't think our doctrines are crazy (absurd). Its a better way to be, and its truer to your own beliefs I think, to believe we are wrong without making it worse than it really is. Unfortunately, many people on every side seem to have so little confidence in their own beliefs that they must take comfort in the idea that those who disagree have no basis for what they think.

Nobody is wrong about everything, and the successful error, that kind of thinking which is not completely true and right, can never succeed without admitting many reasonable arguments in its favor to satisfy the intellect. I consider Mormonism to be such an error. I am sure the Mormon is closer to truth who believes the Catholic faith, and all of its doctrine is a successful error. That is a modest claim, and I know I am right about that. 

I think we have great arguments, but those don't keep one strong. They are hard to love. I can see historically that Christ-like fidelity to Catholic doctrine and practice always leads to supernatural goodness. A Saint is anyone wise enough to imitate their Master completely. I am not one of those. But when this does happen the words and actions come from above, and they leave a perfume of loveliness that can never be diminished by the centuries. Combine miracles in the moral sphere with miraculous signs and wonders and one has the fruit of the good tree that our Lord told His faithful to identify. Would I remain Catholic apart from these miracles? I don't know. How could I stay? What could attract me without the miraculous lives of the Saints? Arguments about truth claims? I don't think so.

Thanks for your consideration Rev. May your Christmas season be blessed.

Rambling Rory

Edited December 30, 2017 by 3DOP

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

Hi Rev,

There are three Masses for the celebration of Christmas. The Midnight Mass celebrates the birth of Jesus, Son of God and Son of Mary, in the dark night in Bethlehem. The Aurora Mass is so called because it takes place in early morning and celebrates the Sun of Justice born in the souls of the shepherds and in our souls. In the Third Mass for Christmas Day, the Church takes for the reading at this Mass the passage from Hebrews 1 which you just quoted. Having explained the mysteries of the first two kinds of birth, Holy Church invites her children to ponder the way to understand how the Babe of Bethlehem was begotten in the bosom of the Father.

Before making any further observations myself, that might address your plausible, objections, allow me to cite a short passage from a commentary on the Third Mass for Christmas Day, which offers a simple solution to the problem you find with the Catholic teaching: "The great Apostle, in this magnificent opening of his Epistle to his former brethren of the Synagogue, lays great stress on the Eternal Generation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Whilst our eyes are fixed on the sweet Infant in his Crib, St. Paul bids us raise our thoughts up to that infinite Light, from the midst of which the Eternal Father thus speaks to this child of Mary: Thou art Son; to-day have I begotten thee: this to-day is the Day of eternity, a Day which has neither morning nor evening, neither rising nor setting."   (The Liturgical Year, Dom Prosper Gueranger, OSB, St, Bonaventure Publications, 2000, Vol. 2, p. 204)

The Father's gift of His own Divine Life is given entirely to the Son without any diminution. We read earlier in Heb 1, that the Son is "the brightness of his (the Father) glory, and the figure of his (the Father) substance". Philip asks Jesus in St. John's Gospel to show his disciples the Father. Jesus affirms to Philip that if one sees the Son, they have seen the Father. Cut loose from Catholic Tradition, I can see why someone would understand that this could mean that the Father is a man. Sure I do not find LDS interpretations of Scripture absurd. Why do you think I hang around with you guys anyway?   

No one is a literalist about everything. Not you. Not us. Some of revelation is clearly to be understood in a figurative sense. Mormons take John 6, and the need to eat Christ's flesh and blood symbolically. Catholics take the seating of Christ on the right hand of the Father symbolically. I hold that the only way for the sincere soul who wants only to know what is right is to identify which church has the authority today to speak the word of God and be docile to its teaching. I believe it is much easier to identify the true church by its fruit, than it is to figure out which church teaches the truth based on private Bible study.

Over the years, I have gathered the impression that the Mormon who is willing to put aside all preconceived notions while looking at my faith, doesn't necessarily convert to Catholicism, but gains a profound respect for the teachings of the Catholic Church. I think I can say that in examining truth claims of the CoJCoLDS, I have tried to put aside any and all preconceived notions. If the Catholic Church has no authority, why would I cling to its teaching which came out of the Council of Nicea? Anyway, I am rare among my fellow Catholics. God love them, but they just think you guys are crazy. I invite you to be among the few Mormons who don't think our doctrines are crazy (absurd). Its a better way to be, and its truer to your own beliefs I think, to believe we are wrong without making it worse than it really is. Unfortunately, many people on every side seem to have so little confidence in their own beliefs that they must take comfort in the idea that those who disagree have no basis for what they think.

Nobody is wrong about everything, and the successful error, that kind of thinking which is not completely true and right, can never succeed without admitting many reasonable arguments in its favor to satisfy the intellect. I am Catholic not because I have figured it out, but because I can see historically that Christ-like fidelity to Catholic doctrine and practice always leads to supernatural goodness. A saint is wise enough to imitate their Master completely. When this happens the words and actions come from above, and they leave a perfume of loveliness that can never be diminished by the centuries. Combine miracles in the moral sphere with miraculous signs and wonders and one has the fruit of the good tree that our Lord told His faithful to identify. Would I remain Catholic apart from these miracles? I don't know. How could I stay? What could attract me without that?

Thanks for your consideration Rev. May your Christmas season be blessed.

Rambling Rory

Happy Holidays Rory, 

On a serious note, I gave a presentation this Dec 25 in which I carefully and scripturally showed that Yeshua couldn't have been born on Dec 25. Now, that may have been the time of His conception, so I am not trying to be a Grinch here, but I am just seeking to be true to scripture. It also seems our calendar is off a few years...  Herod died no later than the winter of 1 BC. I know that puts a big dent in the annals of tradition, but I guess I am just a rebel for truth.... I do appreciate your kind attempt to resolve what you feel is an apparent conflict within me, but I assure you I have none on these issues. 

Despite what I perceive as the incorrect teachings of the Catholic Church on the doctrines of the trinity, I do respect the devotion of many Catholics to their Savior, and their efforts to live a truly righteous life. Sadly, I see Protestants losing the battle with the world, and indeed succumbing to it. Modern Protestant Christianity is oftentimes a shell of its former self, and I can truly say that I have known many Catholics whom I would rather be friends with than some Protestants I have met.

I don't see Heavenly Father telling a new born infant "this day I have begotten thee." Nor does scripture apparently. The gospels have the Father saying "behold my Son in whom I am well pleased" at His baptism. I do realize there is an aberrant later codex which attempted to change this, but I think it safe to say that there is no scripture saying Yeshua was begotten on this earth. Indeed, all scripture identify Yeshua as the only begotten Son God sent into the world to save it - meaning He was already begotten before coming into this world as an infant.

However, to accept what the scriptures show about Christ - that He is our "fellow" and was begotten into the Sonship in a covenantal relationship with the Father is a game-changer for Christianity. The realization of this truth will bring about the permanent change in men's hearts that the scriptures speak of. Rather than being a blasphemous heresy, it will be recognized as the divine oracles of God which it is - which Satan turned into a heresy - sorry that's just the way I feel about it. The difference is this is a truth for which men will throw down their silver and their gold. This is a truth by which men will truly come to know the true meaning of John 17 in which our Savior prayed for us all to be one. 

I am glad that you don't see LDS as absolute nuts... I don't see Catholics that way at all... I just see men doing their best to understand God, and falling a little short. I see the same thing in the LDS Church too. I am sure others feel that way about me, and can only say how privileged I feel for God to have led me to the truths of the restored gospel. It has been an honor and a privilege to be LDS, but the time has come for more - to be weaned from the milk in order that the fullness of the gospel may be had to all.

Happy Conception Holiday Rory...

Edited December 30, 2017 by RevTestament

[3DOP]

12 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Happy Holidays Rory, 

On a serious note, I gave a presentation this Dec 25 in which I carefully and scripturally showed that Yeshua couldn't have been born on Dec 25. Now, that may have been the time of His conception, so I am not trying to be a Grinch here, but I am just seeking to be true to scripture. It also seems our calendar is off a few years...  Herod died no later than the winter of 1 BC. I know that puts a big dent in the annals of tradition, but I guess I am just a rebel for truth.... I do appreciate your kind attempt to resolve what you feel is an apparent conflict within me, but I assure you I have none on these issues. 

Despite what I perceive as the incorrect teachings of the Catholic Church on the doctrines of the trinity, I do respect the devotion of many Catholics to their Savior, and their efforts to live a truly righteous life. Sadly, I see Protestants losing the battle with the world, and indeed succumbing to it. Modern Protestant Christianity is oftentimes a shell of its former self, and I can truly say that I have known many Catholics whom I would rather be friends with than some Protestants I have met.

I don't see Heavenly Father telling a new born infant "this day I have begotten thee." Nor does scripture apparently. The gospels have the Father saying "behold my Son in whom I am well pleased" at His baptism. I do realize there is an aberrant later codex which attempted to change this, but I think it safe to say that there is no scripture saying Yeshua was begotten on this earth. Indeed, all scripture identify Yeshua as the only begotten Son God sent into the world to save it - meaning He was already begotten before coming into this world as an infant.

However, to accept what the scriptures show about Christ - that He is our "fellow" and was begotten into the Sonship in a covenantal relationship with the Father is a game-changer for Christianity. The realization of this truth will bring about the permanent change in men's hearts that the scriptures speak of. Rather than being a blasphemous heresy, it will be recognized as the divine oracles of God which it is - which Satan turned into a heresy - sorry that's just the way I feel about it. The difference is this is a truth for which men will throw down their silver and their gold. This is a truth by which men will truly come to know the true meaning of John 17 in which our Savior prayed for us all to be one. 

I am glad that you don't see LDS as absolute nuts... I don't see Catholics that way at all... I just see men doing their best to understand God, and falling a little short. I see the same thing in the LDS Church too. I am sure others feel that way about me, and can only say how privileged I feel for God to have led me to the truths of the restored gospel. It has been an honor and a privilege to be LDS, but the time has come for more - to be weaned from the milk in order that the fullness of the gospel may be had to all.

Happy Conception Holiday Rory...

 

I don't quite follow you in your apparent view that if Jesus was born 4 BC, or not on Dec. 25, that it is a heavy blow. 

If I gave the impression that I thought you were experiencing conflict, I misspoke. Not in the least. Let me be quite clear that I think you are full of confidence.

We agree about the world, as being in conflict with the faith. I am sure we are all affected.

I don't hold that the Father is speaking to an infant. Hebrews is quoting from a Psalm. Whenever we read about the "only Begotten Son", it is never talking about the birth in Bethlehem. But I am curious. Do you know of anyone, especially a Catholic, who takes that position?

I guess you will have to explain in what way I should necessarily view your position on Christ as our "fellow" as blasphemous heresy. It is the Good News that made the shepherds and Magi come to the crib, and Anna and Simeon rejoice in the Temple! Yes. We can be fellow heirs of God with His Son Jesus Christ. Just as the Father begot the Son and gave Him His own Divine life, we are invited to join Jesus, being fellow partakers in the divine nature which comes from God the Father, through fellowship with His Son, as described in 2 Peter. This beautiful truth is in the prayers of every Mass and fulfilled at every Communion. 

We need miracles, and the fullness of the Gospel promises them, firstly in human hearts. But I suspect that you are waiting for what I believe has already arrived.   

Of course, we celebrate "Conception Holiday" on March 25th, nine months before Christmas. We call it the Annunciation commemorating the visit of the Angel Gabriel to the Virgin Mary.  

Regards,

Rory